presented a Petition from the vestrymen of the parish of St. Pancras, Middlesex, calling the attention of the House to an Act which passed in the last Session for the removal of paupers to Scotland and Ireland at the expense of the counties from which they were removed. By this measure the rates of Middlesex had been increased almost tenfold; and that county, which was not agricultural, had the whole burthen of the removal of the Irish paupers thrown upon it, to the relief of the midland and agricultural counties, which alone reaped the benefit, if there was any benefit, from the labour of those paupers. The petitioners did not wish to throw back the burthen on the agricultural counties; but they thought, as the influx of Irish and Scotch paupers was a national grievance, the expense of their removal should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Heretofore the cost of the removal from the county of Middlesex was 5s. per head, but by the new law the expense was raised to 32s. per head at the very outset. The Magistrates of that county, no doubt with the most laudable intentions, had adopted a new plan for removing paupers; but although they had succeeded in greatly diminishing the numbers, still the expense to the county was very largely increased.

said, that the hon. member for Marylebone had made a most extraordinary assertion when he said, that London was not the market to which the Irish labourers came to dispose of their labour. If he would make inquiry, he would very soon find, that nineteen-twentieths of the paviors, navigators, and other hard-working labourers of London were Irishmen. He was sure, if it were not for the Irish labourers, there would be a great dearth or labour in London, and the price of it would rise greatly. They had nothing to do with the counties through which they passed, upon which it would be hard to throw the burthen of passing them back from London, perhaps twice a-year. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember also, that, if London had to bear the burthen of these Irish labourers, it had the benefit of the expenditure of the Irish Members.

said, that this was not the time for discussing this subject. If his hon. friend, the member for Marylebone, were to move, before he brought forward his Motion for the repeal of this Act, for a return of the expenditure of which the petitioners complained, he would find that half the amount might be set down as the consequence of the improvident bargain made by the Middlesex Magistrates. There were vessels passing, constantly to Ireland which would take the paupers the very day they received them from the officers, and at 15s. a-head, whereas, he understood that 32s. was the price now paid. It appeared, that the Magistrates originally contracted for 15s. passage money, with 1s. per day whilst they remained on board. It was, besides, stipulated that if any escaped, half the passage money of each person so escaping should be returned. He would beg attention to the fact, that in January, 1833, no less than 438 vagrants had been passed by London and Middlesex to Ireland, while in January, 1834, they amounted only to thirty-nine. It was a mistake to suppose, that the labourers of London were those who were passed back to Ireland. That was not the case. The persons who came here for the purposes of haymaking, large numbers of whom generally found employment in Kent, were the classes who were sent back to Ireland. These men generally carried away 5l. or 6l. concealed about their persons, and, he recollected, in 1817, he had about seventy of them in the Mansion-House, and found that each of them had sums of money concealed.

was perfectly well aware, that the petitioners were respectable persons; but he believed, that they were mistaken. The Vestrymen of Marylebone, who, he was bound to say, generally took a liberal view of things, appeared to him, in this instance, to have taken one of a quite contrary nature. He had attended the meeting of that body, and it was then admitted, that the number of paupers passed now was, in proportion to that passed heretofore, as seventeen to forty-three. A Magistrate of the Borough had also acknowledged to him that there were only five paupers in the workhouse waiting to be passed to their respective countries. And yet with these facts before them the Vestry persisted in presenting this petition. With respect to the measure itself, it had been long admitted, that some remedial enactment was necessary; and he thought the present one a fit and proper experiment to be made on the subject. It had been argued, that if an experiment were made, it should be made at the expense of the public; but if that were the case, the motives for economy would cease, and the experiment would fail. That it had hitherto been successful, he had the fullest proof, in the Returns made by the Clerk of the Peace, of the numbers passed, at periods previous and subsequent to the obtaining of this measure. He believed the abuses of the Poor-laws would become the ruin of the country if they were suffered to continue. This was, however, an experiment to obviate one of those abuses, and, consequently should be hailed with satisfaction and delight by all who wished to avert that consummation. He hoped that the House would not alter the measure.

was inclined to believe, that the Act in question had produced much good, but there was one defect in it which he wished to bring before the attention of the House, namely, the fact, that all paupers were to continue in the hands of the constables until they were placed on board the vessel appointed to carry them to their respective destinations. Petition laid on the Table.

presented a petition from the great body of the inhabitants of Liverpool, praying for a free trade in all articles of importation, but more especially in corn. He was happy to find, that the subject of free trade was one which engrossed the attention not alone of this country, but also that of other countries with which it was in extensive commercial intercourse, as not long since a petition to the same general effect as the one he had now the honour to hold in his hand had been presented to the French Government by the opulent, enlightened, and important city of Bourdeaux. It was, therefore, quite evident by the coincidence of opinion which the two greatest commercial countries in the world had manifested, that the principle was triumphant; and he hoped before long it would extend its blessings over all the nations on the face of the earth. As the contents of the petition which he had now to present were most important, and as the question involved in it was a vital one to the interests of the community, he should make no apology to the House for reading it in detail.—[The hon. Member proceeded to read the petition. It stated, that the petitioners having thought one of the first benefits which ought to accrue to the country from Reform would be free trade, were surprised at the apathy evinced by his Majesty's Government on that all-important question. It prayed an unrestricted commerce in imports and exports, subject only to such moderate duties as the exigences of the public revenue might demand. They prayed an unrestricted trade in corn, as calculated to be most advantageous to British trade, and a very great encouragement to British industry and enterprise.] He concurred most heartily in the prayer of the petition, and he hoped the time was near at hand when this subject would be treated with the attention which it merited, and when reason and experience would convince the agriculturists, that it was their interest to encourage instead of oppose the removal of those injurious restrictions, which, whilst they only conferred on them a fallacious benefit, inflicted a positive and grievous mischief upon the people. If the great basis of our commercial and manufacturing prosperity was connected with our trade, as was evidently the case, and if foreign countries were not blind to the sources of our industry, assuredly we ought to adopt every means by which we could be able to secure to ourselves the advantages which we had hitherto enjoyed. Germany was quite alive to the source of our greatness, and the political economists and statesmen of that country were aware of the means of our prosperity. They well knew that the advantage which an English Gentleman had over the German Count, or a Polish Baron, arose entirely from the trade of this country. They knew this, too, that if this country attempted to defend its trade by restrictions, they also could act in a similar manner.—[The hon. Gentleman read an extract from a pamphlet, to show that the refusal of England to receive the timber of the Baltic and of Prussia, had led to a strong feeling of hostility towards England, and that restrictive measures had been adopted in Germany and Prussia, against England.] There was no country in the world, of which the people were more characterised by industry and frugality than Germany; and there was no country of which the consumption of British manufactures would be more profitable; and never had we a better opportunity of greatly extending our trade than that which was found to exist at present when that country was consolidating itself in one great financial confederacy. If that opportunity were neglected, he very much doubted if the Germans would not become a formidable rival to England in manufactures should the characteristic vis inertiœ of the Germans be once moved in that direction. The petition which he had to present prayed for a repeal of the Corn-laws. His constituents, however, did more than ask for a free trade in corn, for they prayed for free trade generally, as the only means of affording employment to the redundant capital of the country, which, as had been proved before the Committee which sat last Session on trade and manufactures, was either going to foreign countries, lying stagnant, or generating competition at home, for want of profitable sources of employment. He was happy to observe, that every improvement in the free institutions of a country increased the public indisposition to submit to restrictions, and the attachment of the people to free commercial intercourse. Such had been the case in America, and such it now was in France. He was perfectly convinced that in this country also the voice of the people generally would be eventually joined to that of the most enlightened men among them against the unjust restrictions to which they were now subject. The time was coming when nations would be more firmly united together by the mutual interests of commerce than by Protocols, Embassies, or Treaties. He was convinced the peace of the world would more depend upon the intercourse between the Seine, and the Thames, and the Mersey, and the Hudson, than on all the intrigues of diplomatists. He agreed with those who said, that this was the best time for beginning freedom of trade in that article, freedom in which must form the basis of all freedom of commerce—he meant food. The price of corn being now moderate rendered this a proper time to act. The minds of the people were now calm, and they calmly demanded their rights. It was for the Government to take care that their indignation was not wrought to violence by scarcity. Circumstances were evidently forcing on the change for which the petition prayed; and better would it be for the House to anticipate the time when this great act of justice must be conceded. The permanent prosperity of a great empire must not be sacrificed to the interest of a few.

supported the petition. He thought a free trade in corn most important to the prosperity of the manufacturing interest, and to the agricultural interest he believed it would be equally advantageous. The county from which this petition came was, in itself, a fair sample of the extent and importance of the manufacturing interest. In 1815, the rental of Lancashire was 3,100,000l.; but it now amounted to upwards of 4,000,000. and in the same period, the population had increased from 900,000 to 1,500,000, In that county, the consumption of wheat, was not less than 1,000,000 quarters annually. This was sufficient to show that this free trade in corn would be most beneficial, and would tend to increase the prosperity of the nation at large.

could not support the petition for free trade. Gentlemen connected with the manufacturing interest, exaggerated greatly, when discussing this subject. They gave themselves credit for taking a very extensive view, when they stated, that the agricultural interest took a very confined vim. Men might be great philosophers, and be capable of taking extended views, and yet overlook the objects that were near. The hon. Member who presented this petition, had forgotten to state the number of signatures which were attached to it. The hon. Member had some time since presented a petition, to which, he found there were only six signatures attached. He was not surprised, however, that Liverpool should feel anxious for free trade, as it would be decidedly for the interest of Liverpool. England had been called the work-shop of the world, and Liverpool was the principal door of that work-shop. It was, then, of course, the interest of that town to have a free trade. Liverpool had a commission upon every export and import; so that, the more Manchester exchanged her cotton goods for foreign corn, the more Liverpool might thrive, even though the rest of the country should be in a state of ruin. His views of the identity of interest between the different classes in the State, amount to this—that there was a strict identity between the agriculturists of this country, and those manufacturers who furnished the home market. The maker of cotton or woollen goods for the iron-master who again supplied the plough-maker, were all as interested in the growth of British corn, as the sower of the seed. But, he could easily imagine Manchester, which was now engaged half in the foreign and half in the home trade, to be exclusively engaged in supplying the foreign market, with Liverpool for its carrier. Let them effect their exchanges entirely with foreign agriculturists, and the identity of interest would cease between Manchester and Liverpool, and the British agriculturist. He knew that was an unfashionable doctrine; but it was, in his opinion, true; and would be merely a repetition of the state of the small free trading towns of Germany, and the Italian towns of the middle ages. The hon. member for Middlesex, the other night, had said, that the Corn-laws were directed against the mass of the population, and that manufactures were the staple of this country. He, on the contrary, asserted that this country was essentially agricultural. The population Returns of 1831, of England, Scotland, and Wales, gave the following results:—

Agricultural occupiers	1,500,000
Agricultural labourers	4,800,000
Mining interest	600,000
	6,900,000
Manufactures	2,400,000
Millers, bakers, and butchers	900,000
Artificers, builders, &c.	650,000
Tailors, shoemakers, and hatters	1,080,000
Shopkeepers	2,100,000
Clerical, legal, and medical	450,000
Disabled paupers	110,000
Proprietor, annuitants, &c.	1,116,398
	6,406,398

Now, taking the manufacturers at 2,400,000 in round numbers, as one-third of the 6,900,000 agriculturists and miners. He would apportion the 6,406,398 individuals last-mentioned, as interested in, or employed, two-thirds by the agriculturists, and one-third by manufacturers. He would add 4,077,000 to the agriculturists, and 2,316,000 to the manufacturers—making 10,977,000 agriculturists, and 4,716,000 manufacturers. But of this number of manufacturers, half at least, were employed by the agricultural body and its dependencies; this would deduct 2,358,000 from the aggregate manufacturing interest, and leave only 2,358,000 as the purely, or rather export, manufacturing body, whilst it made the agricultural body and its dependencies amount to 13,335,000. But Ireland was a strictly agricultural country? Add, therefore, 8,000,000, the population of Ireland, to the above 13,335,000, and there was a total of 21,335,000 as the real agricultural interest of Great Britain and Ireland, compared with not more than 3,000,000 at the outside, of manufacturers engaged in the export trade. He, therefore, contended, that ours was essentially an agricultural country. It would be impossible for it to compete with foreign countries in respect to the growth of corn, pressed down as it was with all manner of burthens; and he was anxious to uphold those laws, which secured to the landed proprietor, and the farmer, the slight advantages which they at present enjoyed. They might call the landed proprietors monopolists if they would; but, if their monopoly were the means of keeping 20,000,000 persons employed, the merely calling them by the ugly name of monopolists, would not furnish a sufficient reason for destroying them. Then, as to the question of free trade. What were the facts with respect to it? Why, that we some time ago altered our Navigation-laws, and adopted what was called the reciprocity system, which France very willingly took advantage of to send her silks and wine into this country. But did she in return receive our iron or coals? The philosophers of Germany were all conspiring to shut out our manufactures from that country. They were willing for a few years longer to take our yarn, because they had not got the capital and machinery necessary to spin for themselves; and, he asked, were we to sacrifice the interests of six-sevenths of the population, for the sake of two or three years' trade in yarn? The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that all he wanted was to "unshackle corn." Now, wool had been unshackled in 1825, and what was the consequence? After 1826 the growing of wool became so bad a trade, in consequence of foreign competition, that a great part of the sheep-lands were ploughed up; and this led to a scarcity of wool, and the present high prices. In 1825, the value of our exports of woollens amounted to 6,185,648l.; and, in 1832, it was no more than 5,244,000l.; a falling off of 1,000,000l. sterling, in the seven years after the unshackling. He admitted that the value had risen in 1833 and in 1834 to 6,511,780l.; but he asserted that such a small rise in nine years was no encouragement to unshackle the trade in corn. He (Mr. Cayley) denied that the Corn-laws had caused the fluctuation of prices. That fluctuation was wholly to be attributed to the variations in seasons, and to the alteration of the currency from 1815, 1819, to 1825, and afterwards to 1831. The hon. member entered into a variety of statements relative to the currency, and concluded by saying, that he opposed the proposition of the hon. member for Liverpool, because he believed that it would, if carried into effect, throw at least four-fifths of the population out of employment.

begged the indulgence of the House for a very short time. He considered the question one of the very highest importance, and at the same time so simple, that it could be stated in five minutes; but somehow or other it was always evaded. In the first place, this country was very populous, so much so, that the countries contiguous to it could produce corn at a cheaper rate than it could be produced here. The next fact was, that we were enabled, from peculiar circumstances, to produce manufactures at a cheaper rate than the contiguous countries. Such being the fact, it was clear, that in a natural state of things, the great body of the population of this country must devote their industry to manufactures, and give their produce in exchange for food to be brought from abroad. But it so happened, that there was a body of men in this country, who said, "No, you shall not buy your food abroad for little labour, but you shall pro- duce it at home with much labour and great cost, or go without it!" Now, the question was, whether the advantage derived by this body of men from the restriction placed upon the food of the people counterbalanced the evils it inflicted upon the nation. In the first place, he would assert, that the first injury experienced by the people of England was an increased price of their food; and he was here met by an extraordinary argument on the other side, viz., that the Corn-laws were intended as a protection to the agriculturist, but not to raise prices or rents. How they could complain of the fall that would take place were there a free trade in corn, and yet say, that the object of preventing a free trade was not to raise the price, he could not understand. The advocates of free trade were accused of not taking the agricultural labourers, who were styled the mass of the population, into consideration. Now, he was ready to prove, that the interest of the agricultural labourer was identical with that of the manufacturer, and distinctly opposed to that of the landowner. Because the rise of rent which the latter sought would be accompanied by a rise in the price of the labourer's food, and would lower profits. The agricultural capitalist was in precisely the same situation as any other capitalist, and anything which tended to raise the profits of capital must be advantageous to him as a capitalist. He and his labourers had the same interest as the weavers of cloth and their workmen. The great body of the people, therefore, were taken into consideration by the advocates of a free trade in corn. He had heard it stated, that it would be an injury to the manufacturer, to have the price of food lowered, because, as was urged with that acumen which particularly distinguished some of the corn monopolists, it would deprive the agriculturist of the means of purchasing his manufactures. A very homely illustration would give the answer to this argument: suppose a haberdasher was every day to stand at the door of his shop, and give a shilling to every passenger with a view to induce him to lay it out in his shop, although he might appear to be carrying on a flourishing business, his profits could not be very great. This then was the case in the present instance. The agriculturists took from the people the highest penny they could in order that they might lay it out in manufac- tures. One of the evils of the present Corn-laws was the fluctuation in the price of corn. Owing to this, all commercial care was set at nought, for there was no security in respect of price. The trade in corn was complete gambling. The advocates of the Corn-laws said, the object of the fluctuating duty was to produce an equality of price. But the effect was the very contrary; for when corn came up to a certain price, foreign corn was admitted, and then the price of corn dropped down immediately. Who were injured by this change? Not the landlords certainly. The person who suffered was the farmer. It had been said, that the interest of the landlords was of such paramount importance that any other interest in the country ought not to be considered in competition with that. He had heard it stated, that the greatest interest in the House was the landed interest. He would take the monied interest, which was understood to include the agricultural capitalist, as well as the monied capitalist. He contended, that the landed interest was nothing more than the interest of the landlords. An hon. Member had said, that you might cut off Manchester or any of the large towns without an injury to the general trade of the country.—[Mr. Cayley said, that he had only made the statement hypothetically.]—But if it were an hypothesis, from which no advantage could be derived, why make the hypothesis at all? England was chiefly indebted to its manufactures for the position which it held among nations; and, though he would not then enter on the question of capital, he believed, it was undeniable that more of the capital of the country was employed in manufactures than in any other branch whatever. It had been said by an hon. Member on the other side of the House that, even if the ports were opened to-morrow, it would have no influence on the supply from the north of Europe. This he denied; but he would assume it, however, to be the case for the sake of argument. He would, however, beg leave to ask the hon. Member, what would its influence be on North America—North America, which, considered either with regard to its present or future opulence, was undeniably the most important market in the world? Was it not in evidence before the world, that the people of the United States—that ever-increasing and extending portion of the social community—that place where the want of all which our manufacturers produced increased more than a hundredfold in the year—was it not admitted, that the people of this most important section of the world were willing to exchange their agricultural products for the results of our industry and skill; and that, in consequence of our not acceding to their desire, they had been compelled, in self-defence, to adopt towards us that system which we had long adopted towards them? If there was a market in the world worth coveting, it was the North American market, because the human mind could set no limits to the probability of its extension and the increase of its demands. What, then, became of the hon. Member's objection, even making him a present of the German market? The hon. Gentleman concluded by asserting, that it was evidently the interest of the people in every possible point of view, social or commercial, to insist upon a free interchange of production between America and England, without modification or delay.

The hon. Gentleman, the member for Bath, commenced his speech by observing, that this was a very simple question, which could be stated in five minutes. Now, what precise period of time it would take to state the whole of the case I will not determine; but this I know, that the hon. Gentleman has occupied the attention of the House for considerably more than five minutes, and yet he has omitted altogether almost every one of the most important elements which enter into the consideration of a question of the utmost importance, complication, and difficulty. Take, for instance, one consideration, the relation of this country to Ireland; the attempts making to excite a popular feeling in Ireland against the legislative Union; the degree to which those attempts may be encouraged, should we depress that interest in the sister country on which her prosperity almost exclusively depends. Surely this is an important element in the decision of the question, which cannot be excluded from the minds of provident statesmen. Surely the difficulties it involves are not removed by the mere assertion—that the principles of free trade require you to buy your corn in Poland, if corn is cheaper in Poland than in Ireland. The hon. Member says that the case is simply this: other coun- tries can produce corn cheaper than England, and England can furnish manufactured goods at a cheaper rate than other countries, and therefore all further discussion is needless; the conclusion is inevitable, that there ought to be a perfectly free interchange between the two commodities. But is this position (a position tenable, perhaps, in the abstract with respect to a new society, and a new state of things)—is this position necessarily true in regard to a country situated like this, with balanced and complicated interests, with burthens from taxation which cannot be removed, and those burthens unequally apportioned in their pressure? The hon. Gentleman says, that the landed interest claims the continuance of the duties on foreign corn, on the sole ground that that interest is the most important interest, and has a claim to be protected at the expense of all other classes of the community. I deny this to be the ground, that is, the exclusive, or the main ground, on which the landed interest rests its claim for protection. Whether it be not most important, in a constitutional point of view, to maintain that interest—whether the moral and social interests of the whole community are not deeply concerned in its maintenance, is a point into which, on this occasion, I will not enter. I concede nothing upon that point to the hon. Gentleman, but I will content myself for the present with showing, that protection for the land is not urged merely on vague allegations of general policy, but on the grounds of substantial and equal justice. I contend, then, that before you determine to take off the restriction on the import of foreign corn, you ought first to look at the burthens to which the landholder is subject, and at the difference of degree in which those burthens, whether they be local or public burthens, press upon the landed proprietor, and the manufacturer respectively. Consider the Land-tax, the Malt-tax, and the payment of tithes; for tithes are admitted by all political economists who have written on the subject of free trade in corn, to be a tax peculiarly burthensome to the land, and for which the land is entitled to equivalent protection. I hold in my hand an account of the amount of Poor-rates paid by this country in the year 1823, which, though it may refer to a somewhat remote period, will yet tend to show the proportionate pressure of that impost upon the land and upon trade. The total amount of the Poor-rates paid in the year 1823, in England and Wales, was 6,703,000l. Of this, dwelling-houses paid 1,762,000l.; the land, 4,602,000l.; and mills and factories, only 247,000l.—namely, one-eighteenth part of the payment of the land. I ask, therefore, can it be said, after such a statement, that the local burthens are fairly appropriated between the landed and the manufacturing interests—and have not the proprietors of land a right to claim, on this head alone, that degree of protection for their property, which is equivalent to the excess of contribution to which the land is subject? As I before observed, I will, on the present occasion, put out of the question the policy of supporting the landed interest on grounds involving moral and social considerations. I will not now dwell upon the importance, in a national point of view, of encouraging the improvement in the land, or the effect which that improvement has had in promoting the general health, and diminishing the average mortality of the country. I will not now discuss whether there be not other and higher considerations for a great country, than the mere accumulation of wealth, and whether we should be a happier people, even if we were a richer—if this country presented nothing but vast congregations of steam-engines and factories, separated by morasses and rabbit warrens—I will, I say, put all considerations of this kind out of the question, and merely ask, is it fair or just to hold up the landed proprietor as a monopolist, claiming an exclusive protection for his property, from motives of mere pecuniary gain? If there be a free trade in corn, is it not evident that the landholder will he no longer able to bear those burthens which press peculiarly on the land? Let not the manufacturer suppose, that, if the interest of the landholder is sacrificed, he can bear his present burthens; there must be a different appropriation of those burthens—a transfer of them from the landed interest to more prosperous claims. Will the land be able, when exposed to competition with foreign corn, any longer to support those classes of the poor whose distress is occasioned by the vicissitudes of manufactures? Do those who represent the landholder as a monopolist mean to contend that there is no other monopoly but that of the supply of corn?—that the landholder claims an ex- clusive protection?—that the landholder is subject to no tax imposed for the purpose of securing monopoly, or giving protection to the manufacturer? It is true, that this petition applies generally for the establishment of free trade. I can well understand that the great export merchants of Liverpool are desirous for a free trade in corn, and in all manufactured articles also; but do the manufacturers of the large towns, and throughout the country, join in such a demand? There is a great misconception on this head. The manufacturers seem to think that restrictions on the import of foreign corn are open to some special and peculiar objection in principle, to which restrictions on the import of foreign manufactured goods are not liable. This Liverpool petition speaks of restrictions on the corn-trade as at variance with the rights and privileges of free-born Englishmen. This is more nonsense. Such restrictions are no more at variance with any right of the subject than restrictions on the import of foreign silk handkerchiefs. The objection to the restrictions on foreign corn is this,—that they give an undue encouragement to the application of capital to the production of corn, and that, therefore, by the diversion of capital, they diminish the sum of the national profits. Precisely the same objection applies, and with equal force, to every restriction on foreign manufactures, operating as a bounty on our own. There is no difference in the characters of the two monopolies. I will refer to any writer on the subject—I will ask the hon. member for Bolton, whose works I have read with great pleasure, as they are distinguished by very great clearness and ability, whether there is any argument which can be urged against the protection of the landholder which is not equally applicable to the protection afforded to the manufacturer? I do not think the manufacturers clearly understand, that the abolition of the restrictions on foreign corn must be instantly followed by the removal of every impediment to the import of foreign manufactures. And are there no such impediments? I have before me pages upon pages of duties on foreign manufacture, beginning with letter A, and ending with letter Z.—[Mr. Hume: These are collected for the revenue.]—No; nine out of ten of them are imposed, not for revenue, but for the purposes of prohibition or protection. The hon. Gentleman speaks of revenue; why, so far from the landed produce of this country being protected exclusively from foreign competition, there is so much of foreign butter and cheese introduced, that the revenue collected upon those two articles alone amounts to 200,000l.—to more than is collected on the import of the whole foreign silk manufactures.

It is not denied, that a considerable sum is raised upon the importation of foreign cheese and butter, but that the duty on these and other commodities raises the price without any benefit to the State.

And is not the effect of the duties on foreign silk precisely the same? What I am now maintaining is, that the landlords do not enjoy an exclusive monopoly. Let the silk manufacturer propose an abolition of the duty on foreign silks, and then he may, with some better show of reason, at least, complain of the Corn-laws. Recollect, too, that the landholder has to pay the Land-tax, and the Malt-tax, and the Tithes.—[Mr. Hume: It is the consumer who pays the Malt-tax.]—Yes; but the consumer will consume more malt, if you repeal the tax. The tax, though paid directly by the consumer, operates as a discouragement on the growth of barley. The member for Bolton must think with me, that the Malt-tax is a burthen on the land; for he gave notice the other night, that, if the hon. member for Oldham had succeeded in abolishing the Malt-tax, he should move for the repeal of the duty on foreign barley. I should like to know what single article of manufacture this landholder—this great monopolist—can consume, without paying a tax. What step can he take—which way can he look—what is the single action of his life that is not taxed for the protection of the manufacturer? The manufacturer claims a right to eat foreign corn without paying a duty—can the farmer wear a foreign dress without paying one? Can he look out of his window—can he build his house—can he dress himself—can he eat his meals—can he enjoy any amusement in doors or out—without encountering a tax, levied, in addition to the original cost, on every article of foreign manufacture? Let us begin with the first act of the day. He dresses himself. If he wishes to wear foreign boots, he must pay at the rate of 2l. 14s. per dozen pair; for his foreign hat, he must pay 10s. 6d.; for his shirt, forty per cent; if he indulges in foreign woollens, he must pay twenty per cent; but, if he should fancy a foreign silk hat, how much do you think he will have to pay? No less than a duty of 1l. 5s. for the single hat; and if his wife should covet a silk gown of foreign manufacture, she must pay a duty of 2l. 10s. So much for the farmer's dress. Now take his meals. Upon foreign porcelain, he must pay twenty per cent; upon his glass, twenty per cent. If he uses an article of foreign silver plate, he must pay 6s. 4d. per oz.; if of gold plate, 3l. 16s. 2d. per oz. His very walking-stick is taxed. [An Hon. Member: No; the taxes on foreign canes are abolished.] I beg your pardon; they are no such thing; so far from it, there is more ingenuity shown in imposing discriminating duties upon foreign walking-sticks, than on all the other articles put together. I am speaking with the book before me. If I walk with a bamboo-cane, I pay at the rate of 5s. the 1,000; if with a rattan, not ground, 5s. the 1,000; if with a whangee, or a jumboo, or a dragon's blood, still 5s. the 1,000; but, if I aspire higher,—if I take pleasure in a walking-cane or stick that is either mounted or painted, or otherwise ornamented—that is, if there is the slightest competition with domestic labour—then I must pay twenty per cent duty on the value of my ornamented stick. [Mr. Hume: These duties are absurdities.] So they are; but, therefore, they prove more strongly the animus—they prove more strongly, that protection is the ruling principle. Now, these are some of the items—a very small part—but some of the items of that Bill which the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, the other night, called upon the agriculturist to furnish. He said, "Bring in your bill, and I will pay it." Why, we cannot make out the bill without a tax on every article we use in making it out: for our pens we must pay thirty per cent; for our pencils thirty; for the paper on which we write, 9d. per lb. If we send the Bill to the right hon. Gentleman in an envelope sealed with wax, we must pay thirty per cent; if we use wafers, 1s. 3d. per lb. It is the same with every foreign article necessary for the convenience or the amusement of this supposed monopolist—the farmer. If he rings a foreign bell, the charge is thirty per cent; if he wears a foreign watch, twenty-five; if he uses a foreign carriage, thirty; if he shoots with a foreign gun, he must pay twenty per cent; and foreign gunpowder he cannot buy. If he plays on a foreign fiddle or a foreign flute, or any foreign instrument, the duty will be twenty per cent; but if he plays with foreign cards, he incurs the moderate charge of about 7s. per pack duty, for what, probably, costs 1s. Have not I, then, established my position—that there is scarcely one act of a farmer's life for which he is not subject to a tax; and that tax imposed for the protection of some domestic manufacture? Nay, taxation does not end with his life—it visits him even in the grave; for if he should desire to lie under foreign marble, he must pay 2s. 6d. per square foot for his tombstone. Now, what does all this show? That the restrictions on the import of foreign corn are part of a whole system of restrictions devised and continued for the purpose of encouraging both domestic produce and domestic manufacture; that the grower of corn is no more a monopolist, no more a gainer by protection, than is the watchmaker, the hatmaker, the shoemaker, the glover, the manufacturer of paper, of silk, of brass-work, of woollen, of cotton, of porcelaine, of carriages,—of everything. Destroy the whole system of protection and prohibition, and even then you will have to consider whether the burthens upon the land are not unfairly laid—whether the produce of the land, malt, for instance, is not taxed in a degree, which, although the tax may be paid by the consumer, unduly encourages the consumption of other articles, to which, but for the tax, malt would be preferred. You will have, also, to consider whether it is just that the land should bear so large a proportion of the expense of maintaining the roads and of administering criminal justice, when the large towns—the congregation of great masses in manufactures—contribute so much more than the laud towards the production of crime. [Mr. Roebuck: That is not the case.] I differ from the hon. Gentleman, but I will not insist upon the point; but, still, suppose the extent of crime to be equal in the two classes, the manufacturing and agricultural, can he deny this—that the expense of punishing crime falls disproportionately upon the land? Here, Sir, I must, on account of the hour, conclude. It was not my purpose to enter into the general considerations on which the policy of encouraging agriculture may be vindicated. I purposely took, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, the humbler and much more limited ground, of attempting to show, that the agriculturist, in opposing the free trade in corn, is not claiming for himself an exclusive protection—that the protection which he claims is not more than the special burthens Which he bears—and that it is, therefore, most unjust that he should be held up to public odium as an unfeeling and rapacious monopolist.

rose for the purpose of moving, that the Question be again referred to a Select Committee. He stated, that his object was not needlessly to delay the Bill, nor did his Motion arise from any hostility to the hon. Baronet. He was only anxious that justice should be done to all parties, and that the innocent should not suffer with the guilty. Such would, undoubtedly, be the case if the borough of Stafford were totally disfranchised; while all which the House wished, all which justice demanded, would be attained by opening the borough, and extending it to the towns of Eccleshall, with ninety-three 10l. houses, and to Stone, with 216 10l. houses. Thus a new, sound, and untainted constitution would be united with Stafford, which might still be allowed to return two Members to Parliament. If this course were not taken, the effect would be, to deprive the northern division of the county of Stafford of two of its Members: it had now only six to a population of 180,000 souls, while the southern division had eight Members to a population of 220,000 souls. The county of Stafford, it ought to be recollected, was a great manufacturing county, and in point of importance, it was second only to Lancashire and Middlesex. As there was no sufficient reason for disfranchising the borough of Stafford, when a sound constituency could be obtained in the immediate vicinity, he would move as an Amendment, "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the evidence already before the House; and to receive farther evidence if it were thought expedient, with a view of ascertaining whether it was not possible to obtain a sound and competent constituency in the neighbourhood."

opposed the Motion, which was so nearly similar to one formerly negatived by the House, that they might be considered almost identical. The object of both had been to prevent the total disfranchisement of Stafford, and the question was, whether that borough, having been found guilty of gross bribery and corruption at the last election, the House was not called upon to agree to a measure of severity. Considering the proportion of the Representatives for Staffordshire, to its population, it could well afford to spare two of them, and still be deemed amply represented, notwithstanding the last speaker had, in this respect, pleaded the case, as it were, in forma pauperis. The House had laid down a rule for the disfranchisement of places against which corruption had been established, and in this instance it ought not to be departed from. He should be extremely sorry to do injustice to any set of men, but when a large proportion of the electors of a place were found to be unworthy of the trust reposed in them, it ought to be deprived of the right it had enjoyed, for the sake of example to the rest of the kingdom. It was a singular filet that no petition had been presented from the delinquent borough, praying that a partial measure like that, for which the hon. Baronet had contended should be passed. On the contrary, a petition had been sent up to him (Sir Thomas Freemantle) signed, as he was informed, by 100 unimpeached voters, praying, that if any measure were to be passed, it should be one of total disfranchisement. It was true that petitions had also been presented from Stone and Eccleshall, seeking to participate in the franchise together with the borough of Stafford. He thought that the inquiry had already been ample, and that nothing could be gained, in point of information, by the appointment of another Select Committee.

remarked, that if Stafford were disfranchised, it was an important question what should in future be done with the writ. All he claimed was, that the House should deal equally with all these cases—that it should adopt and apply the same rule to each borough where corruption was established. The boroughs of Stafford, Warwick, and Hertford were already before the House, and he saw no reason why one rule should be applied to Warwick and another to Stafford. To Warwick, Leamington had been added, and the constituency of Stafford, ought, on the same principle, to be increased and purified, by communicating the franchise to Stone and Eccleshall. He could bear witness to the purity of the freeholders of Stone and Eccleshall, having for some years represented the county: indeed, he knew of no corruption among the freeholders of any part of Staffordshire, and did not believe, that it existed. Those freeholders who resided in the borough of Stafford, had never given him the slightest intimation of a desire to receive money, or to obtain patronage. The Amendment of his hon. friend was well worthy the attention of the House, for it was impossible to disfranchise the borough of Stafford altogether, without committing great injustice.

supported the original Motion. There voted in this borough 318 10l. householders, of whom 194 were proved to have accepted bribes; and out of 731 freemen 638 were bribed. This was too small a remnant of purity; there was not a sufficient number of just men to save a city. He wished to put an end to corruption, and having caught a great offender, he would make an example of him. He did not mean to deny, that there were large districts in the neighbourhood where a respectable constituency might be found, but he objected to them being in the vicinity of a place so corrupt as Stafford, they were likely not to have escaped the contagion.

said, if a respectable constituency could not be found in the neighbourhood, they ought to disfranchise the borough. There was no fixed rule to guide them in cases of this kind. If the rule was to disfranchise places in which a majority of the electors were corrupt, why was it not applied in the case of Liverpool? It did not appear, that the respectable inhabitants of Stafford were concerned in bribery. They were told that petitions were presented from some of the inhabitants, praying that the borough should be disfranchised. It seemed unnatural that men should petition to be deprived of a valuable right. If they did present such a petition, they were perhaps in the same situation as the man in the fable who prayed for death, and when he made his appearance would be very glad to see him go away again. In the case of Warwick it appeared to him, from looking at the evidence, that them was more gross corruption and bribery, and a great deal more of treating, than in that of Stafford. Many respectable persons were now willing to come forward and prove, that there was a great deal of exaggeration and misrepresentation on the part of the witnesses before the Committee. The fact was, that all the witnesses in this case turned king's evidence, and gave their evidence from a desire to deprive their opponents of the franchise. He did not think there was an old borough in England that could stand the test of strict inquiry, nor, he feared, even the new one of Marylebone. Before they proceeded to punish by any strict and fixed rule, they should first lay down that rule, and appoint a tribunal to apply it in cases of this kind. He contended that a sound constituency might be had; and, therefore, would oppose the original Motion.

referred to the fact, that the Report upon which the House was called upon to proceed, was not the Report of an Election Committee; and the evidence, therefore, not being upon oath, it could not be deemed so satisfactory as to establish a ground for disfranchisement. It was openly said in the town of Stafford, that the witnesses gave their evidence without caring much what they said. There was a material difference between the case of Hertford and Stafford, for in the former there was an Election Committee, and the evidence was, of course, upon oath. One of the witnesses was afterwards convicted of perjury. No opportunity of this kind was afforded in the case of Stafford. Why not suspend the proceedings in this case as well as in that of Carrickfergus?

rose to move an Amendment, the effect of which would be, if adopted by that House, to leave the Bill in this state, that the elective franchise of that portion of the constituency which had been declared corrupt by the Report of the Committee, would be forfeited, but the existing limits of the borough—the extended limits as laid down by the Boundary Bill—would be still maintained, and the elective franchise would be preserved to those constituents who had been declared by the Report of the Committee to have remained pure and untainted by the corrupt practices which disgraced others. He conceived it to be unnecessary to give an assurance that he was ready to acquiesce in any measure which should have the effect of punishing proved corruption. With great reluctance, and with great violence to his own feelings, by the last vote which he gave, he consented to forfeit the franchise of that town which was the capital of the county in which he resided. He deeply regretted it; but he thought the proof of the general corruption prevalent in Stafford was so strong, that, whatever be the reluctance with which he gave such a vote, he was bound to overcome it, and to consent to make that borough a public example. For this same reason he would consent to the passing of the first clause of the present Bill, by which the guilty would be punished. But he should maintain, on grounds which appeared to him to be immovable, that they were called upon to preserve to the remaining portion of the inhabitants of the borough, the franchise they now possessed, and which they had exercised with proved integrity. There were in this case, as in almost every question, considerations both of expediency and of justice. Of the impolicy of making a large rural district into a borough, and of giving it the privilege of returning Members to Parliament, instead of retaining that privilege to the town,—of the objections to giving, as this Bill would give, in point of fact, two additional Members to the county of Hertford—being five in the whole,—he had before spoken. He would not, on the present occasion, advert to any considerations of expediency; he addressed himself to the House sitting in its judicial rather than in its political capacity; and he felt the considerations of justice to be so powerful, that he would not consent to weaken their force by any reference to considerations of mere expediency. Founding his argument upon the Report of the Committee, and upon the preamble of the Bill, he would attempt to show, that there would remain within the existing limits of the borough of Hertford, a constituency numerous, respectable, and above all suspicion; and that the House—acting in its judicial capacity—entertaining a desire to make a just discrimination between the guilty and the innocent—prepared to inflict punishment where punishment was due—but to protect innocence from that measure of punishment which guilt only should incur,—he should attempt to show, that the House was bound to preserve to the honest possessors of the franchise their entire rights. In the preamble of this Bill, he entirely concurred; thinking that bribery and treating prevailed previously to, and during the last election of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Hertford, and thinking it was expedient that means should be taken to prevent the future return of Members to serve in Parliament for the said borough being influenced by corrupt and illegal practices; but he would undertake to prove, that if the House continued the privilege of voting to the 10l. constituency and the freemen, it would fulfil the object contemplated by the preamble of the Bill, and would effectually prevent the existence of corruption for the future. Out of deference to the Report of the Committee, he consented to disfranchise the old constituency. That Committee formally examined the whole case, and inquired into the manner in which the election had been conducted; and although he thought the proof of actual corruption not very strong, yet still, on a view of the whole circumstances attending the election,—the extent to which treating prevailed,—the distribution of tickets, if not amounting to bribery, were very nearly akin to it, and would afford, if the practice were unchecked, a ready means of bribery. Combining with these considerations the deference due to the Report of the Committee, which heard the whole of the evidence, he should not object to the disfranchisement of that part of the constituency which was considered by the Committee to be corrupt. The next question for the House to determine was, whether or no there would remain within the existing limits of the town of Hertford a constituency sufficiently numerous and respectable to be intrusted with the elective franchise. For proof of its respectability he relied on the Report of the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bernal) was Chairman. That Committee—having maturely examined the case,—animated by a sincere desire to administer impartial justice,—having, certainly, no leaning in favour of the borough—after hearing the evidence, and deliberating upon it,—made this remark:—'That the portion or class of the electors of the borough of Hertford, who have been affected by the corrupt practices which prevailed previously to, and at the last election, were the inhabitant householders renting houses under the annual value of 10l., who, with very few exceptions, appear to have participated in, and were connected with, such corruption.' That was the conclusion at which the Committee arrived. Let the Bill proceed upon that; let those who were guilty incur the penalty; let that penalty, as the corruption was so extensive, extend to the whole class. But the same Committee reported,—'that, on the other hand, your Committee have not been able to discover that the general body of the freemen, or of the 10l. householders, except, perhaps, in some few cases, have been at all affected by, or concerned in, any of the said practices.' Let the House observe, that the whole of this class—with the exception of some few cases, and even that exception was qualified by a "perhaps:"—the whole of this class, including the freemen and 10l. householders, notwithstanding the temptation to which they had been exposed, were acquitted by the Report or that Committee, not only of having been concerned in, but even of having been the least affected by the practices which prevailed. If the number were sufficient to constitute good constituency, considerations of strict and rigid justice would preclude the House from subjecting these men to the punishment which should be reserved for guilt. There would remain in the borough of Hertford, if his suggestion were adopted, in the first place, 124 voters, voting only as freemen. The Committee reported that there were in the town of Hertford between 430 and 440 houses or tenements of the annual value of 10l., but that some of these were in the occupation of females. On the question, what constituted a sufficiently numerous constitu- ency various opinions might be held; but he could refer to a high authority on the subject,—the Reform Bill,—on which the whole elective system of the country was founded. In most matters of this kind—necessarily in some degree arbitrary—there was no rule to control or guide individual impressions; but here he found a guide, of which those who concurred in the principles of the Reform Bill ought entirely to approve. By the Reform Bill it was declared, that every one of the ancient boroughs of this kingdom, which had a population of 4,000, should be entitled to retain its right of returning two Members to Parliament, and the instructions given by the Government to the Boundary Commissioners, for the purpose of enabling them to report whether, in any case, the limits of a borough, the franchise of which was preserved, should be extended or retained, were to ascertain whether there were 300 10l. householders within the ancient borough. Four thousand inhabitants, therefore, was the amount of population assumed by the Reform Bill, as the proper one to protect the ancient boroughs from disfranchisement, and the existence of 300 10l. householders within the borough, was assumed as a number amply sufficient to warrant the preservation of the ancient limits of the boroughs. There were, at present, however, in the town of Hertford 520 10l. houses; at the time of the Report, he believed, there were not more than 440; but so flourishing was the town, that since that period no less than eighty additional houses had been built. Hon. Gentlemen opposite smiled, by which he supposed, if a smile could insinuate anything, it was meant to be insinuated that some of these houses might have been built for election purposes; but that he positively denied. He would adopt the principle of the Reform Bill in this respect—he would disregard all individual interests. He had nothing to do with individual interests, and, by consenting at once to disfranchise the whole class of voters renting houses below the annual value of 10l., he gave a conclusive proof that individual interests, entered not into his consideration. Even supposing, that the anticipated repeal of the House-duty had had the effect of adding 100 to the constituency which existed when the Report of the Committee was made, he had as good a right to take credit for that 100 in calculating the number of persons entitled to the franchise as if it arose from any other cause. The simple question was—were there 500 10l. householders?—not how they became so? Suppose, then, that instead of 443, there were in the borough of Hertford 520 respectable householders capable of exercising the franchise with propriety, he had a right to add those 520 respectable householders, to the 120 freemen, in order to fortify and confirm the argument, that the House was not entitled to deprive this place of its privilege, or depreciate the value of that privilege by uniting this town with half a dozen others. By the Reform hill, no less than thirty boroughs were left in the possession of the right to return two Members, the number of houses in which was under 430. How many there were with less than 520, on which he founded the claim of Hertford, he had not the means of ascertaining. Of these thirty towns, twenty-six paid a less amount of assessed taxes than was paid by Hertford—another sure indication of the importance of the town. The Commissioners, in their Report, which was made in the year 1831, described the town of Hertford in a very short but emphatic sentence;—as a busy and prosperous town. He would compare the state of Hertford with that of the neighbouring town of St. Alban's, the franchise of which was untouched by the Reform Bill. He did not complain of that; it was left very properly untouched, because it was considered to have a constituency sufficiently respectable, and a population sufficiently numerous, to entitle it to retain the privileges which it possessed. The population of Hertford was 5360; of St. Alban's 5771. The amount of assessed taxes annually paid by Hertford was 2,273l.; by St. Alban's, 2,127l. The number of rate-payers in Hertford was 849; in St. Alban's 709. He said nothing whatever of Hertford being a county town. He placed no reliance on that fact, though many Gentlemen might think it aggravated the injustice to deprive a county town of its representation. He was content to waive all advantage from this argument, and to place Hertford on the same footing with every town left untouched by the Reform Bill. He claimed for Hertford only the same right which was conceded by the Reform Bill to every borough containing the same amount of population, and an equal num- ber of 10l. houses. But mark the difference between the principle of the present measure, and that of the Reform Bill; the present Bill inflicted a judicial punishment; the Reform Bill was a political measure, founded on the assumption, that a great alteration in the elective system was necessary. In that case, it was argued that, although the Legislature might regret the necessity of interfering with existing interests, yet, when the public welfare was at stake, all minor considerations of individual interest must give way. When dealing with the Reform Bill, they were not acting judicially they were acting as politicians; and, in that case, the interests of individuals might, with much less of violence and injustice, be sacrificed to the good of the whole community; but even if they were acting on mere political grounds—on exactly the same principles they acted in regard to the Reform Bill—still they would be bound by similar considerations of expediency to adopt the principle of that Bill—that principle which rescued thirty boroughs of smaller population and more limited constituencies than Hertford from disfranchisement. But as they were acting judicially, they were bound by much higher considerations not to go beyond the Reform Bill. On what principle, if St. Alban's and these thirty towns were left in possession of their franchise, could they confiscate or interfere with the rights of this constituency, which was admitted to be at least as pure as that which existed in any of the other boroughs? They had no evidence with respect to their purity or corruption—they had no proof of their having been exposed to temptation; but here the House had distinct proof, that corrupt practices did prevail, that these men were exposed to temptation, and that they honestly resisted it, and remained pure. He asked, then, would it not be utterly inconsistent with the first principles of justice to inflict any punishment whatever on them? It was of the utmost importance, in order that the example should be effectual, that they should establish a just discrimination between the innocent and the guilty. He said, forfeit the franchise of the men proved to be corrupt—nay, forfeit the franchise of that class, the vast majority of which was corrupt; but if he found other classes who, amidst corruption and temptation had remained pure, he would first, out of a regard to justice, and next, in order to make the example of the guilty effectual, respect their integrity. Was it not of great importance that examples should be made of the guilty only. They were all aware how necessary it was, that the other House of Parliament should concur in the Bill. He hoped they would; he was sure nothing could be so unfortunate as the constant postponement of legislative measures in consequence of differences of opinion. If they erred, then let them err on the safe side; and send up a Bill consistent with the principles of justice, and then they would run no chance of the necessary punishment not being inflicted; but if they sent up Bills which might be reasonably considered not in accordance with the principles of justice, there was a fair ground for resisting them, and the consequence of that resistance was, that no punishment at all would be inflicted, and the guilty persons would remain in possession of the franchise. What an appeal might be made to the House by these 10l. householders, supposing the House determined to deprive them of their franchise! They might say, "Of what avail is our integrity; it meets with no regard from you; you deal out to us precisely the same punishment which would have been our lot had we been corrupt." If he had shown, that, by the principles of the Reform Bill, this borough would have been safe with its present constituency, if he had shown, that in point of fact, it had a larger constituency than thirty boroughs which were left untouched by the Reform Bill—if adopting the Reform Bill as the test by which to determine the amount which constituted a sufficiently numerous and respectable constituency, this borough would be safe, then he implored the House, acting in its judicial capacity, to make a distinction between the guilty and the innocent, and not to permit those who had resisted temptation—who had been acquitted, even of participation in the remotest degree, with the corrupt practices which prevailed—to be involved with the guilty in one common punishment. His Amendment was, that all the remaining clauses of the Bill, after the first, be struck out.

, in opposing the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, observed, that the right hon. Baronet had founded all his arguments upon the principles of the Reform Bill. The right hon. Baronet had argued, that as there were now forty boroughs with very restricted constituencies, there would be a constituency sufficiently numerous at Hertford if it consisted of 380 voters. He cared very little what the amount of the constituency was under the Reform Bill. In the situation which he had the honour of holding whilst the Reform Bill was under discussion, he had never had an opportunity of declaring his sentiments upon that part of the measure. He regretted much that there were such limited constituencies as the Reform Bill contemplated. It was not a beauty of the Bill, but a great misfortune of it, that it erected 300 electors into a constituency. He should be glad to see it enacted that there should not be a constituency in the country with less than 1,000 persons. He was sorry that there were such small constituencies as those to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded. The right hon. Baronet had said, that there was now a sufficient constituency at Hertford. He disputed the fact, and contended that the Reform Bill contemplated a larger constituency at Hertford than that which would exist upon the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet. It contemplated a constituency of, at least, 700 persons. Much had been said by the right hon. Baronet about the evils which would arise from joining agricultural districts to a town constituency. He (Mr. Bernal) had great objection to swamping town voters with the population of rural districts; but he could not see how that applied to the present case, inasmuch as the parishes proposed to be annexed to the borough were not of a purely agricultural character. The principal parish was that of Ware, where a very considerable trade was carried on. It contained 989 families, of which only 109 were engaged in agriculture, 310 in manufacture, and the others in retail trades and various kinds of handicraft. It could not, therefore, be called an agricultural district. The same observation applied to the hamlets of Amwell, Hoddesdon, Stapleford, Branfield, &c., all of which were within the circuit of four or five miles of the borough to which they were proposed to be in future attached. Much had been said about measures of punishment, which the right hon. Baronet seemed most seriously to deprecate. He could not very well see what that meant, as applied to the town of Hertford, merely because, to use a word which of late years had assumed great importance, the Committee had recommended that it should be swamped by a new accession of voters from the adjoining parishes. It was proposed, no doubt, to disfranchise the old inhabitant householders, who had been always, with a very few exceptions, open to charges of bribery and corrupt practices; but how it should be construed into a punishment of the borough, that, a new infusion of 300 or 400 honest voters should be admitted, he could not understand. When so much was said of the measure being it punishment, it seemed to him as if the right of voting were held on some private footing, and for a selfish, reserved purpose. The Committee did not propose to take away altogether the franchise from the borough; but, being placed in a dilemma, it had adopted a middle course, to admit a class of 10l. householders, which, from their contiguity to the borough, and their amount in numbers, would in future prevent the recurrence of corrupt practices. The Committee having bestowed their best attention on the subject, their recommendation deserved the consideration of the House; they had acted according to the best of their judgment, in reference to the circumstances of the borough, the amount of population, and the respectability of the different surrounding parishes, and he, for one, felt himself bound conscientiously, on principle, to support the Bill in its present form.

entreated the Committee to remember that they were addressing themselves to this question solely in their judicial capacity. He did not stand there in the quality of a Reformer, although no one could doubt his sincerity in the cause of Reform, for he challenged any one to say, that he had ever personally flinched from making the greatest sacrifices in its cause; yet, looking at the Report of the Committee and the evidence by which it was accompanied, he was bound to say, that a case had not been made out which justified the Bill to its full extent. He did not think, that any reason had been shown for swamping the borough of Hertford. He objected on principle to the adding of large agricultural districts to the constituency of towns, which were considered by the Constitution as representing the trading interests of the common people. He saw no reason, if the Reform Bill had properly balanced the representation, for adding two additional county members, for such would be the effect of the present Bill, to Hertford. The proposed annexation of the rural districts would add largely to the influence of the landed interest; and it had yet to be shown, that that they would furnish a pure and independent class of voters. No satisfactory ground had been laid for the second clause of the Bill. The constituency, as it would remain if the 10l. householders were disfranchised by the operation of the first clause, would amount to upwards of 500 permanent voters, besides the freemen. There would be a body of 800 respectable voters. He thought, therefore, that all that was necessary to be done would be effected by the first clause, and Hertford would still have a constituency as large as was contemplated by the framers of the Reform Bill. On referring to the returns on the subject it would be seen that more than one borough, even under the constituency given by the Reform Bill, had much less than 300 voters each. He believed that Tavistock and Richmond had much less than that number. He did hot, therefore, think that it would be urged that five hundred and ten was too small a constituency for Hertford. He objected for the reasons he had stated to add a large agricultural district to Hertford. The boroughs, constitutionally speaking, were considered as representing the manufacturing and trading interests, and therefore their constituency should be confined to the inhabitants of towns. If, therefore, the constituency of such places as Hertford were to be sluiced by the admission of large bodies of agricultural voters, it would be only adding to the influence of the aristocracy in that House. He felt strong objections to the Bill as it stood, and therefore he would give his support to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.

admitted, that part of the constituency of the borough of Hertford had been guilty of corrupt practices, and he was very willing that the guilty should be punished; but he could not understand upon what principle of justice those against whom no ground or complaint existed should likewise be punished. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, than the first clause of the Bill would fulfil all the ends of justice, and that all the other parts of it ought to be struck out. He contended, that the addition of several agricultural parishes to the borough of Hertford would create a small county entirely under the control of the landed interest. He believed, that he did not exaggerate when he stated, that the circumference of the borough as proposed in the Bill, would not be less than forty miles. As to the argument, that 500 was too small a constituency for the borough of Hertford, he would only appeal to the fact that several boroughs had at present constituencies of less than three hundred. On referring to the Return, he found that in Tavistock, there were 247 voters; in Chippenham, 258; in Richmond, 278; in Wycombe, 298; and in Totnes, 317. He contended that neither Ware nor Hoddesdon ought to be considered as towns. He admitted that the manufacture of malt was carried on to some extent at them, but that was altogether unconnected with agriculture.

reminded the Committee, that the argument he urged in favour of the Bill was, that some of all classes of voters were mixed up in the corrupt proceedings at Hertford; that even some of the 10l. householders had accepted bribes, and therefore he had thought that the best means of purifying the atmosphere of the place was by pouring in a purer set of voters. He thought, that 500 was too small a number of voters considering what had taken place; he therefore was anxious to increase the constituency to 1,000. He had stated the grounds to the Committee that had induced him to bring the subject forward, and if his arguments did not induce the Committee to support him, he should rest satisfied with having done his duty.

would put it to the Committee, whether there was not sufficient from the nature of the evidence to show that corruption prevailed to a great extent among the constituency of Hertford, and to call for the disfranchisement of the old voters. There was also sufficient to show, that if the whole of the voters ought not to be disfranchised, still that, for the purpose of putting an effectual stop to bribery, an infusion of new voters must take place. In addition to the reasons already stated, he found, in the evidence taken before the Committee, several other things that ought not to be forgotten in legislating on that subject. They ought not to forget, the system of intimidation that had pre- vailed in the town, not that the town had been placed under gangs of persons, whom he knew not how to describe, and who had been ostensibly hired as preservers of the peace. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the increase that was likely to take place in the number of the 10l. householders; but the greater portion of that class of persons in the town of Hertford held their houses on leases of fourteen days; that was, that they were obliged to quit after fourteen days' notice from the landlord. He had merely cited facts which had appeared in evidence, and he called upon hon. Members to take them into consideration before voting. It had been said, that the proposed addition to the borough would place Hertford under the influence of the agricultural interest; but he contended that it was at present as much an agricultural borough as it possibly could be, and that the proposed addition would not affect it in that respect. It had been said, that the new borough would be equal to a small county; now, he believed, at the utmost, it would not be twenty-seven miles in circumference. It was, however, the duty of the House to see that a respectable constituency was created, without looking to the extent of the circle. He was acquainted with the district, and he would venture to assert, that a more respectable constituency could not be formed than would be created under that Bill. He was sure that they would be found to be a most independent body, and would be influenced by no person, however respectable he might be. He did not believe, that the independence of the borough would be secured by restricting the provisions of the Bill to the first clause, and therefore he should vote against the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth.

said, that there were some parts of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who had just set down which were not borne out by the facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman spoke evidently under a misapprehension with respect to the system of leases, which empowered no landlord to eject his tenant by means of a fourteen days' notice. He represented that system as having been extensively acted upon in this borough; but how stood the fact? Why, that in the whole borough only two 10l. houses were so occupied. One of these houses was tenanted by a widow woman, one of whose sons voted for Lord Ingestre and Mr. Duncombe, and the other for Lord Ingestre and Lord Mahon. So far, then, as these leases were concerned, the hon. Gentleman was clearly incorrect. He fully concurred, that they had no right whatever to indulge in speculative legislation. If such a principle were to be acted upon, no constituency would be safe. He thought it would be a monstrous rule to establish, that if only half-a-dozen electors were proved to have been bribed, the borough should be disfranchised; and all he could say was, that if they laid down such a principle, there was not a borough in the kingdom which would escape. He certainly disapproved of this part of the plan proposed to be adopted, and he maintained, that the practice hitherto had been to punish the party "treating," and not the persons treated. He opposed the Bill, not because some of the electors had been guilty of corruption, but on the ground that it was unjust to punish their delinquencies by an ex-post-facto law. He must also object to the boundaries of this borough being extended beyond the limits prescribed by the Reform Act. It would be unjust to apply a rule to Hertford, that was not to be adopted in the case of every other borough; and, therefore, unless the boundaries of all other boroughs were to be enlarged, as well as those of Hertford, it would be most unfair to disturb the present constituency of that borough. The number of 10l. houses in Hertford prior to the passing of the Reform Bill, was 414. The number now exceeded 500, so that instead of diminishing the constituency, as was the case in other places, the Reform Bill rather gave an accession of voters to this borough. Now, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to the cases of Tavistock and Richmond, the constituencies of both of which places had been diminished by the Reform Bill. The Boundary Commissioners reported, that Tavistock contained 380 10l. houses; but when the Registration took place, it was found that the Reform Bill had reduced that number to 247; and yet the limits of Tavistock were not to be disturbed, although the boundaries of Hertford, with, as he had shown, an increase of nearly 600 10l. houses, were to be enlarged to the extent of nearly one-twelfth of the whole county. The limits now proposed to be assigned to this borough would form a circuit of thirty-three miles round the town of Hertford; but was this either proper or convenient? He thought it was not; and for that reason he was determined to give this part of the Bill every possible opposition. The Committee must recollect the grounds upon which two Members were given to the town of Blackburn under the Reform Bill. The extent of the constituency of that borough was said to entitle it to a double representation. It was returned as containing 626 houses of the annual value of 10l.; but it appeared that the diminution of the registry had been such that Hertford, when left in the condition to which it was raised by the Reform Bill, would have a greater constituency than Blackburn. The borough of Kendal had been returned as containing 682 such tenements as would confer the franchise; but, by the registry, it appeared there were only 357 10l. houses. All these boroughs, however, remained unassailed, while it was contemplated to increase the borough of Hertford to a circuit of at least thirty-five miles, and thus make it constituted of one-twelfth part of the whole county. He contended, that Tavistock, Kendal, and Blackburn, ought to be interfered with, before the House could with justice interfere with or touch the constituency of the borough of Hertford. He must also add, that the Whig borough of Newry, in which a much worse case than the present had been made out, remained unmolested; and feeling it would be a gross injustice to deal with Hertford in the manner proposed, he should oppose the clause now under the consideration of the Committee.

said, the borough of Newry had never returned a Whig Member. He contended, that the House was not only sitting judicially, but also in its legislative character, and was justified in legislating for the purity and independence of a borough against which bribery and corruption had been proved and established. As he could not conceive the House would recognize either bribery, or the principle of coercion practised by landlords upon their tenantry to enforce their votes; and, as he believed the Bill before the House would have the effect of protecting tenants against the threats of their landlords, and of saving the electors from the temptation of money bribes, he held, that the House might safely adopt the Bill brought in by the hon. and learned Chairman of the Select Committee by which the case had been investigated. He believed the proposed measure to be calculated to secure the independence of the borough of Hertford, and it should have his support.

said, that the right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir H. Hardinge) had alluded to the case of the Whig borough of Newry, where, though general evidence of bribery was as distinctly given as possible before the Committee, no further step had been deemed necessary. But surely the right hon. and gallant Officer did not expect, that this House would do justice to Ireland. In the Carrickfergus case, he would say, that it would become as excellent a close borough for a Whig, as could be desired; but most certainly, though Newry had been proved most corrupt in its method of supporting a candidate, in its inquiries as to where the most money was to be got, and in the formation of schemes of bribery, the Select Committee had been content to recommend the prosecution of certain persons who could not easily be come at. He was of opinion, that the rule ought to he general, and that when bribery had been proved against boroughs, the House ought to take care, that such boroughs should be blotted out from the list of those returning Members to serve in Parliament. Such a course would, in his judgment, be forwarding the real principles of Reform. He should vote for the clause as it stood, because it was some satisfaction, that the corruption of Hertford should be punished, if punishment the proposed measure could be called.

said, that as a discrepancy in the different decisions to which the two Committees had come, in the cases of Hertford and Newry, had been mentioned, he thought it right to remark, that some uniform practice ought to be adopted in Committees with respect to the proof of agency. Every Gentleman who had served on a Committee, knew how the lawyers always endeavoured to mystify that question. The Hertford Committee came, as he thought, to a right decision upon that point in an early stage of their proceedings; but he should not soon forget the dexterity with which it was repeatedly attempted to keep them out of the whole merits, or rather demerits, of the question. It was probably owing to this cause, that the results had been different in the two Committees.

, on the Speaker's calling Mr. Benett's name, begged to present four petitions against the Bill of which the hon. Member was about to move the third reading.—The first was from 100 of the freemen of Liverpool, who did not vote in the election of 1830. The second petition was from the sons of freemen who possessed the inchoate right of franchise, and who prayed to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, as they had taken no part whatever in the transactions which gave rise to it. The third petition was from the apprentices of Liverpool, who would in future possess the rights enjoyed by burgesses of that corporation, and who, not having arrived at their freedom by service, could not have been guilty of bribery. The fourth petition was signed by 7,000 of the inhabitants of Liverpool, of which number 1,800 or 2,000, were rich merchants, bankers, and brokers, who prayed that the Bill might not pass into a law.

rose to move, that the Bill be read a third time. He declined making any formal speech upon a subject which frequent discussion had rendered wearisome to the House. He, however, could not refrain from expressing his wonder to see the noble Lord (Lord Sandon) trying at the eleventh hour to avert a doom so justly merited, as that about to be passed upon the borough of Liverpool, by presenting petitions of which he had no previous notice, and the existence of which was wholly unknown to him. He, however, should not be moved from his purpose; and, indeed, he really thought he was earning the title of a friend and a benefactor to the freemen of Liverpool in presuming to press the present measure to its final stage in that House; as by so doing he for ever took away from them the hitherto irresistible temptations to which they had been exposed, and to which they had for several successive elections fallen victims. He begged to move, that the Bill be read a third time.

maintained, that if the freemen whose disfranchisement was now in agitation, had had the worldly wisdom to pursue the course they had adopted when General Gascoyne was delated—if they had voted for the candidate who opposed him (Lord Sandon), the House would never have heard of the measure. The hon. member for Benett,—he begged pardon, he should have said for Wiltshire—had certainly treated these poor men in a most parental manner. A father could not have acted more kindly in removing his children out of the way of temptation. The hon. Member might say, that instead of the obloquy winch he had met with in the prosecution of his duty, he ought to have had a golden statue erected to his memory by those over whose consciences he had proved so tender a guardian. He would relieve them from tile embarrassment under which they frequently laboured, by lightening them of any burthen of public privilege or trust.

"Who steals my purse, steals trash."

This was an excellent apology for the highwayman, who cased the traveller of any trouble he might find in taking care of such trifles as loose cash, and doubtless he thought, that the traveller ought to be much obliged to him for leaving less responsibility on his shoulders. We had had more than one Motion for relief lately. In that very House, an hon. Member had been considerate enough to propose a Bill to relieve the Archbishops and Bishops from any further exercise of their legislative functions. But he had yet to learn, that the rights, the privileges, and the responsibilities of Englishmen were to be taken from them without good cause. For himself, he could say, that neither by himself, nor his friends, had he any connexion with corruption. The only expense which had been entailed upon him was 80l. for the erecting of hustings, and his friends who had supported him had no charges of corruption fastened on them. He did feel it rather hard, that he, who was standing there as an innocent man, perhaps more pure than nine-tenths of those who were sitting as his judges, should be looked upon as the champion of corruption. Let laws, however strict, be framed to prevent bribery, or treating, which was as bad as bribery, they should have his hearty assent; but let the punishment of delinquency proceed from the vengeance or the law, and not from the vengeance of a party. Let the offending parties come before a regular tribunal; let them know what they came there for; and let them know who were to be their Judges. He contended, that at the moment when they were in the act of passing a Bill declaring the insufficiency of the tribunal by which the case of the Liverpool freemen was tried, it was great severity. He moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment. If it was wished to give a general warning, they ought to take care, that they punished the guilty, and that the innocent did not suffer. The course now about to be adopted, would do neither the one thing nor the other; or, rather, it would do the very reverse of both; for it would punish the innocent, and allow the guilty to escape. The hon. Member went into an examination of the Reports of the various Committees that had inquired into the Liverpool Elections, and contended, that they did not establish the fact of general bribery and corruption in that town. The preamble of the Bill, however, stated the bribery and corruption to be notorious; therefore, on the very face of the Bill there was an untruth. He should give his most cordial support to the Amendment of his right hon. friend.

I rise to oppose the third reading of this Bill—I do so, because it is a Bill which shelters bribery and corruption in the rich, whilst it vindictively persecutes that offence in the poorer freemen. I oppose it, because it is a Bill which makes poverty a crime, and wealth and riches a legal passport for the commission of crime. All the evidence given before the Committee appointed to inquire into this subject, tends to show that bribery and corruption are greatest at Liverpool amongst the freemen of condition and substance; and yet every one of these are to be spared by the Bill; though my hon. friend pretends it is a Bill to disfranchise equally all who have been guilty of bribery. To pass this Bill, therefore, will be an act of the most monstrous injustice, and of the greatest tyranny. Perhaps the House will indulge me whilst I make a short statement of the effects the Bill will produce; it has been proved before the Committee, that the freemen and apprentices who will be disfranchised by this Bill, will nominally amount to 5,428, but in reality the number will only be 4,627; because 801 of those nominally disfranchised by the Bill, will still retain their franchise as 10l. householders. There are proved to have been 2,661 individuals guilty of bribery in the disgraceful election of 1830. But how many of these does this Bill intend, bona fide, to disfranchise? Only 1,332! Of those bribed in 1830, as many as 799 are no longer upon the register, being either dead, or else out-voters already disfranchised by the Reform Bill. Of the remainder, 550 will continue to vote as part of those 801 10l. householders whom it is the intention of my hon. friend to save by this Bill, so that no less than 550 guilty voters of wealth and substance will be allowed to escape under its protection. I say then, advisedly, that this Bill is nothing less than a measure of rank tyranny; and that in its provisions there is an inequality of justice that is scarcely to be borne. If we pass the Bill in its present shape, I do not say it will not be obeyed; no doubt it will be obeyed, because we are omnipotent; but it will not be obeyed with that cordiality and readiness with which the Acts of Parliament of former times were wont to be obeyed, and especially the Acts of the House of Commons. It will be obeyed with sullenness and discontent; it will bring the Acts of this House into disrepute, and cause us to be looked upon not with respect and affection, as heretofore, but with hatred and contempt; and, I fear, Sir, that the people of England, those of them at least who are affected by this Bill, or who become acquainted with us contents, will look forward with anxiety and longing hope for—the hour of our final dismissal. Sir, above all things, it must be borne in mind, that the persons whom we have chosen and selected to screen, are those who are represented in the evidence 'to have got the best prices for their votes, because they had the wit to see that when the contending parties got into difficulties, those who held back would make the best terms;' and these persons were those high in station and respectability in the borough of Liverpool. And these are the persons whose rights my hon. friend is now so studious to preserve! The Bill does not go far enough when it deals with the guilty rich, and on this ground, I shall oppose it. I shall oppose it also, because, when, on the other hand, it deals with freemen of low degree and of humble life, it is entirely regardless how many innocent persons it sacrifices; I have shown that out of 801 freemen who will be sheltered as 10l. householders, 550 are among those proved to be guilty. But when my hon. friend proposes to deal with persons in a humble station of life, a very different course is pursued. The whole number of persons the Bill goes to disfranchise is no less than 4,627; yet of these it is not pretended that more than 1,332 were guilty of any bribery or corruption whatever; so that 3,295 uncorrupted freemen of low degree are innocently to suffer! When, therefore, my hon. friend is dealing with the interests of the poor, he thinks nothing of disfranchising five innocent freemen, to catch two that are guilty; but when he comes to deal with the Merchants, the Gentlemen, and the Magistrates of Liverpool; oh, Sir, it is a very different thing. Two guilty rich men must then be allowed to escape, lest one innocent man of wealth should be punished. Is there common sense, I ask, Sir, wisdom, justice, or sound policy in such a measure as this; it would really seem as if my hon. friend had gone back to the bad times in the histories of the Grand Turks and Emperors of Morocco; to seek for a pattern by which to legislate for the people of England. It has been said that, in former times (now, even they are too civilized for such legislation), when the Ambassador of a Christian Power remonstrated with the Grand Turk or with the Emperor of Morocco, on account of some act of piracy in which the subjects of his sovereign master had been murdered, the Grand Turk was used to say, this is certainly a gross outrage; it must be immediately punished; redress must be given, and amends made to the injured sovereign of your Excellency. Pray how many of my subjects have been guilty of this great enormity? Perhaps the foreign Ambassador would answer, the murderers were twenty. The Grand Turk, on hearing this, would forthwith order twenty of his subjects to be instantly sacrificed on the Altar of Justice; but like my hon. friend, the Grand Turk never thought it of any importance at all to inquire whether or no the sufferers were the guilty parties; his Satraps and Bashaws were sent for, guilty or innocent, to catch the twenty first Mahometans they could lay hands on, and these were immediately put to death by the bow-string. So it is with my hon. friend; he plays the Grand Turk in this Assembly; and finding that 2,661 individuals were guilty of gross bribery and corruption in 1830, he immediately decrees that at least 2,661 victims must be sacrificed. Many of the actual culprits are long since dead, and many of them have gone—God knows where,—and are no longer on the register of freemen; but that is of no consequence to my hon. friend. To him it is a matter of perfect indifference, whether his victims are innocent or guilty; perhaps he prefers their being innocent, but, at all events, 2,661 victims must be sacrificed! And, accordingly, my hon. friend, fully to secure this desirable end, brings in a Bill to disfranchise 4,627 persons; the whole of whom, with the exception of 1,332, are perfectly innocent! Surely, Sir, this is a Bill of which it may be truly said, Dat veniam corvis, vexat censurâ columbas. It is, Sir, a Bill of the most monstrous tyranny, and of the grossest injustice; and for this reason I shall vote against its third reading.

said, that if the noble Lord would pursue his inquiries in order to bring conviction home to those who were equally guilty with the humble freeman, he should have his cordial support.

was of opinion, that the vengeance of the House ought to fall on the seducers, and not on the seduced. He would take that opportunity of stating, that the discussions which had taken place with respect to this Bill had left upon his mind the impression, that it was absolutely necessary that some general principle should be established for the guidance of the House in cases of a similar nature. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more unjust than the hap-hazard and random manner in which the House came to conclusions with reference to such subjects. The hon. Member concluded with stating, that he would cordially give a vote against the third reading of the Bill.

would trouble the House but for a very few minutes. Allusion had been made in the course of the evening to the subscription of 10,000l. by a particular individual towards defraying the expenses of the election. That sum of money was subscribed after the election had terminated, when the candidate had been involved in very considerable difficulties by the expenses of the election. The gentleman who had subscribed that sum of money (he had now no hesitation in mentioning his name), was Mr. Bolton—and he (Mr. Ewart Gladstone), could assure this House it was subscribed merely through a feeling of compassion. [Laughter.] He repeated, that it was subscribed through a feeling of compassion, and not with any view of forwarding the cause of any candidate by bribery. He begged to impress upon the House, that there was no previous case of bribery proved to have occurred in Liverpool—there was no case of bribery during the period that Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson represented that town. He would also beg of the House to recollect, that in the election upon which the present Bill was grounded, the two candidates were men of the same, and not of opposite, principles. Now, he would ask the House, in what did the great heinousness of bribery consist? Was it not in the bartering of a man's conscience? Was it not in voting against one's conviction for pecuniary emolument? Men in the humbler walks of life could not be supposed to have very correct abstract opinions upon the nature of bribery. The utmost, perhaps, that could be reasonably expected from them would be, that they should consistently adhere to one political creed. He did not mean to defend the corruption that had taken place; but might not the argument he had just adduced be taken as some palliation in the case of the poorer freemen? There was another argument he would wish to impress upon the House. The evil which it was intended to cure—even if the proposed remedy were admitted to be a good one—was already cured. Where, then, was the use in introducing this measure? Indeed it was confessed that the Bill was aimed at the freemen all over England as much as at those of Liverpool.

had never seen—indeed he had never conceived—anything so gross and flagrant as the corruption in Liverpool. It was a regularly organized system by both parties; and that had not been even attempted to be denied. With respect to the hon. Member's explanation respecting the subscription of 10,000l., it mattered not whether that were subscribed before the election or after the expenses had been incurred. The freemen, it had been proved, were extensively bribed, and it was his wish to prevent a repetition of such scenes as it had been admitted took place.

said, it was a notorious fact, that the freemen of Liverpool looked upon the return of an election not as an occasion for the exercise of privileges conferred upon them for important political purposes, but as a saturnalia, in which they were to indulge in the most extravagant licentiousness.

said, that the House should first decide upon the Amendment, the object of which was to make some distinction between the innocent and the guilty; and if that were negatived, they should divide upon the original question.

rose, to move, that from the clause commencing, "That no freeman, now, or hereafter," &c., and the words "or hereafter," be omitted. Nothing but a sense of duty could have actuated him in adopting that course. His object was to prevent all persons now or hereafter freemen of Liverpool, from voting for Members of Parliament.

seconded this Motion. A good deal of the time of the House had been consumed, and, in his judgment, very needlessly, in proving what nobody denied, that very great corruption had been practised at Liverpool. The only question the House had to consider was, what remedy they should apply to it. For his own part, he recommended an extension of the franchise, and the introduction of Vote by Ballot, as the only effectual means of remedying the evil, the existence of which no one denied.

contended, that the Legislature could not destroy the rights of a particular class of persons; it was unconstitutional to visit with punishment a portion of the community for the offences of the few. Looking to the judicial capacity which was vested in that. House, they were bound to receive their information only from the evidence before them; but they were going out of the evidence.

said, that the argument which had been raised as to the injustice of punishing such cases as this, inasmuch as the children of the delinquents (being freemen) must suffer, was one which was not tenable. Admit this principle, and they must go back to the case of the children of the freemen of Grampound. This Bill did not go to affect the rich or poor unequally—it was intended to treat all alike.

said, he did not feel the force of the argument of the hon. Gentleman. If an opportunity was afforded to the House, he doubted not it would make an example of those persons against whom gross bribery and corruption were proved. He thought, however, that as regarded the present measure, it was one which ought to be regulated by principles of justice, and he did not despair of the House doing justice. But if the Bill were pregnant with injustice, then he would resist it, rather than consent to its standing a disgrace to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, had declared, that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with the difference of station as between the rich and poor. It was then contended, that it punished alike all the delinquents. Now, let the truth be stated. There were freemen of Liverpool, some of whom were rich, whilst others were poor. The poor voter had temptations held out to him which it was hardly possible or natural to suppose he could withstand or resist. The different glades a bribery varied from 5l. to 40l. in regard to the price of a vote. The poor man came early into the field to tender his vote, and he received 5l.; while the rich freeman kept back his vote to the particular moment, and received the higher price for it—he received 40l.! So far as moral guilt went, could they deny the fact, that the rich man was infinitely the more culpable party? And did this Bill go to visit the rich man with severer punishment than that which it inflicted upon the poor man? And then they allowed the rich man to continue to vote. Upon what principle was it that 550 freemen thus disfranchised were to be allowed to vote, and were qualified as 10l. householders? Why nothing was more dangerous than to teach the lower classes (he meant only those persons who were lower in a pecuniary point of view) to undervalue the right of exercising their franchise. This was a trust which they held—not a high privilege only, but a trust which they held for the benefit at large. If the Reform Bill gave a privilege to the 10l. householder who should honestly have exercised it, he did not see, certainly, that the House acting in their judicial capacity, should deprive them of it. Could there be any doubt of the soundness of this principle? But why should such a measure be addressed to one place particularly? The hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House had alluded to the case of the borough of Grampound; but that case had nothing to do with the present argument; for, in that instance, the franchise was removed altogether from the borough, whereas in Liverpool they left the right of 10l. householders uninjured and untouched. Now, Grampound, if he recollected rightly, was a scot-and-lot borough—there were no inchoate rights, and the question in the present case was, whether those persons who had honestly exercised their privilege should continue to vote as heretofore.

addressed the House under a feeling of considerable difficulty. He did not think it a sufficient objection to the Bill, that the Reform Bill had given a privilege to the freemen, and that, therefore, they ought not to disfranchise the freemen of Liverpool as a class. Let the House recollect that the first Bill proposed to disfranchise the freemen on the ground of gross corruption. It was objected to that measure, that all the poor men who had acted honestly would be disfranchised; but why not proceed upon whatever cases of corruption should be proved to disfranchise those guilty freemen, in order to clear the country of these corrupt bodies of men? With reference to the election of 1830, and those subsequent to that period, it had been admitted, that corruption had not occurred to any extent, because the parties were restrained under a threat of disfranchisement. The Bill was imperfect, perhaps; and if a measure were introduced for disfranchising the delinquents by name, it should have his support.

expressed his astonishment at the tone of the argument of the noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces. He had seemed to contend, that the innocent were innocent, and acted honestly, only because they were afraid of punishment. Why, such a doctrine as this might, perhaps, be such as even Judge Jeffries would scarcely hold. At any rate, that Judge could only have said to a man brought to the bar, that he knew him to be innocent, but that he was only innocent because he was afraid of being punished.

trusted, there was no man in that House who, in cases where bribery and corruption were proved, would not be ready to disfranchise every man, rich or poor, whether freeman or householder. The object of the Amendment was quite a different matter, and had no relation to the circumstances of the case. He should like to know, whether by adopting the Amendment, the House gained one step in the matter. The suggestion had been made, that a Bill should be brought in to disfranchise the 2,600 names who could be proved guilty of corruption; and he for one would support such a Bill. He believed, indeed, that he might say, there were no more zealous promoters of any measure for punishing the guilty in such cases than those hon. Gentlemen who supported the measure before the House. Let them take the two measures separately; but let them not forfeit that which was under discussion. Had this Bill been brought forward in 1830, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would have admitted, that the borough of Liverpool ought to be disfranchised. They heard much of the lapse of time which had taken place since the year 1830, and much stress had been laid on the conduct of the freemen in withstanding bribes since that period. But how stood the facts? The freemen of Liverpool were in a state of intimidation—they knew that a penalty hung over them for their conduct in 1830—they were sure that they were watched, and their conduct suspected. As well might hon. Members talk of the purity and chastity of a certain class of females, who were shut up within four walls, and debarred of all intercourse with the other sex, as talk of the honesty of the Liverpool electors, under the circumstances in which they were placed. They had been told of the delay which had taken place in these proceedings; but by whom was that delay occasioned? Was his hon. friend (the member for Wiltshire) in any way accountable for that delay? Certainly not. He had used every means in his power to bring the measure forward earlier, and if he failed, the fault rested not with him. There was one difficulty which he felt, and which had much weight with him; and that was, how they were to deal with any existing right, either full or inchoate, which had not been proved to be corrupt. If they had had to discuss this question in 1830, there could be no doubt of the total disfranchisement upon the ground of the 2,600 corrupt votes; and he would say now, upon the same principle by which he should have been actuated then, that nothing should induce him under any circumstances to consent to perpetuate the freedom of those Liverpool voters who had proved themselves to be tainted with corruption. He found, that he had merely a choice of evils, and he would choose the lesser, even at the expense of a little justice, in order to establish a general and permanent good. In taking this course, he felt that he was treating the franchise as a question of trust, and not as one of personal privilege. Under all the circumstances of the case, he did not see how the Amendment could be supported, and he should therefore oppose it, and give his support to the original Bill.

said, he should support the Amendment, because he considered it to be an act of the greatest injustice to punish individuals who had not been proved guilty of any crime.

suggested an Amendment, which he thought would meet the view of all parties, having for its object to save from disfranchisement such freemen as had been admitted since the 1st of December, 1830, and such persons as were now entitled to their freedom, or possessed undoubted rights thereto.

said, that three years ago, when he first brought forward the present Bill, he had the support of many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who were now opposed to him. At that period he withdrew the Bill at the request of the right hon. Baronet opposite, who pledged himself to support it, if he (Mr. Benett) introduced it, in the ensuing Session. Its progress had, however, since that time, been delayed by the discussion of the Reform Bill. The right hon. Baronet complained, that this Bill would punish innocent parties by depriving persons entitled by descent to their freedom of the elective franchise. Did not the right hon. Baronet recollect that similar injustice was inflicted by the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders—a measure which the right hon. Baronet himself proposed and advocated.