The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-10 00:00:00

VOTE BY PROXY.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for
going into Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved the resolution of which
he had given notice, and stated that the course which he then
proposed to pursue was, first to invite the House to affirm,
" That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by
proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments
is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason,
that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and
well-founded complaint among all classes of his Majesty's sub-
jects ;" and after the House should have affirmed that resolu-
tion, as he had no doubt it would (for he could not believe
that they would so far stultify themselves, as to reject so rea-
sonable a proposition), he would move—" That a message be
sent to the Lords requesting a conference, at which the fore-
going resolution might be communicated." He was happy to
say that he had good reason to believe that when the resolu-
tion in question should be so communicated, it would not only
be well received by that assembly, but would be warmly
responded to by many of its most distinguished members.—
( Hear, hear.) The first notice to be found of proxies
was in the reigns of Edward I. and Edward 11., when the
Bishops of Durham and Carlisle were ordered to remain in
Scotland, where they were defending the Marches, but were
at the same time commanded to send up well-instructed
persons to represent them ; and from that time to the reign
of Henry VIII. Peers, when unavoidably compelled either by
illness or employment by the King on foreign wars to ab-
sent themselves from Parliament, were enjoined to send
proxies, but these proxies were not members of the House,
but men of lesser rank ; the spiritual Lords being frequently
represented by parsons, prebendaries, and any Members of
collegiate bodies whom they chose to send. So at all events
up to that period those who were to decide upon the fate
of great questions had at least the decency to hear those
questions put. From Henry the Eighth to Charles the First's
time a new and worse system obtained, any one Peer being
then permitted to represent any number of Peers. In the
reign of Elizabeth an Earl of Bedford it appeared, held 15
proxies, and in Charles the First's reign a Duke of Bucking-
ham fourteen : this latter case, however, being much mur-
mured at by the public. it was ordered by the House that
thenceforth no Peer should hold more than two proxies—a
rule which was still strictly observed. There has been, how-
ever, an alteration of recent date introduced. Until the
close of the last century peers who wished for leave of
absence were obliged to apply for it to the King, and
were sometimes refused, as in the case of Lord Scroop in
the reign of Henry VIII., when his servant and his medical
man were under the necessity of making oath of that Noble-
man's sickness before his excuse was admitted ; and a Peer
being absent without leave forfeited 1001. In 1768 the oaths
of two credible witnesses were required to prove a sufficient
cause of absence for any peer ; but at the close of the last
century it was decided, during the insanity of George 111.,
that the King's permission might thenceforth be dispensed
with ; and so the last remaining protection that the people of
this country huh against blind legislation was for ever swept
away. In 1695, Lords Derby, Weymouth, and Lempster,
having sent excuses which did not satisfy the House, the
question in debate was sent to them, and they were required
to return their assent or dissent in writing. In 1646 a cu-
rious and ludicrous•in,tance of the impolicy of the custom of
voting by proxy occurred. Lord Say and Sele, who then
held Lord Mulgrave's proxy, having voted in opposition to
the wishes of the latter Peer, Lord Mulgrave thereupon ad-
dressed a letter to the House, disclaiming any participation
in the opinions expressed by his proxy, and his vote was
accordingly changed to the other side. But what were the
historical excuses urged in favour of the practice of Peers
voting by proxy at all ? Historical writers, generally speak-
ing, gave none, but seemed all content to quote the dictum
of Sir Edward Coke in his 4th Institute, " That any Lord of
Parliament, by licence of the King, upon just ground, to be
absent, might make a proxy ; but a knight, citizen, or burgess
cannot, because he is elected and trusted by multitudes of the
people." Blackstone, and other writers on the Constitution,
seemed also satisfied pith merely quoting these words, without
comment, excepting De Lolme, who said, that .` the Lords
were Members of the Legislature by virtue of a right inherent
in their own persons, and they were supposed to sit in Parlia-
ment on their own account, and for the support of their own
interests ; in consequence of this they have the privilege of
voting by proxy, the Commons not having this privilege, as
they were but proxies for the people." But lie (Mr. Dun-
combe) thought that the principle laid down by De Lolme
and by Coke was completely set aside by the practice of the
Scotch and Irish Peers, who were clearly not Members of the
Legislature by any right inherent in their own persons, but
were themselves, like the Commons, proxies for others, and
yet they voted by proxy. We had at present 420 Peers
—two-thirds of that number might be absent, and yet
vote upon any question involving., perhaps, the welfare and
fate of the country, and a majority of the remaining one-third,
namely, 75 individuals, were to be considered superior in judg-
ment and ability to the 658 Members of the House of Com-
mons ; or let it be supposed that 135 Peers should be present
during a debate upon a Bill, in framing and considering which
the House of Commons should have passed many long and
anxious nights, was it to be borne, that when 100 of those
'present might have voted in favour of that measure, a mise-
rable monopolizing minority of 35, by simply emptying their
breeches pockets of 70 proxies, enabling them to represent
as many absent Peers, some of whom, perhaps, were in China,
others dancing at Paris, others amusing themselves at a Carni-
val at Rome, and some possibly in the grave—was it to be borne,
lie said, that these 35 should have it in their power to defeat
such a measure, and to disappoint the wishes of the country,
and render futile the labours bestowed on the subject else-
where ? We might talk of the civilization of the people, and
boast of our "free institutions," but this was one which was an
insult to our understandings, and which he (Mr. Duncombe)
thought he had shown was not borne 200 years ago, and to
which he could see no reason for submitting now. In making
this motion he could assure the House that nothing was fur-
ther from his intentions than to increase any feeling of irrita-
tion which the conduct of the present Peerage might unhap-
pily have given rise to. No one who had the public good at
heart would wish in these times to widen that civil or that re-
ligious breach which was daily opening before us ; on the con-
trary, he thought much might be done by timely concession
and mutual forbearance : at present the concession and for-
bearance had been all on one side ; it bad been entirely on the
side of the House of Commons, for which reason he believed
that the Peers of England did not hold so high a place in the
estimation of the people as they had done. The Hon. Gen.
tleman concluded by moving his resolution.
Sir W. MOLE SWORTH seconded the motion.

Mr. A. TREVOR said that the Honourable Member for
Finsbury told the House that he had no wish to widen the
breach between that House and the House of Lords. The
Honourable Member had taken a very extraordinary mode of
evincing that feeling.—(A laugh.) The Honourable Mem-
ber had taken the very means of aggravating that feeling.—
(Cries of " No, no.") He ventured to tell the Honourable
Member for Finsbury that if he anticipated, or if he was led
to imagine that the House of Lords did not stand high in the
estimation of the country, he was very much in error indeed.
It might be well, ad captandum vulyus, to broach such opi-
nions as those expressed by the Honourable Member for Fins-
bury. He (Mr. Trevor) knew not how far such opinions
would please the people of Finsbury, but he could tell the
Honourable Member that these opinions did not accord with
the feelings of the educated classes, or with the respectability
of the country, with those who had property to defend, or to
lose.—( Hear, and loud laughter.) He protested against the
course adopted by the Honourable Member for Finsbury, as
inconsistent with the Constitution, and the privileges of the
other—and equally independent—branch of the Legislature.
Captain BERKELEY considered the resolutions one of
conciliation, and if the House of Lords took it in good part
they would make a great advance in the good opinion of the
country.
Mr. T. D'E YNCOURT agreed with the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member that the adoption of this resolution would tend to
raise the House of Lords in the opinion of the country. If
that House could be brought calmly and deliberately to review
the privilege themselves, he was sure they would be disposed
to give it up. With respect to what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Durham (Mr. A. Trevor) as to the right of that
House to interfere with the privileges of the other, he would
venture to say that the privileges of that and of the other
House of Parliament were intended for the benefit of the
people, and that House, as the Representatives of the people,
had a right to review those privileges. If the other House of
Parliament had not long possessed this power, they would in-
dignantly reject, and consider it an insult to make a sugges-
tion to them that they should adopt such a privilege.—( Hear,
hear.) He did not conceive there was any impropriety on the
part of his Hon. Friend in bringing the matter before the
attention of Parliament ; but instead of the. resolution that had
been proposed, he would suggest that it would be better to
come to a resolution to recommend the House of Lords to
review these privileges with a view to the alteration of the
custom.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY could not help feeling that the Right
Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had upon hi,'
mind some proceedings connected with a more recent occur-
rence in that House than what had taken place in the other
House of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman brought forward a motion last night which he
thought of great and overwhelming importance as regarded
the constitution of that House, and, notwithstanding this,
the attendance on the Hon. Gentleman's oratory was not
very great, nor was the effect very impressive.--( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman came down to-night and
complained of what occurred in one of the deliberative legis-
lative assemblies of this country. He did not say which.
—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He proceeded to ask, would

any Hon. Gentleman imagine that in a civilized country a
practice could exist of some Members sending down others to
vote for them on motions without hearing the reasons pro
and con, and without having weighed well the reasons on one
side or other.--( Hear, hear.) " How was it possible," ex-
claimed the Right Hon. Gentleman, " for any person to give
a proxy unless after attentively listening to the viva voce rea-
soning on the subject.— ( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Stanley)
would ask what happened last night.—(" Hear," and laugh-
ter.)--Why did not the Right Hon. Gentleman consult the
Hon. Member for Mary-la-benne on this subject ? Why did
lie not consult that Hon. Gentleman as to the extreme impro-
priety, the unconstitutional course of proceeding, the custom
so absurd, that it ought not to be tolerated by a civilized peo-
ple, of the members of a legislative assembly pairing off for
two or three hours for the purpose of refreshment—( Laugh-
ter)—or the whole of the night, and then coming down to
give a decision on a question on which they had not heard one
word of argument.—(" Hear," and laughter.) He knew that
the Right Hon. Gentleman was very ill treated last night dur-
ing the period he was addressing the House ; for while the
Right Hun. Gentleman was speaking there were hardly forty
Members present-4 Laughter)—and because the division
took place before ten o'clock, the Hon. Gentleman had a
large minority of 87. It appeared that with a view to refresh
themselves, Hon. Gentlemen paired off last night for two or
three hours, and afterwards came down to vote without listen-
ing to any portion of the debate ; but this he might be told
should be regarded as nothing, because a person by study
might have been convinced of the reasonableness of a proposi-
tion without hearing the discussion. He admitted the force
of this argument, but how a man could consistently give a vote
for a whole Session—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—on all
questions that might come before that House, was perfectly
incomprehensible to him. And had they never heard in this
House of such a practice as pairing off for a week or month,
for half a Session, or for even a whole Session ?—( Loud
cheers and laughter.) He would not enter upon the ques-
tion of the privileges of the House of Lords—( Hear)—
the privileges of that assembly which represented only
themselves, and which was actually an independent
branch of the Legislature, the Members of which possessed
the undoubted right, through other members belonging to it,
of voting by proxy.--( Hear, hear.) But, sacrificing all the
force that this argument gave him, he was content to rest his
case upon what he had previously stated, which was a valid
argument, not against voting by proxy in the House of Lords,
but against that House, because they were a representative
body, and representing those that gave them Legislative
proxies; and the Members of that branch of the Legislature
were nothing but proxies in that House.—( Hear, hear.) But
setting aside the privileges of the other House, those who
argued against proxies in the other House, and not against the
practice of pairing in the House of Commons, were guilty of
the most flagrant inconsistency.—( Cheers.) He did not con-
sider that the Hon. Member for Lambeth complained of the
position in which he was placed in Members coming down
to that House to vote on the motion he brought forward
who had not heard the discussion.—( Hear, hear.) He
(Lord Stanley) contended that as a matter of consistency Ho-
nourable Gentlemen opposite must accompany the condemna-
tion of pairing with that of proxy.—( Hear, hear.) But there
was nothing inconsistent that the Members of the House of
Lords, which was a body only representing themselves, and
not elected to represent the people, should have the right of
delivering their opinions by proxy as well as by voice. He
must say, that it was most inconvenient to delay by such mo-
tions the business of that House, instead of expediting the
Bills before them. Hon. Gentlemen, when passing such se-
vere censures on others, should turn some attention to the
course now pursued in that House.
" Oh, that some power the gift would gie us,
To see ourselves as others see us."—(Cheers and laughter.)
He did not refer to one side of the House more than the other,
but he wished to impress upon Hon. Gentlemen how unneces-
sary it must be to proceed with notices of motions when other
business of such grave importance was before them—when
such indifference was manifested by the majority, that it was
not possible to get together some thirty-five or thirty-eight
Members. He was glad that his Noble Friend ( Lord John
Russell) had that night interposed by movine the Order of the
Day on the first motion, for this showed equal respect or
disrespect to all the motions on the book.—( Laughter. )
He should vote for the motion of his Noble Friend to go into
the Committee on the Irish Poor-laws, even if the motion
under discussion tivas of more importance than it was, but,
above all, as it was a question open to very serious objec-
tions.—( Cheers. )
Mr. WA K LEY wished the Noble Lord possessed the
ocular gift to see himself as he was regarded by others sitting
where he did, and speaking and voting as he was now accus-
tomed to do.—( Hear, hear.) If that was the case the House
would have been saved from the infliction of that speech which
the Noble Lord had just delivered.--( Hear, hear.) He was
glad, however, that only one Member had defended the prac-
tice of voting by proxy, and that Member was a Noble Lord.
The common sense of the nation cried out against the practice
of voting by proxy, and he would tell the Noble Lord that the
common sense of England would not long endure the practice.
—( Hear.) Because Members paired off for weeks or months,
was it a sufficient reason to justify the practice of sending pieces
of paper from the continent of Eutope for years together to
authorise any member of a legislative body to vote for another?
( Hear.) He, for one, thanked his Hon. Colleague for
having brought forward this motion, and fur the future it
would become a sessional motion until it was carried. The
Noble Lord justified proxies by the practice of pairing in that
House, but one abuse would not justify another. If the Noble
Lord did not approve of pairing, as he appeared to do, why did
he not bring forward a motion to put a stop to it ? But what
justification was that practice of voting by proxy? He trusted
that his Hon. Friend would press this motion to a division, and
he was convinced that in the course of three years he would

carry it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL trusted the House would not come
to a vote on the present motion until they were aware of the
principle involved in the motion, and also considered how they
would hereafter deal with this principle. In the Bill which they
would have to consider, he trusted, immediately after the pre-
sent motion was disposed of, he found the following expres-
sion :—" And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any
rate-payer from time to time, by writing under his hand, to
appoint any person to vote as his proxy in respect of any pro-
perty not in the actual occupation of such rate-payer, and any
such appointment shall remain in force until revoked."—
( Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman had made an
inquiry of one of the Members of the Tower Hamlets. He
doubted not that Hon. Gentleman would have agreed with
him had he been present ; but as both the Members for that
borough were absent, he had no doubt but that they had paired
off.—( Laughter.) His resolutions were to this effect :
First, " Resolved that the practice of letting members of any
deliberative legislative assembly vote withont having heard all
the arguments on both sides of the question, was incompati-
ble with every principle of justice."—( Laughter.) His second
resolution was this :—" Resolved, that the absence of Members,
by pairing for several hours for the purpose of refreshments,
and for several weeks at a time, from the questions under
discussion, without hearing the arguments which arose on such
questions, was becoming a source of well-founded complaint
among all classes of the community."--( Great laughter.) He
would ask the Hon. Member opposite whether it was not clear
that they should attack the evil in their own House, before
what might be good elsewhere.—( Hear, hear.) He agreed
with one suggestion that had been thrown out on the opposite
side—namely, that they should begin at home.—( A laugh.)
They could not speak to the House of Lords on this subject,
before they reformed themselves on a practice which they had
the high authority of the Hon. Gentleman for saying it was
bringing them into contempt.—( Hear, hear.) But suppos-
ing that the amendment of the Hon. Member for Finsbury
was carried, and was ordered to be sent up to another place
—supposing, also, that an amicable conference took place—
( Laughter)—what should prevent the other House presenting
them, in return, with a counter resolution ?—(Laughter.)
The Hon. Gentleman proposed that this resolution should
be presented to the Lords. He (Sir R. Peel) would pro-
pose that after passing the resolutions he had read, as to not
hearing arguments, and to the practice of pairing, the following
resolution should be adopted :—" Resolved, thirdly, that the
Hon. Member for Marylebone be requested to bring in a Bill
founded on the previous resolutions."—(Renewed laughter.)
Before they proceeded to discuss the clauses of the Bill which
took away the right of proxy from the other branch of the Le-
gislature, ought they not to consider what took place last night,
when one of the Metropolitan Colleagues of the Hon. Gentle-
man said that he had paired off till ten o'clock, but had spoken
to show that he was present ? What figure would they make
before the House of Lords in presenting the resolution of the
Hon. Gentleman, if this matter should become known ?
(Laughter.) Therefore he would give this advice—namely,
that they should not proceed with the resolution, but get rid of
it by allowing the House to go into Committee on the Irish
Poor-law Bill ; and that, before they attempted to take away
any of the privileges of a co-equal and independent branch of
the Legislature, they should take the beam out of their own
eye before they attempted to take the mote out of another's.—
( Laughter and cheers.)
After a few words from Major HANDLEY, the House
divided—

For going into committee
Against it
Majority against Mr. Duncombe's
amendment -48

POOR-LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Clauses up to 12 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 13 some discussion arose.

Mr. JE PHS ON objected to the arbitrary power given by
this clause " to the Commissioners, :or other persons autho-
rised under the Act, to require the production of books, con-
tracts, agreements, accounts, maps, plans, surveys, valuations;
or writings, or copies thereof, any persons refusing to produce
such documents being rendered liable to a charge of misdemea.
nour. If this clause were permitted to pass in this shape, there
would be no protection for private propel ty against the caprice
of the Commissioners.
Mr. WOUL FE said that the clause in connection with
clause 2 especially excepted from the operation of the Act
" all titles or papers relating to the titles of any lands, tene-
ments, or hereditaments, not being property subject to be taken
by or vested in the Commissioners by virtue of the Act." The
clause explicitly stated that the Commissioners were autho-
rized to act as a Court of Record. The clause merely entitled
the Commissioners to call for the production of muniments or
deeds relating to the property of parishes, to charity lands,
and not to the private property of individuals.
Col. PERCEVAL and Mr. LUCAS also objected to the clause.
Lord MORPETH said the power given to the Commis-
sioners for Ireland did not differ from that vested in the Eng-
lish Commissioners.

Mr. SH EIL proposed that the clause should be linked with
the 36th clause, 'having reference to the same subject.
Colonel PE lICE VAL moved the postponement of the
clause,