Sir, my hon. Friend disclaims all intention of producing by this Bill any political feeling, and I am disposed to give him full credit for that declaration, but I must say, on looking over the clauses of the Bill, I do see in them powers given in some cases very unnecessarily, for the purpose of supporting the interests of particular parties. This, perhaps, is not the time to refer to that part of the Bill, it may be objected to when the Bill comes into Committee. The clauses to which I have particularly alluded, are those that give the power to the Crown of giving additional magistrates to burghs, and of altering or re-constructing burghs already established. My hon. Friend has said, that he has given ample time for the consideration of this subject, and I am not at all going to deny that he has redeemed his pledge; but I cannot help regretting that a much greater time has not been allowed than has been allowed, to pass, in the construction and framing this Bill, in regard to the municipal concerns of Scotland. The extent of legislation regarding our Municipal Corporations is so large, that it would require the study of a long legal life to become acquainted with it. I think it would have been as well, if, instead of introducing this Bill, my hon. Friend had applied his ability and talent to the consolidation of these laws, instead of bringing a multiplicity of Bills that I conceive will materially confuse the understanding of all ordinary men wishing to acquire a knowledge of what the law really is as affecting our municipal institutions; and there is this disadvantage in the multiplicity of these Bills, many of the provisions contradict one another. Many of the provisions are of an extraordinary character. There is in this Bill, under the consideration of the House, a clause which provides, that the country town clerks throughout Scotland, shall henceforth be annually elected by the magistrates. All the officers, therefore, at present holding office for life, will have their interests materially interfered with, and will be entitled to compensation. Sir, while I shall not feel it my duty to oppose the second reading of this Bill, I cannot avoid stating my regret that these Bills have been precipitately introduced into the House, and I think it would be better if they were wholly withdrawn, and a more substantial and efficient measure affecting the Parliamentary and royal burghs, and the burghs of legality, were introduced. With regard to some of the towns, I agree with my hon. Friend opposite, that there is great difficulty in finding respectable persons qualified to vote in sufficient numbers to constitute a fair constituency, and there is a great difficulty also to find persons to hold the offices of baillies and magistrates of those burghs. In one of them that difficulty has already been experienced. I shall vote for the second reading of this Bill.

Sir, I shall offer no opposition to the second reading of this Bill, because I admit there are many matters that do require some alteration, and for which purpose I think a Bill should be introduced. But, at the same time, there are certain provisions in this Bill to which I cannot at present give my consent, and which it will be necessary to discuss at length when it goes into Committee. I rejoice to hear from the hon. Member that it is his intention to omit Edinburgh in this Bill. The Attorney-General has assured his constituents that he will take care Edinburgh is not included in it, and the Lord Advocate has made the same statement; so there can be very little doubt that it will be done. I confess I do not agree with the hon. Member's views in respect of the suburbs of Edinburgh. I think they are not so much in want of a Municipal Corporation, as for the mere advantage of having a share in the election of councillors for the city of Edinburgh, to have themselves burthened by taxation, which would be the necessary consequences of being united. The hon. Member says it appears an anomaly that a large city, which I may call the southern districts, separated by an imaginary line, hardly defined in many instances, should not be under the same magistracy as the ancient city. Now, Sir, I should like to know whether any inconvenience has arisen from Westminster not being placed within the city of London? Do the people of West-minster think they should be under the control of the magistrates of the city of London? I believe they are satisfied with the manner in which they manage their affairs at present, and have no wish to be united with the Municipal Corporation of the city of London. Sir, in the Bill which the hon. Member has brought in there are many very important clauses which go to affect the whole principle of the Bill brought in in 1833; and the most material are those where he proposes to alter the qualification. It is in direct op-position to the Report of the Commissioners made in 1834, and upon which Report this Bill is founded; indeed, we are told, that this Bill is drawn up by the gentleman who acted as secretary to that commission. Now, Sir, without wishing to detract from the services of that gentleman, if they have not been greater to that commission, than the making of this Bill I cannot agree in the compliment which the hon. Member passed upon him. With respect to the 51. qualification, the Commis- sioners say, "We find in smaller burghs the number of persons who live in 10l. houses bears pretty nearly the same proportion as in the larger cities, therefore, they see no reason for altering the qualification." But there are places in Scotland where there are not sufficient persons occupying 10l. houses to make councillors— and what do the Commissioners recommend?—A reduction of the number of councillors in those burghs. In some seaports and places now fallen into decay, the Commissioners recommend that the Corporation shall be reduced to fifteen, twelve, or even nine councillors, and there is a great class of these burghs where they recommend a reduction to not exceeding six; and there is another class where they shall not exceed three. Sir, I think, the recommendation of those Commissioners is entitled to great weight and respect—that the remedy they proposed of diminishing the number of councillors is the right remedy, and that you ought not to introduce the anomaly of having a different qualification in those burghs on account of their size, because if you do admit that, upon that ground alone it is necessary to alter the qualification of municipal councillors from 10l. to 5l., I should like to know on what ground you can resist reducing the Parliamentary qualification also in these burghs? On that ground I shall feel it my duty to give my decided opposition to that part of the Bill which proposes to reduce in these burghs the amount of qualification, unless reduction is not confined to the municipal qualification alone, but is extended to the Parliamentary qualification. The Commissioners think that where there are small towns there are strong reasons for removing them from the control of a burgh, and placing them, as in former instances, under the charge of their own magistrates, instead of imposing upon them the expense of keeping up the paraphernalia of the burgh. Sir, they will be glad to be relieved from that burthen and placed under the jurisdiction of sheriffs and magistrates, as was done in many other instances in Scotland. I think it is only necessary to state that, in many cases, you are legislating for villages, where, it is difficult to find three or four houses of the value of 5l., to shew that you cannot apply to them a great number of the clauses of this Bill, which may be applicable to a large town of ten or twelve thousand inhabitants, but which are per- fectly inapplicable to villages, some of which contain only 400 individuals. My hon. Friend has observed that about nine-tenths of this Bill is nothing more than a repetition of the clauses contained in the general police Act, but we are left in the dark whether the general police Act is to be repealed or not. The hon. Member also stated, that great misstatements had arisen in respect of towns not now included in the municipal boundaries, becoming liable for the debts of the burghs to which they may be united. I believe that it is not the intention of the framers of this Bill; but still they would be liable on any new assessment, for the sum of 1s. or 2s. in the pound, as the case may be, upon the property. Now, Sir, there are very many great objections to this Bill, with regard not only to Edinburgh, but to the persons who have property in the immediate vicinity of these burghs. Gentlemen who have country houses of great value have no wish whatever to have this measure carried into effect. They see no advantage that is likely to accrue to their property by being included within the burgh. I think it would be very unjust to the owners of those houses who are satisfied with the present state of things, and who wish their property to be under the jurisdiction of county magistrates, and not under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. I see, therefore, no reason why the municipal boundaries should be altered, and I think, Sir, instead of making this confusion in the burghs it would be better to keep the ancient recognised municipal boundaries, than to involve the case in very great difficulties, by raising up opposition on the part of all those persons who object to have their property damaged by being included within the burghs. Sir there will be several other points which it will be necessary to discuss when we come to consider this Bill in Committee. I think it may be shortened; I think it is unnecessary to have nine-tenths of this Bill upon police, and another statute at the same time. It is, Sir, a Bill, that, in its provisions is analogous to an Act of Parliament, which we have passed for Ireland namely, the 9th Geo. 4th., which gives to burghs all the necessary powers of Government, for establishing police, for lighting, watching, and cleansing the town, and supplying it with water. Now, Sir, when you are going to levy, in order to keep up the expense of the Corporation, you make the inhabitants of these towns liable in a very severe tax, and if those inhabitants consider that this will be an advantage, it is their affair, not mine; but I do hope that both as regards towns of that description, but more particularly as regards ancient burghs, that the municipal boundaries will not be extended for the purposes of bringing in a great number of towns that are not now subject to those heavy municipal liabilities which they will then be subject to. I will not trespass any longer upon the House, except to state that I shall feel it my duty, to suggest several important alterations in the provisions of this Bill.

.—In the Bill of last year, provisions were made that parties having an interest in the funds of these Corporations should form themselves into societies, by which those funds be administered. It is of the introduction of these provisions I now complain. I hope the hon. Member will, at least, introduce a clause to prevent the improper or lavish expenditure of these funds.

.—Sir, with regard to what my hon. Friend says, that there ought to be a clause to prevent the improper distribution of the funds of the Corporation he would imply that a Corporation has a right to distribute its funds. It has no such right — a Corporation must exist according to its grant, and can only be dissolved by the terms of that grant. Having referred to that matter, I must state that I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the northern burghs, in what he said with respect to the two acts to which he alluded relative to the town clerks and the sheriffs. Instead of one Bill being contradictory of the other, the one Bill appoints compensation to be given, and lays the foundation for the other Bill. There has been an endeavour in this Bill to take advantage of every thing that is good in that Bill, and to add such provisions as may be desirable. Then, with regard to the police, there have been great representations from the royal burghs that due provisions were necessary with respect to that, and a great number of Bills have been brought up; but if this Bill is successful in its result, it will prevent the introduction of other Bills, which will be in itself a great advantage. Sir, I do not think it necessary to take up more of the time of the House upon the second reading of this Bill, and I will only add to what has been said with reference to the city of Edinburgh, that I think it adviseable there should be a separate Bill for that city. In expressing my opinion last year I gave no pledge nor promise, and I consider myself perfectly free; but I think it will be better to take the city of Edinburgh in a separate Bill, than to include it in this Bill. I apprehend the House will have no hesitation in reading this Bill a second time; and, before it goes into Committee, I shall be happy to receive any suggestions from hon. Members upon the subject. With regard to there having been too much haste used in bringing forward this question, I think, Sir, the great misfortune has been that there has been no legislation for many years. Charities have been allowed to squander their money, and to contract debts, and defeat the objects for which they were instituted; and, if there had been a few hasty Bills brought forward forty or fifty years ago, there would not be the same difficulties that now exist. We might then have framed a code of those various hasty Bills, and still have had those funds to administer, which the munificence of royal sovereigns formerly conferred upon Royal burghs.

I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without stating that there are clauses in this Bill which I shall feel it my duty to oppose most decidedly. With regard to tardy legislation, I must say I would rather see slow justice, than injustice done rapidly—and I hope the hon Gentleman will not proceed too hastily in this matter.

Sir, having presented several petitions—some praying that Edinburgh may be excluded from the provisions of this Bill, and others that it may be included in them— I feel it my duty to express my own sentiments upon the subject. Now, Sir, I differ entirely from the hon. Baronet, the Member for the county of Edinburgh. I think all Scotland ought to be under one uniform municipal system. There is no comparison to be made between Edinburgh and the cities of London and Westminster. The city of Edinburgh forms one community by the sending of Members to Parliament, and ought to form one corporation. I am roost anxious to have this Bill to pass during this Session of Parliament, and I think if Edinburgh were allowed to remain within its provisions —that most desirable object would be rendered impossible. But I consent to its exclusion only on the understanding that there shall be a separate Bill introduced, providing for the city of Edinburgh alone, and by that Bill ample justice will be done to all classes of the community. All have equal benefits, and I do hope that the discontent which has prevailed, may be abandoned, and perpetual peace established.

Sir, I hope when this Bill goes into Committee, the objections which the burgh Members can make will be fully considered. It certainly would be desirable that this Bill should include in its provisions the city of Edinburgh (the capital of Scotland); though I agree with the hon. Member, the learned Attorney-General, that it may be expedient for the purpose of carrying the Bill through the House, this Session, that Edinburgh should be excluded. I had entertained a hope that the Bill would be considered a Government measure — that it would not be put off from Wednesday to Wednesday, and regarded as the Bill of an individual, but that it would take its place as a leading measure. If I, Sir, should find any intention of postponing this Bill, I shall, considering the lateness of the season, take an opportunity of proposing that the Bill shall be read this day six months, merely to mark the strong feeling I have upon the subject.

objected to the Bill, because it was quite unnecessary, and because it was an overloading of the Statute Book with minute laws. The whole of the legislation which it was intended to accomplish by it could have been included in six lines of the Bill, which had been just read a second time, or the Bill of the Lord Advocate, as ef- fectively as it would be by the sixty pages it comprehended. He was opposed to the principle of the 51. qualification, because he saw no reason and could augur no good from its introduction into the measure; and he deprecated confiding, as it purported to do, the magisterial power, to the class of persons on whom it was intended to be conferred. On these grounds, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would see fit to withdraw the Bill.

said, the burghs desired the measure for their own peace sake; they were in a most lawless state at present for want of an efficient system of police and a resident magistracy. Nothing could be better calculated to remedy the evils than the measure under consideration, as its great object was, to obviate them not alone in the burghs, but the incorporated towns. There were upwards of 130 petitions from the several burghs in its favour; he hoped, therefore, the House would pass the Bill.

conceived the Bill was altogether unnecessary, as a separate measure, as it could easily be embodied in either of the Bills for the municipal regulation of the Scottish boroughs then before the House. He should oppose the second reading.

supported the Bill. It was exceedingly popular in Scotland, and besides it was another step to the grand object of his side of the House, the great end of self government.

denied that the hon. Member, (Dr. Bowring) was entitled to assume to represent the popular interests of the country. On behalf of those popular interests he decidedly objected to this Bill.

supported the Bill, which was very popular in the towns in his county. This measure was very much wanted, for many of the towns were actually without local magistrates, so that depredations were openly committed without fear of punishment.

felt considerable objections to the measure. It introduced changes unjustly affecting the arrangements and property of upwards of 100 burghs in Scotland. He was opposed to the powers given to the Commissioners, enabling them to fix the boundaries of the burghs in the most arbitrary manner.

concurred in the propriety of the objections taken by the hon. Gentleman near him against the incorporation of these towns by an act of the Legislature. The power of instituting the corporations ought to be left to the Crown.

stated, in reply to a question from the right hon. Gentleman, that on the passing of the English Municipal Bill he had made inquiries as to the expense attending the grant of town charters, and he found that it amounted to 700l. or 800l., the great part of which was occasioned by the fees demandedon the number of names inserted in the charters, these names being the names of the first members of the corporation. By the passing of the English Municipal Act, however, it was not necessary to have that enumeration, and scarcely necessary to introduce any names at all in the charters; consequently there was a considerable diminution of expense on that head, and the Treasury had, upon application, remitted other fees, the payment of which they could excuse consistently with the existing law. Consequently, the amount of the fees to be paid, according to the different circumstances of the boroughs, amounted to between 120l. and 150l. which he did not think too large a sum for a wealthy and populous borough in England, requiring a charter to devote to that purpose.

said, his object was not so much to oppose the Bill as to effect a consolidation of all the different Bills. He would, therefore, take an opportunity to move an instruction to the Committee for the consolidation of the Bills. He should also endeavour to introduce a clause similar to the one in the English Municipal Bill, empowering the Crown to grant charters upon the application of the boroughs. He also expressed a hope that the fees would be as far as possible remitted, even if the noble Lord should find it necessary to apply for an Act of Parliament for that purpose, and should in consequence withdraw his opposition to the Bill.

thought it would be advisable in the present thin state of the House not to debate the measure. He therefore proposed that the discussion should he taken on the committal of the Bill.

stated, that he had no objection to the proposed arrangement.

had no wish to oppose himself to the sense of the House, but he would move the amendment of which he had given notice—

"That the principal evil of the present election law arises from its uncertainty, whereby decisions on either side of the most important questions may be given under the sanction of numerous precedents; that the establishment of a new tribunal for the administration of so uncertain a law must inevitably be attended with the following results:— 1. The public will be subjected to enormous expense to ascertain, not what is the law, but what such new tribunal may fancy ought to be the law. 2. Any tribunal called upon to administer an uncertain law, must be always suspected of improper motives, and of all judge-made law, that which involves political considerations is the most odious and the most liable to just suspicion. That these considerations render it most inexpedient to appoint a new tribunal for the administration of this uncertain law, unless that law should be rendered certain by the Legislature."

concurred with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking, that it would be more advisable to take the discussion upon the Bill at a future stage. He should then be prepared to state some grave objections to the principle of the proposed measure.

said, that it was impossible that the present law should be allowed to exist. There was at present an Election Committee sitting, and the franchise of many of his tenants, as respectable men as any in that House, depended upon the vote of a single Member of that Committee.

was surprised that any Reformer could bring forward such a measure as that, and he was determined to give it every opposition in his power.

thought, that the sum at present demanded of freemen who sought to secure their rights, amounted to a positive prohibition of them to honest men. He should therefore support the Bill. He was convinced that the friends of reform ought not to seek to limit the franchise, but to extend it.

would support the Bill. He thought that the practice of candidates enabling freemen to take up their freedom was the first step to bribery.

should be sorry if the motion of the hon. Member for Coventry were not carried. He could speak in terms of well-merited eulogy of the freemen of the borough which he represented, many of whom gave him their independent support, of which he should always be proud.

would support the propositions of the hon. Member for Wiltshire. He thought the retention of the freemen a blot on the Reform Bill, and therefore he would vote against reducing the difficulties of admitting them.

was understood to say, that he thought the House would not countenance the present system of admission, as it was one by means of which the admission fees would always be paid by candidates. The House should, therefore, pass the Bill before it.

could not agree with the argument of the hon. Member who had spoken last, because he thought that a clause which required the payment of a certain sum for the purpose of taking out the freedom of a borough, would rather tend to promote bribery and corruption. The Bill before the House was introduced for the purpose of placing freemen in a better condition than they were before the Reform Bill; and though it was true that they were subjected to a tax for the right of voting, still it ought to be recollected that there was another class of voters who suffered infinitely more on that account, he meant those electors who could not vote unless they had paid up all their taxes before the 6th of April. He did not think the payment of taxes on a particular day was a fair imposition, because it was likely to deprive many 101. voters of the franchise, from inability to pay, or accidental circumstances. He therefore thought, if there was to be a relaxation as regarded freemen, a similar relaxation ought to be granted to the 101. householders—perhaps some such relaxation as that proposed by General Evans, that the period of payment should be extended to the 1st of October of the succeeding year. He did not think, therefore, that the one class should be placed on a more favourable footing than the other. It was his intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill, but at the same time he would state, that as there ought to be some relaxation with regard to the payment of taxes by 10l. householders, he would, when the Bill went into Committee, endeavour to frame a clause for that purpose.

could bear testimony to the general integrity of the freemen. They had now lost their right of exclusive dealing, and he did not think it too much to grant this boon to them.

said, that if the House took off the tax upon the admission of freemen, they should be prepared to give facilities to the payment of rates and taxes by the 10l. householders.

observed, that having taken a part in the investigation of the Liverpool case, he felt so much disgust and indignation at the conduct of the freemen, that he was not prepared at first to give them exclusive advantages, while there was no extension of privilege to the constituency created by the Reform Act; but after what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, pointing out that this Bill might be made the means of opening more widely the 10l. franchise, which would only be just and right to those who were called into political existence by the Reform Act, he should not oppose the Bill in its present stage, as the House would have an opportunity of reconsidering the decision respecting the enforcement of the rate-paying clauses, to which, in his opinion, they most unwisely came.

hoped the hon. Member did not misunderstand him. He had not said anything in favour of doing away with the rate-paying clauses, but he had urged the propriety of a relaxation of their provisions.

said, that it appeared to him that these two measures stood on distinct grounds. There was no connexion between them. If the hon. Member for Manchester was disgusted with the conduct of the freemen, and thought that by relieving them of this tax, he was giving them an undue advantage, he ought to vote against the Bill. The hon. Member said, that he had viewed the conduct of the freemen with disgust and indignation, but he was willing to grant them this boon if he could obtain any facilities for the 10l. householders with respect to the rate-paying clauses. He thought the noble Lord (J. Russell) took a very unjust advantage of this proposition. The noble Lord said to hon. Members on the opposition side of the House, "You are bidding for the favour of the freemen, and I will bid for the goodwill of the 10l. householders." There was no connexion between the two questions. If it was right that the 10l. householders should be relieved from the payment of rates before acquiring a right to the franchise, let them be relieved on the grounds of policy or justice; but they ought not to consider the freemen and the 10l. householders as two adverse and antagonist bodies, and determine, that because one body was exempted from a certain charge, the other had a right to demand a corresponding relief. Let them ask themselves in either case, whether the proposed exemption was just or not, and relieve either the freemen or the 10l. householders as they found them entitled, according to the merits of each case. He (Sir R. Peel) should certainly, if there was a necessary connexion between the repeal of the tax on the admission of freemen, and the noble Lord's proposition respecting the rate-paying clauses, reserve to himself the right of questioning at a future stage of the Bill the propriety of relieving the freemen from that charge, at the expense of breaking down the qualification required by the Reform Act. He had always defended the rights of the freemen as they were established under the Reform Bill. He had never contemplated any extension of them, and he did not think that they had any right to call for such an extension. If it were contended that this Bill would diminish corruption, that might be a good and valid reason for relieving the freemen of the charge imposed upon them; but if it were urged that a relaxation of the rate-paying clauses ought to accompany this exemption, that argument would certainly not have the effect of recommending the measure. The sole ground on which this Bill might be supported, was not from any inherent right that the Reform Bill conferred on the freemen, because their franchise existed before the Reform Act passed; but if it would diminish corruption, that might be a very sufficient reason for agreeing to it. He was glad to hear the course which he had himself pursued, when the rights of the freemen were called in question, so amply vindicated by the testimony which hon. Members opposite had borne to the virtuous and hon. conduct of the freemen. He felt assured that private electioneering motives had nothing to do with that testimony. It was given upon a comprehensive philosophical view of the abstract merits of the question. It was a source of the greatest satisfaction to him to find, on the most unimpeachable evidence, that those whose privileges he had always defended, were the purest and the most incorruptible body of men in the country. What an injury then, what injustice, would the House have committed, if the representatives of the people had had their own way. What a great example of purity would they have lost. And yet they were now told that the Reform Bill was actually carried owing to the virtuous exertions of the freemen. The hon. Member for Coventry had told them so in express terms. He did not tell the House, as the hon. Member for Manchester did, that he had viewed the conduct of the freemen with disgust, but he declared that the freemen themselves were so anxious for the extension of the franchise, that with a virtuous disinterestedness "above all Greek, above all Roman fame," they had forced their representatives to vote for the Reform Bill. Why, what ingratitude would it have been if the House had turned round on this virtuous body, and deprived them of any portion of the rights secured to them by the very Bill which they had been so instrumental in carrying. The hon. Member for Ipswich, and the hon. Member for Chester, and the hon. Member for Coventry, ought to congratulate him on his judgment. They really ought to originate a subscription for him for a piece of plate, for having exerted himself to protect the freemen from the consequences of their own virtue, and thus hold him up as a testimony to all future times, that merit would sooner or later have its reward. The hon. Member for Ipswich declared on his honour, that there were 1,500 freemen who voted for him, and that his election only cost him 25l. He had defended the right of freemen to vote, on the ground that it was an hereditary franchise, that it was limited in extent, and one which established a connexion between degrees in society which the uniform character of the 10l. qualification did not admit of. He was glad to find an admission—he would not say a reluctant admission, as he was quite sure their votes would not be given with a reference to private electioneering interests—on the part of hon. Members opposite of the justice of these views, an admission which entirely reconciled him to the vituperations which he had received from the Attorney-General and several hon. Members on the Ministerial benches, for having defended the rights of this virtuous body, when the House of Commons was prepared to deprive them of those rights. When, however, he was asked to carry those rights further, and to relieve the freemen from a pecuniary charge which lay upon them before the passing of the Reform Bill, he must say, that if one of the necessary consequences of yielding to this request was to be the breaking down of the qualification established under the Reform Act, he should hesitate before he gave his final assent to this measure.

observed, that the remarks of the right hon. Baronet did not apply to him, as he had voted for his motion in 1831.

said, that the taunts levelled by the right hon. Baronet at hon. Members sitting on his (the Ministerial side of the House) were richly deserved. He recollected when an immense body of Reformers in that House voted for disfranchising the freemen, and he certainly concurred with the right hon. Baronet in the surprise which he had expressed on that occasion. But he (Mr. Wakley) did not deserve those taunts. He had never been a party to any proceeding calculated to deprive freemen of the elective franchise. He had always voted in favour of the freemen, for he thought the poorer classes in England ought to be represented in that House. He would support the Bill, and was glad to find that the noble Lord was disposed, by the introduction of a clause in the Bill, to effect a relaxation of the law which, in its present shape, disfranchised thousands. Why should the freemen be required to buy their franchise by the payment of a pound? It occasioned bribery. The money in many cases came from the rich, who ought to be the parties punished; for the tempter should be punished, not the tempted. He knew many poor persons, however, who would suffer the loss of their bread rather than sacrifice their political independence. And was it the poor alone who were bribed? It had been proved that in Liverpool men worth 10,000l. had received bribes of 50l. Similar proceedings had taken place at Stafford, though not to so great an extent as in Liverpool. The poor were, therefore, calumniated on the subject. The Bill would get rid of the payment of the one pound by the freemen for their franchise, and that the freeman would no longer be tempted to sell his vote to the highest bidder. He hoped also that the House would go further on the subject of extending the elective franchise than the noble Lord seemed disposed to go. He thought that the Gentlemen who sat on both sides of the House must begin to perceive what the real state of public feeling on the subject was, and that there must be no squeamish-ness on their part.

would vote for the Bill, because it would prevent corruption. He wished that all classes should hay fair play, and the abolition of the rate-paying clauses would have the same effect as the exemption from the payment of the stamp duty on admission to freedom. For his own part, he had found among the poor greater integrity and honesty than among the rich.

bore testimony to the honesty and integrity of the poorer class of voters, and particularly to the excellent character of the scot and lot voters among his own constituents.