said, that while he readily recognised the salutary rule which the right hon. Gentleman in the chair had laid down, and generally enforced, precluding all observations on the presentation of petitions, except so far as to state the names of the petitioners and their object, yet he felt assured that the petition he had to present, and its objects, would receive from the House its kind and prompt attention, and would also afford, not only an apology, but a justification, for his calling the attention of the House to its contents, though briefly. He should not have pursued this course, but for the announcement which he regretted had been made by the leader of his Majesty's Government in the House, that it was his intention to restrict the motion of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), in a way that he could not help thinking would impair, if not destroy, its utility. He had now to present two petitions, each stating the same matters, and aiming at the same object. One was signed by nearly 10,000 persons residing in the town and neighbourhood of Merthyr Tydvil, and the other signed by 1,500 inhabitants of Kendal, Westmoreland. Both complained of the harsh operation of the Poor-law Act, and more especially of the unconstitutional powers which were for the first time conferred upon commissioners, to create and enforce laws, coeval in their influence and in their effect with the positive powers of legislation. As the subject would shortly come under the consideration of the House, he would not go at length into it at the present time. But when the House called to mind this circumstance, and it ought to be strongly impressed on them that these petitioners, who formed a greet mass of the productive industry of the country, had no direct representatives in the House, and that they were only connected with it by the slender cord of suspicious sympathy, he (Mr. Harvey) could not help thinking that the Speaker would not interdict him while simply stating their case. This law was affecting them most grievously, and, as they thought and as he thought, most cruelly and unjustly. He would not, however, illustrate this position further than by simply calling the attention of the House to the facts, not furnished by the petitioners with the object of harrowing up the feelings of the House or the country, but of showing the real effects of this law upon their humble fortunes. He held in his hand a statement to the effect, that there were in these houses aged persons, who had for many years passed that period when all is sorrow to man—who had reached the age of eighty or ninety years—who had enriched their country by the labour of their youth— fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers—who had been in the receipt of 2s. a-week, had actually been subjected to a reduction of twenty-five per cent. in their incomes. That was the way in which the House ought to look at the subject.

requested the hon. Member to confine himself to the facts stated in the petition.

said, if he confined himself to the facts stated in the petition, and were at liberty to enter into, and dwell on, the facts, he should occupy far more time than by calling attention to the individual circumstances; because, if he took this petition as the text of his remarks, it would, in effect, open the whole history and operation of the Poor-laws, which would come under discussion that day week. But he should be extremely sorry (whilst it was his intention to bow to the just judgment so well exercised) that it should go to the world, that when the poor, the pitiless and the houseless, presented themselves to this House, it was difficult for their humble advocate to obtain a hearing. And, therefore, he would voluntarily yield to the suggestion of the Speaker, rather than that it should be supposed it was by a positive interdict of the House upon the receipt of the petitions of the people. With this remark he would bring up the petition.

had been requested to support the prayer of the petition, and would do so as shortly as possible. He perfectly agreed with many of the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him. He considered the law too harsh in its enactments, and regretted to learn that his Majesty's Government were determined to resist a Committee for a full inquiry into the subject. He should give his support to inquiry, for which he was convinced the country loudly called. If there was nothing to hide, why should they refuse inquiry? He would say no more than express his hope that the opinions of the Administration would change on this question.

said: The object of my motion is to repeal the statutes of the 9th of Anne, c. 5, and the 33rd of Geo. 2nd, c. 20, which refer to the property qualification, and the statutes which refer to the qualification of Members of Parliament. I seek to repeal those statutes more on account of their being vicious in principle, than on account of their being productive of very pernicious consequences, though undoubtedly sometimes they are the causes of great individual hardship. Sir, at the period when the first of the statutes received the sanction of the Legislature it was generally considered that a great principle of our representative government was infringed; such, at least is the account given by the contemporary historians. Tindal, in his history of the reign of Queen Anne, says—

"The design of" this (Bill) was to exclude courtiers, military men, and merchants from sitting in the House of Commons, in hopes that, this being settled, the land interest would be the prevailing consideration in all their consultations. They did not extend these qualifications to Scotland, it being pretended, that estates there being very small it would not be easy to find men so qualified capable to serve. This was thought to strike at an essential part of our Constitution, touching the freedom of elections, and it had been, as often as attempted, opposed by the Ministry, though it had a fair appearance of securing liberty when all was lodged with men of estates, yet our gentry was become so ignorant and so corrupt, that many apprehended the ill effects of this, and that the interest of trade, which indeed supports that of land, would neither be understood nor regarded."

The statute 9 Anne, c. 5, declares that the Member ought to be possessed of a certain property qualification. Without giving any powers for discovering one fact, it merely obliges the Member to swear to his qualification. The statute was found, therefore, to be completely inoperative, for the petitioner had to prove that the Member was not qualified; and it is evident that it is impossible to prove this negative. Many election petitions were presented in the year 1714 under this Act, all of which were abandoned on account of this defect in the law. The law was then amended in a somewhat curious manner, viz., by the standing orders of the House: various attempts were made to confirm the standing orders by statute in the years 1731, 1732, 1733, and 1739; and it was not till the year 1760 that the law was partially amended by the statute 33 George 3rd, c. 20. According to this statute, every Member is obliged to deliver in a paper stating in what parish, &c., and in what county, his qualification lies. This law would likewise be inoperative, or would be most easily evaded, if it were not for the standing orders of the House to which I have just referred, which require the Member petitioned against to state the rental or particular of his qualification, and likewise "by what conveyance or act in law he claims and devises the same, and also the consideration, if any, paid; and the names and places of abode of the witnesses to such conveyance and payment." If these standing orders were to be repealed, the law would become inoperative and be easily evaded. The question generally before the Election Committee is with regard to the validity or invalidity of the deed to which I have referred, and whether the Member be legally or equitably in possession of the property required. Thus a Committee of the House is sometimes called upon to decide the nicest questions in equity; and the decisions of hon. Gentlemen in such cases are seldom as much in accordance with principles of law, as they are with the feelings of political partisanship. Nothing can be easier than to obtain a fictitious qualification. Any gentleman who has a sufficient sum at his banker's, can obtain from his banker a rent-charge as a mere matter of business, for most of the large London bankers possess landed property. If the gentleman who desires to be qualified does not possess a sufficient sum at his immediate disposal, he then applies to a friend or to an attorney, who generally can find amongst his clients some person of landed property willing to grant a fictitious qualification. A deed is drawn up conveying the rent-charge required, which deed never goes out of the possession of the attorney; in the presence of two witnesses unacquainted with the nature of the transaction, a seeming payment is made of the sum of money which would be required to make the transaction a real one. If there should be a petition, then the nature of the deed and the consideration are stated to the Committee of the House, and the witnesses prove the transaction to be a bonâ fide one. This is the safest and simplest mode of proceeding, though the expense of the stamps renders it rather more costly than a deed of gift, which probably would not be considered to be a bonâ fide transaction, if the majority of the Committee were opposed in political principles to the Member petitioned against. Any respectable attorney will, for a very trifling consideration, procure a fictitious qualification for one of his clients. The question before a Committee can seldom be whether the qualification is a bonâ fide one, but whether the Member is legally or equitably in possession of the property. A person must be very negligent, or his attorney very ignorant, who finds any difficulty under the qualification laws. Nevertheless, many of the Members of the House are not properly qualified. As for a real and bonâ fide qualification, it is well known that one-half of the Members of Parliament, if not more, do not, in reality, possess the amount of landed property required, but sit here in virtue of fictitious qualifications. I applied to one of my friends, an eminent attorney, well acquainted with this subject, for information. I received an answer from him, a portion of which I will read to the House, and the perfect correctness of the statements I have not the slightest hesitation in vouching for:— "If the law were effective, it would unquestionably deprive the community of the services of many of our past and present public men. Certainly many of the old luminaries would never have shone in the British Legislature. Burke, Pitt, Fox, and Sheridan, in my early days, were always notoriously fictitiously qualified. The law has been nearly inoperative as an exclusion. Some few 'conscientious' men have refused to enter the House of Commons on a fraudu- lent qualification; perhaps a few men of considerable talent have been unable to obtain a fictitious qualification; of the latter there is known only one instance; but he would, if qualified, have represented one of the largest towns in England. Of the number of the House of Commons not legally qualified (the English borough and city Members) I have heard many persons and agents versed in the election system variously speculate. It is generally believed, that one-third at the least have no bonâ fide qualification. On the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, dozens of sham qualifications are made by solicitors, often drawn and settled by counsel. One solicitor in London is known, in 'fashionable circles,' as a gentleman who will 'qualify' any candidate, 'respectably introduced to him," for 100l., including the stamps. But solicitors of the highest station and unquestionable integrity, do not scruple to manufacture qualifications. It is generally a rent-charge on land or freehold houses. Mr. ——, a successful candidate for a county in 1831, when his qualification was demanded on the hustings, is said boldly to have pulled out of his pocket a rent-charge on his noble brother's estate, executed immediately before. I have prepared many of the same waste paper and valueless documents. In 1830, a friend of mine (worth 600,000l. in funded and personal property) was negotiating for a western borough, in which a contest was certain. Two days before his leaving London to see his constituents, or rather the burgage slaves of the boroughmonger he was negotiating with, he bethought himself that he had no qualification. I and his solicitor forthwith in twelve hours gave him one on a lot of old freehold houses. He did not pass his check for the consideration; it was fictitious in that respect. Probably in this case the want of a qualification would never have been suspected. Candidates on the hustings notoriously swear to and state ambiguously described qualifications, and have shifted them when lodged in the House. One well-known case of this species occurred in a cinque port, since the passing of the Reform Bill. Many sham qualifications are made after the returns, and before Members take their seats, their consciences being tender as to declaring themselves qualified on the latter occasion. More of these interregnum qualifications were made previous to the vote for the present Speaker than at any other time. Many posthumous qualifications are, it is well known, ante-dated; but no honourable attorney will lend himself to such an additional fraud. The usual mode is (for safety) to pay in cash before two witnesses, the lender contriving to return the purchase-money immediately, and which is commonly borrowed of a banker for two or three days. Also the parties provide themselves with an actuary's valuation on the purchaser's life, as giving a more actual character to the transaction. Friends often give promissory notes for the qualification instead of the money. Usually the vender holds possession of the deed. In many cases the witnesses are sent abroad, if a petition be presented. To be brief, and being at the end of my paper, the law is a disgrace to the statute book, and ought to be burned by the common hangman." Having shown that the present law is inapplicable and easily evaded, I contend that it ought not to be amended, but repealed; and in calling upon the House to repeal it, I do not propose an innovation, but to return partially to the ancient system, when there was no property qualification, and the electors were, to a great extent, entitled to choose whomsoever, amongst themselves, they thought fit, and the person so chosen, even against his will, could not refuse to serve. A case of this kind occurred in the year 1624, when Sir Thomas Escourt was elected against his will for Gloucestershire. I find one of the questions before the Committee, according to Glanville, in this case is, whether Sir Thomas Escourt was eligible against his own consent and desire; and it was held clearly "that he was, and that no man, being lawfully chosen, can refuse the place; for the county and commonwealth have such an interest in every man, that when by lawful election he is appointed to this public service, he cannot, by any unwillingness and refusal of his own, make himself incapable, for that were to prefer the will or contentment of a private man before the desire and satisfaction of the whole country; and a ready way to put by the sufficientest men, who are commonly those who least endeavour to obtain the place." The ancient principle of constitutional law is evidently this, that the electoral body should be permitted to select as their representatives the persons whom they consider to be fittest, and that the free choice of an intelligent body of electors is a fitter proof of the qualification of the member than any test which can be desired in any law; for the fitness of an individual to be a representative depends upon his ability and willingness to perform the duties of a legislator. These are mental qualifications, which can hardly be ensured by any test specified by law. The only tests which have ever been proposed to be employed are either age, profession, or mode of life, or property. As for age, some persons propose to exclude young men, as being apt to be too rash and too extravagant; but for the contrary reasons old men ought to be excluded, as being far too slow and inert. In this respect the constituent body is the best judge, with whom youth has ever been and ever will be, to a certain degree, an objection; if on either side an exclusion be made, it should be, as in the case of judges in America, with regard to old men, in favour of whom generally a prejudice exists. With regard to the qualification of property, it is certainly no test of the intelligence or knowledge of an individual; on the contrary, the possession of considerable property is apt, by the command over pleasures and luxuries which it confers to tempt an individual away from those laborious pursuits by which alone knowledge can be obtained; the ease with which most of the desires of a rich man can be gratified generally prevents his intelligence being sharpened in the same manner as it would be if he could not satisfy his wishes with so little labour, but was obliged carefully to search for the means of attaining his ends. Thus the possession of considerable property is, on the whole, unfavourable to the development of the mental energies, and if property be taken as a test at all, it should, when in considerable amount, rather be considered as a test of disqualification than of being qualified. The qualification of property is generally advocated on the grounds that a person possessing a certain amount of property is said to have a greater stake in the country, and that he is less liable to be biassed by motives arising from his own pecuniary interests. As for the greater stake in the country, the poorest men are more interested in good laws and good government than the richest—a law which destroys the former merely injures the latter. The poor are easily oppressed—the rich generally can take care of themselves. It is intelligence which teaches the real value of preserving the security of property, and of aiding the accumulation of capital. The mere feeling of clinging to property, which results from the possession of property unaccompanied by intelligence, not unfrequently endangers the security both of property and of capital. It is intelligence, therefore, which is required, and of that property is no test, as I have already shown. As for property being a security for the honesty of any person, I most utterly disbelieve it; undoubtedly a needy man is generally a dishonest man; but need does not depend so much on the amount of a person's property, as on the proportion between his desires and his means of gratifying them. Of this proportion the possession of a certain amount of property is no test. It is said that a poor man is more apt to sacrifice the interests of the community for his own private interests than a rich man. By no means; for all men will sacrifice the interests of the community to their own interests if there be a conflict between those interests, and they can do so with impunity. Now there is as often a conflict between the interests of the rich and the interests of the community as there is between those of the poor man and those of the community. The one may sometimes desire power, and the other money; but all history proves that both generally desire' both, and that the only security in such cases is strict responsibility, enforced in the case of Members of Parliament by the greatest publicity given to all their acts, and by frequent elections. It is argued sometimes that a person ought to possess a certain amount of property in order to be enabled to devote his time to his Parliamentary duties. The question here concerns the want of leisure supposed to be indicated by a want of property. That the possession of considerable property is no proof of the individual possessing abundant leisure may easily be proved by the number of learned lawyers in this House, all of whom swear that they possess at least 300l.a-year in landed property, and all of whom briefless or not, would equally swear that they never have a moment's leisure from their legal avocations. Upon the ground of want of leisure, all bankers, merchants, all persons in business, should equally be excluded. Who, then, would remain in this august assembly? The country gen- tlemen to be the representatives of the intelligence, the integrity, the wisdom, and the leisure of the community! This is a consummation for which I should by no means devoutly pray, though Providence has kindly placed me in that most respectable and most favoured class. With regard to the want of leisure, it must always be remembered that a few minutes of the sagacity of one man is worth whole centuries of the dulness of another; of this difference a certain amount of property can be no test; of this the judgment of rational beings can be the only indication; and to the free choice of the constituent body the option ought to be left. It is for this assembly to determine what rules and regulations ought to be enforced upon its members, and if those rules and regulations should be inconsistent with the profession of the member, he would then either abandon his profession or his seat. Very few regulations of this kind exist, though I should think it by no means inadvisable that some rules should be made, by means of which there might be a greater division of employment amongst the Members of this House. I think, Sir, I have sufficiently shown that neither age, nor profession, nor mode of life, nor, least of all, property, are tests either of the intellectual or moral fitness of an individual to be a Member of Parliament; it ought to be left alone to the free choice of the independent electors. For this reason I ask for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the two statutes to which I have already referred.

, in seconding the motion, addressed the House as follows: The present law of qualification for Members of Parliament is one which would be very mischievous were it rigidly enforced, and which is very absurd, being as it is almost entirely inefficient. According to the principles of representation, the electors ought to have the power to select as their representatives any man whom they may consider fit to represent them, without having their choice circumscribed within the narrow limits of any pecuniary qualification whatever; but in a great commercial country to compel the electors to select their representatives from persons possessing one particular sort of property, namely, property in land, is so clearly contrary not only to all the principles of representative government, but so repugnant to the interests of the community, and so glaringly opposed to reason, that it is scarcely credible that any persons should be found in the present day to uphold so unjust and so unreasonable a law. Although easily evaded, the mere existence of the law produces a bad effect in a moral point of view, and has engendered low and mercenary feelings in a great portion of the constituencies, by directing their attention chiefly to a candidate's pecuniary qualifications; for the law requires nothing of a Member but that he should be twenty-one years of age, and of a sufficient landed estate, as if, forsooth, a man's senatorial capacity were to be measured by the acre. It has thus taught many constituencies to look upon the mere wealth of a candidate as the only test of his fitness, and to regard as a dangerous member of society the man who may offer himself for their suffrages unsupported by the possession of much money or of much land. Besides exciting this low and mercenary feeling, it is unjust, as it prevents the electors from exercising their franchise freely in the choice of their representative, You say to the electors, "You may select a representative, but you shall select him from a certain class only." Now, supposing in the class thus separated by the privilege of qualification from the rest of the community the electors cannot find a man fairly and honestly to represent their interests, and that out of the pale of the privileged class they know a man who would in their opinion so represent them—a man who has been to them a good neighbour and a zealous friend—who has gained their esteem by his conduct, and their admiration by his talent—who has proved to them that he has the head to understand, the heart to maintain, and the tongue to enforce their interests, and wishes, and opinions, yet if such a man be not one of the qualified in land he cannot represent them in Parliament. You may say to him in the words of the Roman satirist,

"Est animus tibi, sunt mores et lingua fidesque

Si quadringentis sex septem millia desint

Plebs eris."

You may be a man of talent, courage, eloquence, and honesty—you may possess the hearts and receive the votes of your friends the electors; but if you have not land enough to qualify you for a seat you never can be a Member of the House of Commons. In such a case the electors have no alternative but to be misrepre- sented. Another evil of this law is, that where it does not cause blind or mercenary subserviency, it uselessly creates a jealousy on the part of the unqualified and the mass of the people against those who are fortunate enough to possess the necessary qualification. But we are told that it is so easy to evade the law, by procuring a fictitious or a temporary qualification, that no man is really kept out of the House by its operation. Supposing for a moment this to be the case (which it is not) it is but a poor argument in favour of a law that it is so easily evaded as to be almost inoperative. If the law be a good one, that would be an argument for strengthening it; but it cannot be an argument for the continuance of a bad law. As to the origin of this law, and the objects of those who introduced it, a brief consideration of them may be useful, in order chiefly to show, that if ever any necessity existed for such an enactment, that necessity now no longer exists. Up to the commencement of the eighteenth century no pecuniary qualification was required from Members of Parliament. Those honest and independent Members who in the seventeenth century resisted the tyranny of the Stuarts, and laid the foundation of our political freedom, were chosen by their fellow-citizens freely and unrestrictedly; no landed qualification was required from them; yet that man must be indeed sanguine who expects to see assembled within these walls a body of men more zealous in the discharge of their duty, more intelligent or more learned according to the learning of the day, more truly patriotic or more truly fit to represent the opinions of the country. In 1696 a Bill for qualifying Members passed the Commons. The city of London and several other places petitioned against it; amongst others the city of Exeter petitioned to the following effect:—

"That, according to the qualifications of the said Bill, many persons who have not estates in land, though great personal estates, and prudent citizens, will be rendered incapable to serve in Parliament for the said city, and praying that the ancient rights and privileges of the said city may be preserved."

This petition was received after a division of seventy to fifty-nine. The good citizens of Exeter were not then aware (it seems) of the facility of evading the said law, or perhaps evasion was not so easy in those days. In consequence of these petitions a rider was added to the Bill enabling any merchant to serve for a place where he should himself be a voter, on making oath that he was worth 5,000l. in money, thus rendering the Bill rather less objectionable, as it made it rather less exclusive than the present law. This Bill was, however, rejected by the Lords, but in 1711 a Bill for a similar purpose met with more success in the House of Lords, as well as in the House of Commons, and was passed into a law. This law is the foundation of the present Qualification Act, and the provisions of it must be so well known to every Member of the House, that it would be a mere waste of time to enumerate them. In order, however, to show the object and design of the promoters of the Bill, I have taken a few short extracts on the subject from two well-known authors. In the 31st number of The Examiner—not The Examiner of the present day—like it in talent, but very different in politics—in Swift's Examiner of March, 1711—there is the following notice of the Qualification Bill:—

"As the present House of Commons is the best representative of the nation that has ever been summoned in our memories, so they have taken care in their first Session by that noble Bill of qualification, that future Parliaments should be composed of landed men, and our properties be no more at the mercy of those who have none themselves, or at least only what is only transient or imaginary. If there be any gratitude in posterity the memory of this assembly will be always celebrated."

However property in the funds, leases, and shipping may have been then considered, they are certainly not now looked upon as "transient and imaginary." The prophetic powers of so far-seeing a man as Dean Swift are here proved to be but small, for posterity, instead of being grateful for this "noble Bill," partly evades it and partly wishes to abolish it entirely. Again in the 45th number, June 1711, he says:—

"The Qualification Bill, incapacitating all men to serve in Parliament who have not some estate in land, either in possession or certain reversion, is perhaps the greatest security that ever was contrived for preserving the Constitution, which otherwise might in a little time be wholly at the mercy of the moneyed interest."

The Bill was not equally acceptable to all persons. Here is the notice of it by Boyer:—

"This Bill was not generally approved, for many observed, that by restraining the election of knights of shires to estates of 600l. a year, and for citizens and burgesses to 300l., men who, by their natural and acquired abilities, experience and skill in business, are the fittest to serve their country in Parliament, may happen to be excluded, and men of never so indifferent parts chosen, if but qualified in land. That this Act subjects the titles as well as the value of a great many estates (upon controverted elections) to the inquisition of the House of Commons; that it may cause the frequent splitting of freeholds either real, to the decay of good families; or occasional, and thereby be a further cause of land stock jobbing and perjury. That it may prove a great detriment to trade, by excluding the proper trustees for it, and committing the protection of it to the landed men only, which is a great alteration of our Constitution, it being originally intended that corporations should be represented by some of their own party."

From these extracts, it is easy to see that the object of the promoters of the Bill was to enlarge and confirm the power of the landed interest, which was even then, by such enactments, attempting zealously to restrain and keep down the moneyed or trading portions of the community; there may also have been on the part of some of them an honest fear of an increase of power on the part of the Crown, and a sincere desire by this act to uphold the popular or country party against the corrupting influence of the court. It would be quite superfluous to notice the various and mighty changes which have since taken place in the balance of property and power, and which renders this Act utterly useless now in the view in which it was first proposed. The Act of 1711 was, however, found to be so inoperative, that in 1760, another and a more stringent act was proposed and partly passed into a law: It is thus mentioned by Smollett:— "Subterfuges were discovered, by means of which this law (meaning the law of 1711), relating to the qualifications of candidates, was effectually eluded. Those who were not actually possessed of such estates, procured temporary conveyances from their friends and patrons, on condition of their being restored and cancelled after the election. By this scandalous fraud the intention of the Legislature was frustrated," &c. "Through this infamous channel the Ministry had it in their power to thrust into Parliament a set of venal beggars, who, as they depended on their bounty, would always be obsequious to their will, and, vote according to direction, without the least regard to the dictates of conscience, or to the advantage of their country. The mischiefs attending such a vile collusion; and, in particular, the undue influence which the Crown must have acquired from the practice, were either felt or apprehended by some honest patriots, who, after divers unsuccessful efforts, at length presented to the House a Bill," &c. This Bill was finally passed as the 33rd George 2nd, c. 20. Hon. Members who are versed in the affairs of this House, can say whether this Act has had its intended effect, and prevented all fictitious and temporary qualifications or not. In Hallam's Constitutional History, the whole case is thus briefly and ably stated:— "The country gentlemen who claimed to themselves a character of more independence and patriotism than could be found in any other class, had long endeavoured to protect their ascendency by excluding the rest of the community from Parliament. This was the principle of the Bill, which, after being frequently attempted, passed into a law during the Tory Administration of Anne, requiring every Member of the Commons, except those for the Universities, to possess as a qualification for his seat a landed estate, above all encumbrances, of 300l. a-year. By a later Act of George 2nd, with which it was thought expedient by the Government of the day to gratify the landed interest, this property must be stated on oath by every Member on taking his seat; and, if required, at his election. The law is, however, notoriously evaded, and though much might be urged in favour of rendering a competent income the condition of eligibility, few would be found at present to maintain, that the freehold qualification is not required both unconstitutionally, according to the ancient theory of representation, and absurdly, according to the present state of property in England." Such is a brief, and I believe, a fair sketch of the history of the Qualification Acts. After thus seeing the objects of the promoters of the Act, the preamble is rather amusing: it is "for securing the freedom of Parliaments," when it ought rather to have been, if truth had been regarded, "an act for securing the power of the landed interest, and restraining the freedom of election." The exemptions from the operation of the act also require some comment. First, we find exempted the eldest son or heir apparent of any Peer or Lord of Parliament, or of any person qualified to serve as a knight of the shire. Now, though the Peer or great proprietor may be a very respectable or a very rich man (it amounts to nearly the same thing in the common acceptation of the term), yet it by no means follows, that his son and heir should inherit his good qualities as well as his privileges; he may have anticipated his reversionary wealth,—he may be the most profligate and the poorest of his class, yet he may dispense with the vulgar form of qualification. But the strangest part of this exemption is, that the very Peer, whose son might claim it might perchance not be himself in the position of a qualified person, for no qualification whatever is required from a man who is made a Member of the House of Lords. The Crown can thus make hereditary legislators from any class, while the people can select their representatives only from one class,—namely, the class qualified by the possession of landed property. The Members for the Universities are next exempted. This exemption was perhaps introduced out of a kind feeling towards the scholars, likely to be returned by those learned bodies, in the idea that scholarship and poverty were frequently companions, or to add one more to their exclusive privileges, or perchance from a profound knowledge of the learned corporations, which led the promoters of the Act to be well assured, that none but rich and powerful men would be considered qualified to represent the seats of learning and religion, or have a chance of gaining the votes of the learned and reverend electors. Lastly, we find the exemption of the Members of that part of Great Britain called Scotland—the plea assigned for this exemption is the smallness of estates in that country; that is, the poverty of the land. Now, notwithstanding the exemption and the plea, it so happens, that no men in this House are superior in any quality which makes men good citizens and able legislators to the Scotch Members. No pecuniary or landed qualification is required from them, and yet they not only possess every other qualification in an eminent degree, but it has been remarked, that of all the Scotch Members, there has scarcely ever been one who was not a man of ample, or at least of independent, private fortune. It is strange, that the exemption should not have been extended to Irish Members, as well as to Scotch Members; for up to the time of what is called the Union no qualification but residence, and a forty-shilling freehold was required from Members of the Irish House of Commons; and even that qualification had been repealed by 14 George 3rd, c. 58, as having "been found by long usage to be unnecessary, and as having become obsolete." The same words may justly be applied to our existing acts, with this addition, that they are foolish, mischievous, and inefficient. Nothing has been said, because nothing was required, as to the inefficiency of the law; it is as notorious as the most commonly-received fact, that the law of qualification is a mere legal cobweb which disfigures the statute-book, and which small flies as well as great can break through with perfect ease. Ireland has indeed lost the services of two of her representatives through the operation of the act in this very Parliament—but that was chiefly owing to some oversight in the manner of making out the necessary qualification. These, then (it appears to me), are the reasons for repealing the present qualification law; it is bad in principle—contrary to the ancient constitution—unjust to the electoral body. It is notorious to all men accustomed to parliamentary business, that it is so easily evaded as to be almost entirely inoperative; the object for which it was passed has been entirely defeated; if ever a necessity for it existed, no necessity for it exists now. Its existence in the case of England, Ireland, and Wales, produces no good; its absence in the case of Scotland causes no evil; but its continuance in the statute-book, though almost a dead letter, has caused, and does still cause, a bad moral effect on the constituencies. There is no good reason for allowing it to remain in existence; it has long ceased to have any force; and there are many reasons for its repeal. This being the case, I confidently call on the House to agree to the motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for East Cornwall.

could not avoid expressing his opinion, that a more obnoxious or objectionable measure than that proposed by the hon. Baronet had never been suggested in that House. It was even go mischievous in its tendency, that he felt justified in at once taking the sense of the House against its admission. The present measure was one of no ordinary importance. The object of it evidently was, to attempt, to lessen the dignity of that most respectable and important class in the country—the country gentry of England. He recollected, that the hon. Baronet had said, that Providence had placed him in that class. He deeply regretted, that the hon. Baronet had so much forgotten the bounty of Providence, as to propose a motion of this kind. With respect to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Bridgewater, in support of the motion, he would only say, that he did not consider, that there was any force or weight in them. The hon. Member said, that there had been so many changes since the commencement of the last century, that property had so much increased, and wealth was diffused among so many classes of the community, that they should get rid of the qualification as being altogether unnecessary. Now, in his opinion, this was an additional reason for maintaining the law. Those who aspired to the honour of a seat in that House, should have something like a stake in the country, instead of men without any property being elected the representatives of the people. It was said, that the present law was often evaded; they should not, on this ground, get rid of it, but take such steps as would put it in force. At the present time, when novelty was the order of the day, it might appear to be impolitic to endeavour to oppose what was called the tide of improvement, but which, in his opinion, was nothing more nor less than the tide of innovation and mischievous interference. By getting rid of the qualification, they would open the door for men to get into that House, who would have to legislate on property, in which they had not the least interest. This certainly might be a good argument with those who had no property; but he was sure, that it would have no influence in that House, To such as regarded the maintenance of the dignity of that House, and who also believed, that the security of property would be best upheld by those who had some interest in it, he would say, that he was satisfied, that there was not a single individual who would not divide with him against the proposition of the hon. Baronet. He would only add, that he was determined to take the sense of the House on this motion.

was not going to occupy the time of the House at any length, but he could not suffer the question to go to a vote without making a few observations. He was exceedingly glad that the hon. Member who had just addressed the House had risen to oppose the motion of his hon. Friend, for by doing so he vindicated the former proceedings of the party to which he belonged on this sub. juct. It ought not to be forgotten that it was the Tories of the time of Queen Anne who introduced a Bill imposing a landed qualification on Members of t at House. He was glad to find that the hon. Member for Durham had risen in opposition to his (Mr. Ewart's) hon. Friend's proposition; for he begged the House to recollect that the hon. Gentleman himself was enabled to sit in that House without a property qualification; he was qualified by being the son of a Peer. The hon. Member had stated that the doors of that House were, under the present law, open to any man of talent in the country who could get a constituency to elect him. This, however, was not the case; for was the hon. Member not aware that one of the most distinguished men of the last century was excluded from that House in consequence of not possessing the proper qualification. Again, there was a recent case of a man of eminent abilities being excluded from the House on this ground to which he was sure the hon. Gentleman could not object on the ground of orthodoxy—he alluded to the case of Dr. Southey, who was elected Member for a borough, and who did not take his seat, because he could not conscientiously swear to the possession of a qualification. The Acts which it was now proposed to repeal were founded on the assumption that the amount of wealth was equivalent to the amount of independence. This was a most absurd and fallacious notion; for a person of comparatively small income, provided he lived within it, was certainly in more independent circumstances than a man of large possessions whose wants exceeded his income. As a remarkable instance of the union of comparative poverty and independence, he would refer to a well-known circumstance connected with the life of that pure-minded and distinguished man, Andrew Marvel a name that could never be forgotten in connextion with the history of this country. Who could forget the remarkable observation of the Earl of Danby, who waited upon the patriot in his humble lodging for the purpose of corrupting him, and who, on observing his frugal repast, turned to his attendant, and said— "Damn the man; it is impossible to tempt him." Previous to the year 1710,no property qualification was required in a Member of Parliament. In that year the Tory majority of the House of Commons chose to dictate this Bill, which Lord Godolphin and the Whigs of that day, to their honour, resisted to the utmost, and he (Mr. Ewart) was sure that he should find that the Whigs of the present day would follow the example of their ancestors with respect to the object of the present motion. Nothing could be more absurd than that the son of a Peer should be admitted without a qualification, when it was possible that the Peer did not possess any landed property. For instance, he would take the case of the son of a bishop; such a person, if elected a Member, might take his seat without a qualification, virtute originis. It appeared that Scotland had been without a pecuniary qualification for its Members, and no country could be more admirably represented than that part of the empire was. Was it not notorious that the Scotch representatives were the best Members in that House always acting independently, and were the constant scourge of the Tory Members opposite? The present state of the law on this subject was contrary to sound principles of morality, and was of not the least practical utility. A property qualification of any description would be evaded in the same way that a land qualification had constantly been. The example of Scotland triumphantly showed that the real question as to a candidate's qualification to sit in Parliament could be left with the utmost safety to the good sense and discretion of the electors; and there was no reason for supposing that the electors of England were less endowed with good sense and discretion on this matter than those of Scotland. He should warmly support the hon. Baronet's motion.

remarked, that if he was not mistaken, he heard, during the discussion of the Reform Bill, a noble Lord, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but now a Member of the other House of Parliament, observe, that a gentleman not possessed of a landed qualification, but possessed of personal property, never had any difficulty in procuring a colourable qualification. Now, what the noble Lord recommended indirectly, he recommended the House to do directly. If property of any description would procure a qualification for that House, he did not say that they should get rid of a landed qualification, but that, they should at least allow another kind of property to confer a qualification as well as landed property. He believed there were many Gentlemen who did not wish to get rid of a qualification altogether, but who admitted the other principle, that every description of property ought to give a qualification. Hon. Members, then, who entertained these sentiments ought not to array themselves against the introduction of this Bill, because when they got into Committee an opportunity would present itself of modifying the Bill by the introduction of clauses framed for the purpose of allowing every description of property to confer a qualification.

would only trouble the House with a few words in reply to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Members opposite. For his own part, he could not conceive that the objects for which the qualification in question had been originally introduced were no longer desirable or practicable, nor could he bring himself to believe that circumstances had so materially changed, that the House was called upon to declare that no qualification was necessary for admission among its Members. He might be disposed to entertain the proposition that all property should in this respect be placed on the same footing, but to the second he could not agree—namely, that because he might not be unfriendly to a qualification of this kind, he was bound to permit this Bill to be introduced, that Bill being to abolish all property qualification, for the purpose of modifying it in Committee, by the introduction of clauses enacting that personal property should confer a qualification as well as real estate. But, in point of fact, those who had personal property, rarely were unable to procure a landed qualification. He remembered the case of a Mr. Fairley, who, when he was going up to the poll after dinner, recollected that, although he was possessed of some landed property, he had not enough to give him a qualification, he having at the same time personal property to the amount of 100,000l. He subsequently, after the election, made a bona fide purchase of real estate, more than sufficient for a qualification, but it was decided that the purchase was made too late, and that he was disqualified to sit. Now, there was a case which he thought did call on the House for a remedy. He was not prepared to assert that men with sufficient personal property were not equally eligible with those who possessed a qualification arising from landed estate, but he must say that he looked with some suspicion on a Bill which was introduced for the purpose of abolishing all property qualification whatever. If they permitted a Member to be introduced from the body of the canaille, if it should so happen, they would have a qualification in the case of the electors, while they had none in the case of the elected. They would, therefore, advance a step, and a very material one, towards universal suffrage. Now, under these circumstances, he thought that the Gentlemen opposite, who were not quite prepared to say that they preferred so extended a system of voting as universal suffrage, should not further that object by supporting the present motion. He could not but admire the new-born zeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite for their practice of the Constitution. It was really delightful to see them, when they were accused of wishing to destroy the Constitution, taking measures to restore it to its pristine vigour, and re-establish the system of representation which formerly prevailed. He had only risen to say a few words, and therefore he would not trespass on the House longer.

observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford seemed greatly alarmed lest this measure should constitute a step to the system of universal suffrage. That was the ancient practice of the Constitution—and yet the hon. and learned Member laughed at his hon. Friend, the Member for Cornwall, because he was in this instance inclined to support our ancient institutions. The difference between his hon. Friend, the Member for Cornwall and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was, that the former would support such of our ancient institutions as were good, and would abolish such of them as were bad, whilst the latter supported them all indiscriminately and drew no distinction between the good and the bad. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Mem- ber whether the Constitution of England dated from the 10th of Queen Anne? He contended that those persons who were qualified to elect, ought if a constituency approved of them, to be also qualified to be elected; and that the contrary doctrine —which insisted upon a pecuniary qualification for the elected—imposed a grievous restriction upon the electors. In Scotland the electors were simply called upon to elect an honest man. How could they in Scotland elect an honest man—since they were not bound to elect a rich man? The hon. Member referred in support of his opinions to an extract from a treatise on the electoral system by Mr. Bayley, of Sheffield—a treatise which be eulogised as well worthy the perusal of every Gentleman who wished to do his duty by the country. In that treatise Mr. Bayley said, that" the effect of a pecuniary qualification was, to narrow the choice of the electors, and that it was a limitation which was scarcely ever of any service, whilst on many occasions it very probably did great harm." He fully agreed with Mr. Bayley in that sentiment. It did harm, and great harm for it excluded from Parliament many moral and religious men who were too independent to be influenced by a court, and too intelligent to be deluded by the artifices of a sophistical Minister. "It had given rise," continued Mr. Bayley, "to perjury to a very great extent;" and that was, in his opinion, a sufficient reason why it ought to be abolished. He called upon those who arrogated to themselves all the virtue, and sanctity, and religion of the House to join with him in getting rid of this abominable system of falsehood and perjury. He had his eye upon several Gentlemen who had always religion in their mouths, and who yet were stanch supporters of the present system. With their eyes turned up and their hands turned out, they were perpetually exclaiming 'Will you not obey the dictates of God? Will, you not acknowledge an over-ruling Providence?" He should look upon such gestures and such language as sheer hyprocrisy, if they did not join in the attempt to abolish a system which led to such continual perjury. The present law did not prohibit the electors from electing as their representatives a fool, a gambler, a seducer of innocence, a liar and a swindler, provided he had the necessary amount of landed property. No matter what his misconduct might be, no matter how ignorant and how illiterate he might prove, the electors were not prohibited from sending any man who had the necessary property qualification to Parliament—they were only prohibited from electing the moral, and religious, and independent man, who had not the necessary amount of dirty acres. In conclusion, he insisted that there was no use in imposing a pecuniary qualification which was every day evaded, and he therefore hoped that the House would give his hon. Friend leave to introduce his Bill abolishing qualifications for Members of Parliament altogether.

observed, that the hon. Member for Middlesex had laid down the proposition that whoever was fit to be an elector was also fit to be elected. Now, if that were true, the converse of his proposition was not unlikely to be true also—namely, that as the qualification of the elected was abolished, the same rule ought to be applied to the qualification of the elector.

, in explanation, observed, that what he had said was, that the persons qualified to elect might, if the electors thought fit, be elected.

had understood the hon. Member to say so, and was arguing that the effect of his proposition was to do away with the qualification of the electors, as well as with that of the elected. The one proposition followed as a corollary from the other, and that being the case, he should oppose the introduction of the present measure, as it looked like the first step to universal suffrage.

said, that when universal suffrage should be proposed to the adoption of the House,—and he hoped that it would soon be proposed to its adoption,—the argument against it must be founded on stronger reasons than the imaginary fears expressed by the hon. Members opposite, if they intended it to prove successful. He should certainly support the present motion. Scotland had at present no pecuniary qualification. Ireland had no pecuniary qualification up to the period of the Union. England had no pecuniary qualification in the reign of the Edwards, the Henries, the Charleses, and the Jameses; and it was not till the glorious reign of Queen Anne that it was imposed. It was introduced at that time for party purposes, was it right to keep it up for party purposes now? It had been said that "mischief was so precious a thing that it ought not to be thrown away or wasted needlessly." He would say to the hon. Member for Durham, who had that evening made what he called his first attempt at opposition, that opposition was so precious a thing that it ought not to be wasted or thrown away upon any measure affecting the rights of those whom he had been pleased to call the "lower orders," and whom the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had styled the canaille. All Englishmen were equal in the eyes of the law. What Englishman was, or could be, lower than the hon. Member for Durham?

asserted, that he had not said one word in his speech about the lower orders.

admitted that he had used the word "canaille," but the House knew well what he meant by it. Was there not a canaille in every country?

appealed to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, in support of his notion, that the hon. Member for Durham had used the words "lower orders." He repeated, that the hon. Member had talked about the lower orders. He believed that the hon. Member had also said, that there was a tag-rag and bob-tail.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny is authorised by the usages of Parliament, in imputing to me ad libitum, expressions which I never used, and which I have already disclaimed. I did not speak of the lower orders. What I said was, that one of the evils likely to accrue from the introduction of the present measure was this—that a mendicant in the streets might be—I did not say that he would be—sent into this House to legislate for those who had millions of property. I never used any such expression as tag-rag and bob-tail. The phrase belongs to the hon. and learned Member's own vocabulary.

admitted that he might have been mistaken on the point; but, if so, his mistake had also been shared in by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. [Mr. Maclean: "No."] The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, however, admitted that he had used the word, "canaille." Now he objected to the use of the word "canaille" quite as much as he did to the words "lower orders." It was an expression which ought not to be applied to any portion of the freemen of England. He wanted a plain answer to this question—"Does the possession of a pecuniary qualification increase the moral value of the party enjoying it?" He also wanted to know whether there was not a tendency in human nature to respect wealth, and whether wealth had not a preponderating influence, when it was directed against the rivalry of the poor? The wealthy man, in a contest with the poor man, had inducements to offer which were not within the poor man's reach. Was it not then clear, that if the poor man succeeded against the rich man, in a popular election, he must compensate by the higher qualities of talent and virtue for his want of wealth? If elected under such disadvantages, would he not enter the House with a stamp of merit impressed on him, by his constituents raising him high above the standard of mere wealth? He contended, that they ought to leave to the people of England the same unrestricted choice of representatives that was now enjoyed by the people of Scotland. Had the hon. Members opposite, who, in their eagerness to get up Conservative operative societies, had found it expedient to court and flatter the "canaille" —had those hon. Members a right to place themselves in the gap, and say, "a Bill for abolishing pecuniary qualifications for Members of Parliament shall not be brought in?" Such language was not couched in that spirit of courtesy which the hon. Members opposite had displayed of late towards the people, for the purpose of cajoling them out of their votes. He advised them not to set the people again at defiance, by stating that, however intelligent, however moral, and however virtuous they might be, they should have no entrance into that House, unless they were blessed with the gifts of fortune. He hoped that the hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow this Bill to be brought in.

said, that he had certainly come down to the House prepared to support the motion of the hon. Member for Cornwall, had it been couched in the same terms in which it was entered in the order-book—that is, had it been a Bill to amend, and not to abolish, the laws with regard to the property qualification of Members of Parliament. He had come down prepared to contend, that it was not expedient to make laws which you did not wish, and which you did not expect to be obeyed. No one, he believed, now thought it necessary that a Member of Parliament for a city or borough should possess 300l. a-year in landed property. All seemed to be agreed that a merchant worth 500,000l., should have a right to sit in the House, even though he were not in possession of an acre of land. He did not think it expedient that they should hold out to the country, that they were determined to retain on the statute-book a law, which was, or might be, the constant subject of evasion. Besides, the present law was not a part of our ancient constitution. He believed that our cities and boroughs anciently sent to Parliament as their representatives, men who were, strictly speaking, citizens and burgesses, and who, as such, followed some trade or profession, and were not persons enjoying a landed qualification. How had the change with respect to qualification been brought about? It was effected in the reign of Queen Anne, owing to the jealousy which then unfortunately prevailed between the landed and the trading interest. The trading interest was known to be favourable to the Hanoverian succession, and to those principles of liberal policy which did not suit the taste of the landed gentry. To check the increase of the trading influence, the landed interest introduced into our Parliamentary system an innovation, whereby the citizens and burgesses representing our cities and boroughs were no longer citizens and burgesses in the strict sense of the term, but gentlemen with landed qualifications. He thought that it would be a great improvement, if the House were to adopt some such amendment of the law of qualification, as that which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Bridport. It scarcely ever happened that a Gentleman took his seat in that House, without being in possession of some property, but it happened very often, that gentlemen took their seats in it in consequence of evading, and, he might even say, of committing a fraud upon, the law. He therefore agreed with the hon. Member for Bridport, that it would be better to amend the law relating to the pecuniary qualification of Members of Parliament, than to abolish it altogether. He did not apprehend that any great evil would ensue, even if the property qualification were to be abolished altogether, for be believed that the sense of the people of England might fairly be trusted with the election of their representatives. He thought it, however, better to have a Bill introduced, amending the present law of qualification, in which the changes necessary to be made might be considered in detail in the Committee, than to have the property qualification abolished at once altogether. That being his opinion, he could hardly bring himself to vole for the motion of the hon. Member for Cornwall, in its present form.

said, that the terms of the motion, of which he had given notice, had been erroneously entered in the order-book. There had been some mistake about them; for he had never intended to bring in any other Bill than that on which his motion was founded, and that was a Bill for abolishing the property qualification altogether,

recommended his hon. Friend, the Member for Cornwall, to adopt the suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord, at the head of his Majesty's Government, as it was likely to lead to a practical result, and, as the present was not a time for disputing about the splitting of straws, he thought that there ought to be as few lies on the statute-book as possible, and this Property Qualification Act was a very great he indeed. The proposition of the noble Lord opposite, as to the necessity of electors being without qualification if the elected were, was a striking non sequitur, and amounted to as great an absurdity as the proposition of Dr. Johnson—

"Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat."

Gentlemen on the other side of the House seemed to think, that a Member of Parliament who had little or no property, could not be honest. Now, in the course of his short political life, he had met with some dishonest politicians in that House, and he must say this, that some of the richest men in Parliament, had been the dirtiest and shabbiest fellows in politics that he had ever known. He might not be a disinterested witness on this point, as he himself was known to be a poor man.

also recommended the hon. Member for Cornwall to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend below him, and to bring in a Bill in conformity with the terms in which his motion was entered in the order-book. At the same time, if the hon. Member for Cornwall were not prepared to accede to that suggestion, he should be prepared to give his vote in favour of the hon. Member's present proposition. In former times, when Peers of Parliament nominated Members for cities and boroughs, at their pleasure, and when one facetious Peer threatened to send his black servant as a Member into that House, a properly qualification might have been of some service; but it could not be of any service now that the people had recovered their place in the constitution, and were enabled to choose their own representatives. When he knew that men of high honour, but of small fortune, did not scruple to accept a property qualification from their friends, and to swear at the table that they had a sufficient property qualification, although they had taken it on the express understanding that they were not to touch any portion of its proceeds,—when he knew that there had been hundreds of such cases in former Parliaments, and that, there might be hundreds of such cases in this Parliament, he could not refrain from thinking that it was high time to make a change in the law on the subject. If he wanted another reason for getting rid of this strange anomaly in the law of England and Ireland, he could find a sufficient one in the example of Scotland. He would ask, what Members of the House were better qualified to perform their Parliamentary duties, what Members were more enlightened or more independent, than those who were sent to them from Scotland, and from whom no pecuniary qualification was demanded? Considering the present law, then, to be mischievous in its effects, and to be still more mischievous, in being deemed, by common consent, inoperative, he should certainly vote in favour of the motion of the hon. Member for Cornwall, in case he pressed it to a division. Before he sat down, he could not help calling upon the House to look at some late proceedings of their own. It was not more than three or four nights since a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the fabrication of fictitious votes in Scotland. Now, with what consistency could they examine into the fabrication of fictitious votes, on behalf of the electors, when they refused to entertain a measure for getting rid of fictitious qualifications on the part of the elected?

should not have said a word upon the present occasion, had it not been for an expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for Durham. That hon. Member, in opposing the introduction of this Bill, had asked this ques- tion— "Why are we sent here? Are we not sent here to protect the landed, and the monied, and the commercial interests of the country?" What a question was that for a legislator to ask! Was that all that hon. Members were sent to that House for? Were they not sent there to protect the rights and liberties of the people of England? {Hear! hear!] The hon. Member for Durham cried "Hear, hear, "but these were points which the hon. Member had entirely forgotten and omitted from his speech.

rose to order, but

informed him, that it was not in Ins power to enter into any explanation of his words then, without the have of the hon. Member for Finsbury, who was in possession of the House. When that hon. Member had concluded his observations, then would be the time for the hon. Member for Durham to explain.

would intimate to the hon. Member for Durham, that the people required their rights and liberties to be protected in that House, and what rights were more important than the rights of labour? and yet they were wholly unrepresented in that House. He repeated, that they were unrepresented in that House. Why, were not the working men of this country in a constant state of anxiety, from the belief that they were wronged in that House, and that they had no one scarcely in it to champion their cause? He should be glad to see some working men sitting in that House—for sure he was, that the country would never be in a permanent state of peace until some working men did sit within its walls. If such men had seats in that House, they would learn something of the difficulties which obstructed the course of legislation, and having acquired that knowledge, would communicate to their friends out of doors, the various obstacles which stood in the way of making good, sound, and useful legislation. There were not thousands, but millions, of workmen, w he felt that they were not adequately represented in that House. Why, he would ask, was 300l. a-year fixed as a property qualification for a Member of Parliament? Because it was supposed that those who had 300l. a-year within, would sympathise with those who had 300l. a-year without the walls of Parliament. He was astounded that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had made such immense exertions during the autumn to get up Conservative operative associations,—in which he could say, from his own knowledge of the feelings of the working classes, that they had miserably failed,—he was astounded, he repeated, that those hon. Gentlemen should not exhibit some sympathy with the working classes, by allowing the introduction of this Bill, which would operate so much to their advantage. He hoped, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Lord, that he should, upon reflection, be induced to vote for the motion of the hon. Baronet. The noble Lord would find himself grossly deceived, if he thought that the course he was pursuing could conciliate Members on the other side of the House; such a course could not conciliate enemies, and was greatly calculated to shake the confidence of friends. Its effect upon the people would be, to excite in their minds a feeling; that they had been betrayed, and he did not hesitate to say, that until a radical change took place in the constitution of that House, the opinion would be very generally entertained out of doors, that the people were not fairly represented.

begged to say, that he had described that House as representing the landed, the commercial, and the monied interests of the United Kingdom; and, he added, that hon. Members were hound to protect the rights, privileges, and immunities of those who had sent them to Parliament.

briefly replied, he could not comply with the request of the noble Lord; but, under the influence of a strong feeling of duty, must take the sense of the House on the question which he had brought under its consideration. He should call upon the House to pronounce its decision upon the broad principle involved in his motion. He should call upon them to determine whether the free choice of intelligent men did not constitute a better qualification to sit in that House, than the possession of any amount of properly.

did not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion. He felt the importance of the subject: and he was one who considered it most desirable that those who made discoveries, and were the authors of new inventions, should have an easy manner of availing themselves of their discoveries, and the full benefit of their inventions. At the same time, he begged to assure the hon. Member, that there had been for some time a commission appointed by his Majesty's Government, and which was presided over by the hon. Member for Chester, the attention of which, was directed to this subject. He believed that without any expensive establishment, such as that which had been suggested, the machinery which was now in existence would be perfectly effectual. He thought that whatever sum was to be paid should be paid at one office, and upon that being done the patent to be taken out. He intended to examine the Bill with candour, but he thought from what he had heard of it, that he could hardly give it his support, however anxious he was to remove the evil of which such just complaints were made.

thought this a subject of the greatest importance. There could be no doubt that the present patent law required many extensive changes. He was afraid that the machinery proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mackinnon) could not be rendered available for this purpose. The Bill appeared to him to proceed upon an erroneous principle; and he thought that the machinery would be cumbrous, inefficient, and, at the same time, very expensive. If patents were to be protected at all, they should meet with a quick and safe protection. Nothing could be done with the present machinery and the present tribunals, and he thanked the hon. Member for calling the attention of the House to the subject.

was also of opinion that the fees upon the registration of patents, &c, were too expensive as proposed by this Bill. The defects of the Bill, however, had better be discussed in a future stage.

, pursuant to notice, begged to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. John Dillon, from whose petition it appeared, that in the year 1822 he was a coast-guard officer in the county of Cork, in Ireland. While there, he was the means of capturing a smuggling vessel off the port of Kinsale. It was stated that, on the night of the 2d of February, 1822, he discovered a vessel which he believed to be a smuggler, off the coast, and he put off two boats, the one with four oars, the other with six, to ascertain in what circumstances she was. On coming near to where she was, it was found that there were forty or fifty hands on board, and with that force Mr. Dillon found himself unable to contend, at all events, to such an extent as to attempt boarding the vessel; but he kept his boats at a little distance, and he threw in several shots which obliged the commander to put into Kin-sale, where she was seized by the Customhouse officers, condemned, and sold for a sum of 53,000l. Mr. Dillon upon this, put in his claim for salvage, and he was told, that until the decision of an appeal against the condemnation of the vessel, he could not have a decisive answer. In that suit persons were examined who were not of the six-oared boat, in which Mr. Dillon himself was, but of the four-oared one which was in his company. The appeal failed, and when Mr. Dillon again applied, he was told that complaints were lodged of his conduct in the transaction by some of the crew of his boats, yet he was upon the fullest inquiry acquitted. However, he gave up his situation in the coast-guard service, in which he was a chief officer, and being for some time out of employment, he was obliged to undertake the command of a vessel to the West Indies, where he remained till the year 1828, anxiously looking out in the mean time for the Gazette, in order to see how the appeal was decided, as a notice was directed by the Act to be given in the Gazette. No notice, however, appeared, and on his return to this country in 1828, he was told that a charge of cowardice had been preferred against him for not having boarded the vessel. This was founded on the statement of a Custom-house officer in Dublin. He was an ious for an inquiry into this charge, and he offered to withdraw his petition if it could be proved. He at length prevailed on the then Government to grant his request for an investigation, and the matter was referred to the decision of a naval officer, a member of that House, he meant Sir Edward Codrington, who gave it as his opinion, that the conduct of Mr. Dillon was blameless in the transaction; and Lord Althorp had written him a letter, in which the noble Lord had said that the object was to inquire whether there was a want of courage or not, and in his opinion there was no want of courage, and that in this respect Mr. Dillon was free from blame. This was a great satisfaction to a man who, after ten years' exertions, had been unable to obtain inquiry, but had at last succeeded through the justice of Lord Spencer. But when this charge had been disposed of, another objection had been raised, that Mr. Dillon had not made his application for compensation in time; but this was a mistake, for, if reference were made to his letters, written in March and April, 1822, the seizure having taken place only in the February of that year, it would be found that application was made to the Board of Customs in Dublin. And when the Custom-house officer received 11,000l. for merely taking possession of the vessel, it was hard that Mr. Dillon, by whose information the seizure had been made, should be deprived of all share. Application had, from time to time, been made, and the letters containing such applications would be found at the Board of Customs in Dublin, though they had been kept back from, and were not in the Treasury. Mr. Dillon's professional character had been vindicated by the reference to Sir Edward Codrington; but what he now wished was, to be placed in a situation to obtain some remuneration from Government. His motion therefore was "That a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the seizure of the ship Carew, and its condemnation by the Admiralty Court of Ireland in 1822, and as to the disposal of the proceeds."

thought that there was no economy more necessary to be practised than an economy of the public time, and he thought that the House would not be disposed to inquire into a case which had occurred in 1822, and which had been submitted to several successive Governments, each of which had carefully considered the different documents, and which had formed its own judgment, each sitting as it were in review over the proceedings of its predecessors. Not only have the Government done this, but Mr. Dillon had shown great activity in bringing his case under the consideration of Members of both sides of the House. It had been in the hands of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and it was now intrusted to the hon. Member for Bradford; at one time it was thought that Lord Farnham had taken an interest in it, and then it was supported by the hon. and gallant Member whose name had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford. [Mr. O'Connell: It was also intrusted to the Member for Tralee.] As each of these hon. Members had taken up the subject, he had offered them to go to the Treasury, and read the papers, and if they were not satisfied, they might come to that House and he would meet them. Let the House consider what they were called on to do—they were to inquire now, in 1837, into circumstances which took place in 1822, and to show that all the Courts were wrong, and that every Government was wrong also. The hon. Member for Bradford had stated one fallacy, on which this case mainly depended. If his Majesty's Government, as represented by Lord Spencer, had referred all matters both of law and professional character to Sir Edward Codrington, they would undoubtedly be bound by it, but such was not the case. There were two questions in this case—one was, had Mr. Dillon acted in a manner derogatory to his character as an officer and a gentleman? And the other was, was he entitled to receive any proceeds of the ship Carew? And Mr. Dillon had put forward the one or the other of these questions as it best snited his purposes. It was only the first of these questions which had been referred by Lord Spencer to Sir Edward Codrington. Sir Edward had said, that there was no reflection on the character of Mr. Dillon, and that gentleman had received from the Treasury a complete acquittal from the charge; he had also been paid 50l. for his expenses, and had then applied for promotion, but had received as an answer that he had not any great claims for it. He had the authority of Sir Edward Codrington for saying that he did not decide any question of law, and that none such had been referred to him. But there was one other point which would place this question beyond a doubt, and this was, that as far as the papers in the Treasury went, there was no claim for a number of years made by Mr. Dillon for any part of the proceeds, and when inquiry was made of him for his reason for not pressing for it, his answer was, that he had so ill-conducted and ill-disciplined a crew, that knowing if he made a claim they would have a share, he had punished them by not asking for his own share at all. Now this was so opposite to the usual course of human nature, that he could not think that it was genuine. It was for this reason that he acquiesced in the adjudication of the Duke of Wellington, and of Lord Althorp; and even if he had not known of their decision he should have come to the same conclusion. He thought the House might be much better occupied than in granting a Select Committee. Let them, if they pleased, call for all the papers; and if, when they had read them, they were not satisfied, then let the hon. Member for Bradford call for a Committee.

replied, that the House was not in possession of the true facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that successive Governments had refused Mr. Dillon's claims, but he had omitted to state the grounds for such decisions. He called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce all the documents to a Committee, and let that Committee do justice to Mr. Dillon. The Treasury could know nothing of the facts, except from third parties, and a false representation had been made. Application was made soon after the seizure, and the documents in the possession of the Board of Customs, in Dublin, would prove that such was the fact; but these documents had been kept back. On these grounds it was that he called for investigation, to save the honour and life of Mr. Dillon, for life was valueless to a professional man without honour.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill, better to secure the title and enjoyment of lands and tenements granted for purposes of Catholic worship, and of education in Ireland. His object was, not to extend the present law in any of its details, save one, and that was, to give greater facilities for the enjoyment of property. At present, the trusts of the Catholic places of worship were equally protected by the law, and by courts of equity, as other trusts; but his object was to render easier the method of transmission from one set of trustees to another, and he thought his principle would be equally applicable to Dissenters' places of worship in England. His proposal was, that when trustees died, it should not be necessary to bring their executors before the Court, but, by a simple conveyance, to vest the fee in new trustees. The objects were of such a nature, that he should simply make a statement, and lay the Bill upon the table of the House, that it might be printed, and placed in the hands of the Members, and they would then, see the entire plan; and he thought, that as the object was merely to simplify the conveyance of this kind of property, there would be no objection to his bringing in the Bill.

did not mean so far to oppose the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to take the unusual course of objecting to its introduction. He (Mr. Shaw) did not desire either to deal with the question in any bigoted or sectarian spirit; but he must say, that the proceeding startled him., as one of a very novel nature; and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had failed to make out. a case, for putting the Roman Catholic Church on a different footing from any other religious body in the United Kingdom, which dissented from the Established Church. He wished no civil inequality to those who professed the Roman Catholic-religion—still he could not conceal, and he said so without meaning to give offence, that the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to propose the present measure, had given rise to some justifiable feeling of jealousy against any further encroachment on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland; they had peculiar opportunities of inducing bequests, and influencing persons by motives, which Protestants might reasonably be expected to question, to make over property for the purposes suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the present measure. He could see no just ground for forming the Roman Catholic hierarchy into a corporation, capable of taking and transmitting property, without the intervention of trustees—a privilege enjoyed by no other religious sect in either country. Considering the recent disclaimer of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the Roman Catholic priesthood, of any desire to be connected with the state, and their advocacy of the voluntary principle as applied to their church in Ireland, he owned he regarded the present proceedings with some degree of suspicion. While, therefore, he would not divide the House at that stage, before they had had the opportunity of seeing the Bill, still he begged to put the House upon its guard on the subject, and he hoped they would not suffer the measure to pass into a law. He would watch, with a jealous anxiety, the course of the hon. and learned Gentle- man, in any attempt to invest the Roman Catholic clergy, in Ireland, with greater power or property than they already possessed; and, at the same time, he again disclaimed all intention to give offence, or do injustice, either to the Roman Catholic clergy, or people in that country.

agreed with his right hon. Friend and Colleague, in thinking this a most important measure, and one that should be watched with the greatest jealousy. In short, it appeared as the first step in advance, for establishing the Roman Catholic religion as a state religion in Ireland. He could conceive no other object the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view. No other religious sect enjoyed the privilege of transmitting property in the manner now sought for by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He felt some difficulty in even allowing the measure to be introduced, and he would oppose it in all its future stages.

did not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he wished to state, that he had given grants of land on his property, for the building of Roman Catholic places of worship; but, in two instances, he had stipulated, that the ground should be restored to him whenever these places were made the arenas for political discussion, and exciting the people to acts contrary to the law. He was happy to say, that the clergymen to whom he had made that proposition, had readily assented to it. If the hon. and learned Member persevered in his motion, he should feel it his duty to introduce a clause, to the effect that, the moment Roman Catholic chapels were used for other purposes than religious worship, they should cease to claim the protection of the law.

As the measure appeared to him objectionable, upon Protestant grounds, he should divide the House upon it, even in its present stage.

explained. There was nothing in the Bill to affect the right of the granter of the lease, to make any terms he pleased. All he wanted was, to take that species of property out of the Court of Chancery, and if he were aware of the forms of conveyance used by the Protestant Dissenters, he would at once extend its operation to them. As its effect would be to prevent litigation, and diminish expense, he hoped to see it very generally supported.

opposed the Bill. At the same time, he wished to see the Roman Catholic churches, chapels, and places of education, placed in a position that would render them amenable to the law. He suspected the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been as explicit as he ought; for the House would recollect, that the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland were, to a man, members of the National, or rather Catholic Association of Dublin, the object of which was to interfere with the rights of the people, of registering their freeholds, and returning Members to Parliament. He felt bound to oppose the introduction of the Bill.

, although he would give his vote for the motion, wished to add, that the Government intended to reserve its opinion upon the measure, until it had seen the details. He would most cordially join the hon. Members on the opposite side, in expressing a wish, that political agitation should be excluded from all such places as chapels and churches.

begged to ask the hon. and learned Member, whether the facilities the Bill conferred for the conveyance of property, were possessed by the Established Church itself?

Much greater.

thought there was something objectionable in the title of the Bill, but, i at the same time, it would be extremely hard, to tie down the hon. and learned Member to an objectionable phrase, when the object of the measure might be what! he had staled. On these grounds, he should vote for the introduction of the Bill.

, in calling the attention of the House to the petition from Ludlow, presented on Friday last, and to the counter petition from Mr. L. Charlton, presented on Monday, said, that the petitioner was extremely desirous to be allowed to attend the Committee of Privileges, and to explain his conduct, and vindicate his character.

said, that on a former occasion, when he presented a petition, reflecting on the conduct of an hon. Member, who was not present, and that under circumstances which rendered it probable that he might be absent for some time, an hon. Member had commented on the ex- treme indelicacy of his conduct in so doing. The delicacy of the matter appeared, however, to be all on one side, for last night an hon. Member presented a petition reflecting on his (Mr. Blackburne's) conduct whilst he was absent from the House. He had been charged with great indelicacy, but the only thing he did was, to present a petition from the mayor, aldermen, and common council of Ludlow, complaining of what had been imputed to them by the hon. Member (Mr. L. Charlton). The petition was ordered to be printed, and nothing more was done. Everybody at first appeared anxious for inquiry, but when the hour arrived, it appeared there was to be no inquiry at all. When he first brought forward the petition, various allegations were submitted to the consideration of the House, but now, not one word respecting them was said.

said, a petition had been put into his hand, merely denying the allegations made against his hon. Friend's character, and he had presented it to the House; but the truth was, he had been so hurried, that he had not read the petitions either on the one side or the other. He, therefore, hoped he stood acquitted of anything like indelicacy imputed to him by the hon. Gentleman. He had only to add, that as to inquiry, he believed his hon. Friend was most anxious for an inquiry, and hoped to be able to convince the House, that he was not capable of doing anything inconsistent with his duty.

said, there was no question before the House.

said, he had no wish to enter into the subject now, but he trusted that no part of the charge brought against the character of his hon. Friend would be left unexplained; and if the House would consider it necessary to institute an inquiry, his hon. Friend would be able to prove, that he had only acted in conformity with the opinions of Mr. Sergeant Merewether.

moved the third reading of this Bill.

said, great inconvenience and loss had frequently been caused by the negligence of contractors, or their inability to fulfil their contract; and, in order to remedy the evil, he would pro- pose a clause to the effect, that in case of any contract not being completed in the specified time, notice should be given to the contractor; and if, after ten days, he should confess or deny the charge, it should be competent for a jury, at the General Sessions, to assess the amount required to complete the contract, and levy it on the sureties. That, he thought, would give the jury a grand remedy.