The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-15 00:00:00

DUTY ON SOAP.
____

Lord F. EGERTON presented a petition for the repeal
of the duty on soap.
Mr. P. SCROPE presented a petition to the same effect.
Sir W. MILES presented a similar petition from the con-
sumers of soap at Bristol. The Hon. Member also presented
a petition praying for leave to bring in a Bill for the inclosure
of certain land at Clapton in Somerset.
MANCHESTER AND CHESHIRE RAILWAY

The HON. MEMBER then presented a petition from certain
occupiers of land in Cheshire, against the Manchester and
Cheshire Railway.
POOR LAWS—(ENGLAND).

Mr. D. W. HARVEY, while' he was willing to recognise
the salutary rule enforced on most occasions when petitions
were presented, would yet hope that the circumstances detailed
in those he was about to lay upon the table of the House
would be found not only as an excuse, but as a justification,
for a departure from the general practice.-. 4 Hear, hear,
hear.) He begged to call the attenthre of the House
to the contents and objects of the petitions. He had heard
with great regret the intention of the Noble Lord, the leader
in that House of his Majesty's Gove nment, to restrict the mo-
tion of which notice was given by the Hon. Member for Berk-
shire, to such an extent as greatly to impair its efficacy, if not al-
together to destroy it. There were two petitions, each of which
contained the same matter, and had in view the same
object. The one has signed by 10,000 inhabitants residing
in the town and neighbourhood of Merthyr Tydvil.; the other
by 1,500 persons ut the same class, resident in the town of
Kendal. They both complained of the operation of the New
Poor-law Act, especially of that part of it which empowered
the Guardians to make, create, and enforce a rate. As the
subject was one which would shortly undergo considerable
discussion he did not intend to go at length into the question ;
but when he called to mind the cireumSrance that the petition-
ers, who formed the great mass of the valuable industry of the
country, had no direct represetitative in that House----thev
were connected with it only by the slit ht tic of a suspicious
sympathy---he was sure there would be no attempt to interdict
their voice, The law as it stood previously affected the petition-
ers. It cruelly, and, in his mint), unjustly interfered with them.
lle would not go into a farther illustration of what he said,
than to say that the facts stated were such as fully to war-
rant him in that observatio►t, The object of the petitioners
eas not to harrow up the feelings of the Home and country by
exciting a false sympathy. They did not wish to resist the
operation of what they considered an oppressive law, but called
on the House to give to their case its most attentive considera-
tion. In the parish of kendal aged persons, who had long
passed that peilod of life when all was sorrow to man, per-
son; who bad arrived at the ago of So or 90 years, the labour
of whose youth had enriched their country, were cut
down fully twenty-five per cent, on their allowance of 2s.
The S A K git suggested that the Han. Member should
confine himself to the prayer of the petition.
Mr. H A RVE Y would observe, that if he was compelled to
contioe himself to the statements in the petition, he should
occupy a longer time than by'stating one fact connected with it.
He should on all occasions bow to the decision of the Chair,
although he should be extremely sorry if' it went forth to the
world n hen the poor, the piteous, and the houseless came be-
fore that House, their humble advocate was interdicted from
ad►ocating their cause, With these observations he should
bring up the petitiong.
BE AUCLERK had been requested to support the
prayer of one of the petitions. He perfectly an-reed is many
of the sentiments that had been broached by the Hun. Member
who preceded him, The law as it at present stood was too
harsh in its enactments, and lie regretted that his Ma-
jesty's Ministers were determined to resist the appoint-
ment of a Committee for the purpo,e of inquiring fully
into that subject. He should give his support to that Com-
mittee, and ho trusted that' a change would take place in the
opinions of his. Majesty's Government.
Jr. HARVEY presented a petition front the rate-payers
of the borough of Lambeth, praying for universal suffrage,
vote by ballot, annual parliaments, and a removal of the qualifi-
cation for Members of I arliament.
Mr. J. A. SMITH presented a petition from Chichester,
praying for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr:JAMES gave notice that on the Ist of March he should
move for certain returns relative to the Commutation of Tithes.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of, the stand►ng
Committee upon the petitions presented by the Apothecaries'
Company of Liverpool, for leave that they might sue and be
sued in the name of the Chairman, the Worcester and Wol-
verhampton Railway Company, the Leeds and Derby Company,
for leave to amend their Bill of last year ; the Preston and
Lancaster Railway Company; the Merthyr Tydvil and Jitff
Railway Company; the Liverpool. and Manchester Railway
Company, praying for leave to raise more money ; and the
Whitby Improvements petition—the Committee reported
that In ail those cases the standing orders had been complied
with, and leave was given to bring in the respective Bills.
Mr. POWER presented a petition from Wigan, praying
for the total abolition of Church-rates.

CHURCH RATES.
Mr. HUME said he had four petitions to present on the
subject of Church-rates; one included opposition to the grant
to Maynooth College. He concurred in the fist part of
the petition, which prayed for the abolition of Church -
rates, but he could not object to a grant of money which
afforded education to his Majesty's subjects. He had also
petitions from Protestant Dissenters of Plodden, in Essex ;
of Soutliwold, in Suffolk ; and the congregation of Queen
Anne-street Chapel, Dumfermline, praying the House spee-
dily to relieve thens from Church-rates.
LONGFORD ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received
a letter from Luke White, Esq., who had been returned a
Member to serve in Parliament for the County of Longford,
stating'that a petition having been presented from Charles Fox
and Lovel Edgeworth, Esqs. against his return, it was not
his intention to defend his election.
MEDICAL CHARITIES—(IRELAND.)
Mr. NT. SE Y wished to know from the Noble Lord, the
Secretary for Ireland, whether it was his intention to alter the
system of Medical Charities in Ireland. His object in putting
the question was to ascertain the views of Government on the
subject, as nothing wa3 stated last night by the Secretary for the
Home Department of a definite nature, and though it was im-
portant that those institutions, which were productive of good to
the poorer classes should be maintained. Still there was a
strong feelinr, on the subject that an alteration in the system
should be made.

Lord MOR PET II said, that by the Poor Law Bill these
charities were placed under the confront of the Commissioners
of Poor-laws. Probably some separate and distinct legislation
would be requisite upon the subject; but lie could not say
whether Parliament would'be able to take up the subject that
Session or not.

Mr. MACLEAN asked a question across the table, which,
together with the answer, was totally inaudible.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Mr. RICHARDS begged to ask whether any Hon. Mem-
b.N- on the other side could inform him what course the Attor-
ney-General meant to pursue upon the Bill for the Abolition of
Imprisonment for Debt, which stood for second reading that
evening. The country at large was deeply interested in the
fate of that measure.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in the absence of his
Learned Friend, could not give him the desired information.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The SPEAKER observed that this was one of the days
on which notices of motion took precedence. He under-
stood, however, that the Noble Lord (Morpeth) wished to
proceed to one of the Qrders of the Day, if the House had no
objection.

GRAND JURIES
.(IRELAND.)
Lord NIORPETH said the motion was one to which he
expected no sort of opposition, and he hoped the House would
grant its indulgence, in order that the Bill be carried into
effect p: evibus to the approaching Assizes, which commenced
next week. He would therefore move that the Order of the
Day for the child reading of the Grata' Juries (Ireland) Bill
be now read.

Mr. O'CONNELL said there were some mistakes in one
of the clauses which it would be necessary to correct.
Sir E. KN ATC lIBULL thought it was exceeedingly ;.m.
portant that the rule laid down should be adhered to. The
Noble Lord had stated that he apprehended no oprmsition
to the third reading .of the Bill ; but he had scar..:ely said
so, when the lion. Member for Kilkenny informed him that
there were two or three points which required. amendment.
It was therefore extremely ne2essary that the, rule laid down
by the House should be adhered to.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL was exceedingly obliged to the Right
Lion. Baronet for the great care ho took of him—for his ex-
ceeding kindness in taking his (Mr. O'Connell's) part—(A
laugh)—and the mero especially, as when the Bill went
through Committee there were tire English Members in the
lim‘se ail the others being Irish.
Lord MOl PET II would for the present waive the motion.
QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIA-

- M ENT.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH rose to move for leave Um

bring in a Bill to abolish the property qualification of Mem- ' '
hers of Parliament. For this purpose he wished to repeal the
statutes, of the 9•11 Ann, cal!. 5, and the 3d of Gen. 11., cap.
20, both of which referred to the property qualification of
Members of Parliament. He sought the repeal of those laws
because they were had in principle, and not because they
were productive of any particular grievance, although lin-
doubted!y, in some instances, they were productive of evil.
When these statutes passed, he considered that one of the
great principles of the Constitution was invaded. The sta-
tute of the nth of Anne was designed to exclude traders
and persons of that description from Parliament, as it merely
required that Members of Parliament should pessess a cer-
tam amount of landed property. It, however, left to pet i t ione; a
against the i mum of a Meml.er to prove tha 1 he was was die-
qualifieti, and this he considered the defect of that statute. By
the standing Orders of the !louse that statute was evaded, and
various attempts had been made to establish those orders.
If the Standing Order was to remain as it at present ex-
isted, the law would be ineffectual. The question before
the Committees of the House of Commons generally turned
upon the fact whether the Member was legally or equi-
tably in possession of the property for which he was
qualified. By those Committees, the nicest questions of
equity were decided, not upon the principles of law or
equity, but by feelings. What was the course adopted to ob-
tain a qualification? Why, if an iselividual possessed a suffi-
cient sum of money in the bands of his bankers, he went to
him and requested a reet-charge, which was instantly granted.
If, however, he did not possess a sufficient sum the», it was a
matter of a little more difficulty to obtain a qualification. The
individual then must go to a friend who had large property,
Dr to an attorney who would !Ind an individual who had pro-
perty, willing to grant a qualification. A deed was then drawn
up conveying the rent-charge, but that deed never went out
of the hands of the attorney. Before witnesses an apparent
transfer was made in order to give the transaction a valid ap-
pearance. The witness when called before the Committee stated
the amount of the consideration paid, though in tact by the
course that was adopted he really did not know what had in
fact taken place. In Met, as the law at present stood, an indi-
vidual must be exceedingly ignorant, and an attorney totally
unacquainted with his profession, if he were not able to ma-
nage a qualification as the law at present stood.—( Hear,
hear.) He ( Sir William Malesworth) had applied to
an attorney who was well acquainted with these transac-
tions, and ho had written him a letter, part of which he
would read to the House. He stated that if the law of qua-
lification was altered, it would deprive the country of the abi-
lities of some of its first and greatest politicians. Burke,
Pitt,- and Fox, were always fictitiously qualified. He be-
lieved that, generally, speaking, one third of the Members of
the English cities and boroughs had no bone fide qualification.
Immediately upon a dissolution, sham qualifications were
drawn up by solicitors and settled by Counsel; and he (the
writer) knew one solicitor in London who would qualify any
gentleman for 100/., including the amount of the stamp.
For these reasons, having shown that the law at the present
moment was evaded—he called on the House not to amend
that law, but to abolish it. He asked the House to return to
the system, when no property qualification wae required before
a man could get into Parliament, when constituencies were
entitled to choose whomsoever among themselves they pleased,
and when a person so selected and so chosen, with or without
a qualification, was obliged to serve.—( Hear, hear.) A case.
of this kind occurred in Somersetshire in the year 1624.
Sir Thomas Estcourt was chosen and elected as the represen-
tative for Somersetshire against his will. I find one of the
questions before the committee, according to Glanville, in
this case is, " whether Sir Thos. Estcourt 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 in-
terest in every man, that when by lawful election he is ap-
pointed to this public service, he cannot, by any unwilling-
ness and refusal of his own, make himself incapable, for that
were to prefer the will and contentment of a private man be-
f'ere 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 elec-
toral body should be permitted to select as their representa-
tives the persons whom they consider to be the 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.—( Hear. )
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
anode of life, or property. As for age, some persons propose
to exclude young men, as being apt to be too rash and too ex-
travagant ; 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 qua-
lification of property, it is certainly no test of the intelligence
or knowledge of an individual ; on the contrary, the posses-
sion of considerable property is apt to tempt an individual, by
the pleasures and luxuries which it confers, away from those
laborious pursuits by which alone knowledge can be ob-
tained ; 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 to himsel',
but were obliged carefully to search for the means of attain-
ing 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 instead of the contrary. 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 biased by
motives arising from his own pecuniary interests. As for the
greater stake in the country, the poorest men are more inter-
ested 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 accu-
mulation of capital.--( Hear, hear.) 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 pro-
perty 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 disho-
nest man ; but neediness does not depend upon the amount of
a person's property, but upon the proportion between his de-
sires 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.
_( Hear, hear.) 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 de-
sire both, and that the only security in such cases is strict re-
sponsibility, 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 pos-
sess 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 pro-
perty is no proof of the individual possessing abundant leisure
may easily be proved by the number of Learned Lawyers in
this House, all of ellen' swear that they possess at least 3001.
a year in landed property, and all of whom, briefless or not,
would equally swear that they never have a moment's leisure
front their legal avocations. Upon the ground of want of
leisure, all hankers, merchants, all persons in business, should
equally be excluded. Who would remain in this august as-
sembly ? The country gentlemen, to be the Representatives of
the intelligence, the integrity, the wisdom, and the leisure of
the community I 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 remem-
bered 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 cf property can be no test ; of this the judg-
ment 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, lie would then either abandon his profession or his
seat. Very few regulations of this description exist, though I
should think it by no means inadvisable that some rules should
he made, by means of which there might be a greater division
of employment amongst the Members of this House.—( hear,
hear.) 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.—(Cheers. )
Mr. LEADER, in rising to second the motion, said that lie
had little to do in consequence of the able manner in which
the subject had been treated by his Honourable Friend. If
this law were generally enforced, it would take away one of
the most important rights belonging to the electors, who ought
to have no restriction placed upon them in the selection of those
who were to represent their opinions and take care of their
interests. In a great commercial country like this, lie consi-
dered it to be so absurd, so against all principle, to insist that
the general body of the constituency liked none to
represent
their feelings and interests except those
who were qualified by holding a certain amount in
lands—certainly the law might be easily avoided, but still it
constituted a great moral evil forcingtdr thei elector to study
only the pocket of the candidate byin his moral qualities.
Then, again, suppose that in some place the electors could
not find a man in whom they had confidence in the qua-
lified class, but that in the other class there was
had gained their esteem by his conduct—who had amheanad who
to
understand,- and a heart full of courage to maintain their '
terests—thennint reject him because he had no land. Would
the House bring itself under the lash of the Roman satirist—
, -'grotild it also say—
ikj.,.. '4‘ Est animus tibi, sunt mores, et lingua, fidesque ;
e.; Sed quadringentis sex septem millia desunt ;
...,.'f' Plebs erns ?"—( Bear, hear.)
- 0 7
E
•

21 c.

These laws were also apt to create jealousy between the electors
:lad the elected—between the two classes—the qualified and
the unqualified. It might not be useless to consider the
origin of these qualifications, and the objects of those who
romotcd them. la the commencement of the 18th century no
iinalification for a seat in Parliament was necessary—that Par- 1
hament which in the 17th century resisted the tyranny of the
Stuarts was not called upon to swear to any qualification.
Any man would be very sanguine who would expect to see a
body of men more zealous in the discharge of their duty,
more intelligent, or persons who so truly in every way repre-
,ented the feelings of the counti y, than that Parliament was.
fa 1696, a bill was first introduced into the House of Com-
mons to qualify Member-. by the po-ses..ion of lind. Against
this Bill several petitions were presented ; and amongst tlit4n
one from Exeter, complaining that if the Bill passed, many
men who did not possess landed property, but who possessed
large personal estates, and were prudent citizens, would be
excluded from the House of Commons. Other petitions were
presented containing the same feelings—the consequence was,
that a rider was added to the Bill, allowing resident merchants
who possessed 5,0001. to be qualified The Bill, thus ren-
dered less objectionable, was rejected by the House of Lords ;
but in 1711 another Bill was introduced, which met with better
success in this House and in the House of Lords. And to
show the object of the Bill, he would read a few short
extracts front the historians of the time. The Ilonour-
able and Learned Gentleman then referred to the high
opinion expressed by Dean Swift in his Examiner upon this
1311, inasmuch as it secured the preponderance in the House
of Commons to the landed interest, and thus preventing the
country from being left wholly at the mercy of the nionied in-
terest. Another historian of that time, Mr. Boyer, said on
the contrary that the 13:11 was not mu-li approved of, inasmuch
as it might exclude persons of great parts, but of slender
fortunes: from serving the country in Parliament.—( Hear. )
It was to be seen from these extracts what the feelings and inten-
tions were of those who introduced the Qualification Bill, namely,
to uphold the landed against the monied or commercial interest.
The landed interest was attempting to put down the rising
power of the monied interest; but to do so the Bill of 1711 was
totally inefficient, and in 1760 a more stringent Bill was intro-
duced, which was the foundation of the qualification Act. That
Bill was very briefly summed up by one of the first writers of
the day, Hallam, who stated that the country gentlemen
who claimed to themselves more patriotism than any other
classes, hal introduced it in order to uphold their own ascen-
dancy and keep others from power. If there existed any ne-
cessity for the Bill in those times, it was clear there was no
necessity for it now.—( Hear, and cheers.)--The laws ap-
plicable 150 years ago were not applicable now.
The preamble of the Bill was amusing. It states that its ob-
ject is for the better securing the freedom of Parliament. If
the truth had been told it, would have been denominated an
Act for strengthening and confirming the power of the landed
interest, and restraining the freedom of election.—( Laughter.)
If the House would allow him he would make one or
two comments upon tho exceptions named in this Act—
the eldest sons of Peers or Lords of Parliament were ex-
empted.—( Hear.) Now a Peer might be a most excellent man,
but it by no means followed that his son should be so—it
by no means followed that the son should inherit the abilities
of the father—added to which, he might have squandered all
his inheritance.—( Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding all this, the
House dispensed. in his case, with the vulgar ceremony
of qualification ; but the strangest part of all was, that though
the son of the Peer had no necessity for qualification, the
father in some instances would require it.--( Hear, hear.)
The Crown had the power of creating a Peer from any class of
the community, whereas the people could only create their re-
presentatives from one class—that class must be qualified by the
possession of land. The next exemption was of Gentle-
men who served as Members for Universities. He sup-
posed that oyemption was put in out of great regard for
those learned Bodies, considering that they might select poor
scholars to represent them ; or perhaps the promoters of the
Bill had a profound knowledge of the learned and
reverend electors, and knew they were quite safe
in requiring no qualification of land from those Members.—
( Hear.) The next exemption was for Members serving that part
of Great Britain called Scotland. The plea was the smallness of
estates in that country. Now it so happened that of all the Mem-
bers in the House, there were none superior in every quality
which made a man a good citizen and a good legislator than
the Scotch Members.—( Hear from several Scotch Members.)
He said that without reference to one side or the other ;
because, although it was not required they should hold any
peculiar land or property, yet it did so happen that they were
eminently qualified in every other particular to serve as Mem-
bers of Parliament ; but at the same time they were men of
ample, if not of independent private fortune. Thus it would
be seen the electors of Scotland would elect that class of per-
sons whom the electors of England were compelled to elect.
It seemed strange that Irish Members should not have been
exempted as well as Scotch Members. —( Hear.) If poverty
were any claim for that exemption, Ireland he was sure might
put in that claim.—( Hear, from some of the Irish Members.)
Up to the time of the Union, no qualification was required
for an Irish Member but a 40s. freehold and residence, and
that qualification was abolished by an Act of George 111.
" it having been found by long usage to be unnecessary
and obsolete." Those words might very justly be applied to
the present qualification law,with this addition, that it was unjust,
absurd, and mischievous. It was not necessary to say any
thing about the inefficiency of the Act, because
every Honourable Member at all accustomed to the business
of the Ilouse was well aware the law was so easily
evaded as to be almost entirely inoperative.—( hear, hear. )
That was no argument for continuing the law; it might be a good
argument for strengthening it were it a good law. It was true
two Hon. Members representing- a portion of Ireland had been
deprived of their seats during this Parliament by the operation
of the Act, but that was owing to some carelessness or oversight
on the part of those who prepared the qualification conveyance.
It was notorious that the qualification laws were but legal
cobwebs through which the small flies as well as the great
ones could easily break. For the reasons stated he thought the law
ought to be entirely abolished ; it was contrary to the an-
cient Constitution of England—it was especially unfair towards
the constituencies—it was bad in principle, and so inefficient in
its operation as in every case to produce improper effects.
Its existence in England, in Wales, and in Ireland, brought
with it no good; its absence, as in the case of Scotland, was
found to produce no evil.—(Hear.) But its continuance
on the statute book was attended with bad results to the elec-
toral bodies by directing their attention too much to the pecu-
niary qualification of their candidates. Under these circum-
stances he felt much pleasure in seconding the motion of the
Hen. Baronet, the Member for Cornwall.
Mr. A. TREVOR could not avoid, at that early stage of
the proceeding, expressing his determined and free opinion,
that even in the present times a more dangerous innovation
was not attempted than that now proposed. The Hon. Ba-
ronet thought fit to throw a sneering imputation on that class
of Members who belonged to the country gentlemen of Eng-
land ; but he ought to thank Heaven that he was placed by
Providence among those whose advantages to the community
he seemed so little to value.-1( A laugh.) They were sent
into that House as the representatives of the monied, the
agricultural and the trading classes, and they were bound to
partake of the interests committed to their care. He did not
think the arguments of the Member for Bridgwater of any
avail, because at no time should it be more imperative on Hon.
Gentlemen to resist any alteration of the present system. It
had been stated that the Bill was so imperfect that it might
be perpetually evaded ; but that was only a reason why it should
now be more strictly enforced. In the present times, which
had been called times of improvement, but which he ( Mr.
Trevor) would call times of evil, it might be considered pre-
sumptuous in him to interfere ; but he felt he was only dis-
charging his duty to his country in opposing a Bill under
which a beggar might be taken off the street and returned to
that House.—( Oh !) He knew not what might be the fate of
this motion, but he trusted that in the opposition he was about
to give to the motion he should receive the support of a very
considerable number of the Members present. No one who
had the interests of his country at heart would countenance a
Bill, the effect of which would be to degrade the character of
that House, and it was therefore his intention to take the
sense of the House upon the present motion.
Mr. E WA R T rose amidst cries of " Question." He
would not be deterred from giving his opinion on this sub-
ject. fie was glad the Hon. Gentleman opposite had not
allowed this question to pass sub silentio—he was glad that
one lion. Member at least had endeavoured to rescue the
Tories from the imputations that had been thrown upon them,
and that he was determined they should not remain altogether
undefended. There was no denying that many men of the
first talent bad Leen excluded from Parliament for want of a
qualification. Previous to the year 1710, no qualification was
necessary, and he would ask did not the Parliaments discharge
their duties up to that time? Scotland had no qualification,
but was not that country admirably represented ? Her Mem-
bers were constantly in their places—they constantly voted
independently, and he hoped to see them constantly the terror
of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.--( A laugh.) Knowing the
Bill had never been carried into execution, and that it had
been evaded in all shapes, he was for no qualification whatever.
Ile would therefore support the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. WA RBURTON thought °ther descriptions of pro-
perty ought to be admitted to give a qualification, than that
which at present did so.
Mr. MACL EA N could not admit the necessity for the
entire abolition of all qualification whatever.—( Hear, hear.)
Ile well recollected the occurrence of a circumstance which
appeared to him to show to what extent the present system
was defective. Mr. Fairlie put up for a borough, for which
he was returned ; but, finding that, although possessed of
other property to the amount of at least 100,000 L, he had not
sufficient property in land to constitute a qualification, lie,
after his election, purchased the requisite landed qualifica-
tions ; but it was decided that he had been too late, and that
he could not maintain his seat.—( Hear, hear.) Now that
certainly afforded an argument in favour of the introduction
of personal propert) as a qualification.—( Hear, hear.) But
he would look with the greatest suspicion at the abolition of all
qualification. If lion. Gentlemen would do so, and admit
the great body of the canaille into the House—( Ironical
cheers from some of the Liberal Members)—why not make a
corresponding change in the qualification of the electors as
well as the elected ?—( Hear.) The House might as well,
under such circumstances, come down with the principle of
Universal Suffrage at once.
Mr. HUME, with reference to an observation which fell
from the Hon. Member for Oxford, that if they abolished the
qualification of the elected, they would be called upon to re-
move that of the electors, said that such an argument con-
tained its own answer, for two tests were not wanted ; all
they wanted to get rid of was the superabundant test. He
wished the Hon. Gentleman opposite would explain what he
meant by calling this proposition an anomaly. Why, in that
sense, everything in that House was an anomaly.—( Hear,
hear.) It was to do away with the real anomalies that anal}
measures as this were brought forward. Hon. Members op-
posite seemed afraid of universal suffrage, but they seemed to

forget that it was the old elective system.—( Hear.) The
lien. Member fur Durham was for retaining the reprezenta-
tion in the hands of a monopolizing few, but he (,M:. Hume)
maintained that the widest possible scope should he given to
electors. He differed on similar grounds from the lion. Meru-
bsr for Bridport, who only went as far back as the reign of
Anne. lie maintained that, according to the old law every man
qualified to vote was qualified to sit in Parliament. The worth of
the old Acts, indeed, were to the effect that the burgesses should
choose from " among themselves " a fit and proper person to
represent them in Parliament. la Scotland the phrase was
an honest man '—( A laugh )—thoue h he would not go the
length of inferring, from that, that where the property quail-
laeithm 1%119 required honest inen:reuldnot he got.---( A laugh.)
But the Act was worse than useless, for it was constantly,
anal with the greatest ease, evaded. He rejoiced that it had
been so evaded, for if that had not been the ease the repre-
sentation of the people would have been confined to a
particular class. [The lion. Member, in support of his
ge-
neral views on this question, then proceeded to read extracts
from a book by a Mr. Bailey, of Sheffield, animadverting-, in
very strong terms on the evils arising out of the use of the
property qualification. Among the rest the writer said that
it gave rig:: to extensive perjury.] He (Mr. Hume) would
ask sonic Hon. Members on the other side of the House, on
whom he had his eye—those who were so apt at times to rise,
with sanctified countenances, and cry out against that (the
Ministerial) side, that they disregarded the sanction of the name
of the Deity in their proceedings—how the; could give their
support, in what he must call the spirit of hypocrisy, to a sys-
tem which opened the dour to such gross and continual perjury ?
The law did not prevent the electors from electing a man,
however bad ; while, on the other hand, it excluded all uteri
although possessing to the fullest extent all the qualities ne-
cessary to make a good senator, if they did not possess the
requisite property qualiiieathim Upon the whole, he was de-
cidedly of opinion that the property qualification was bad,
that the motion of his Hun. Friend was legal and constitu-
tional, and that both the mover and seconder had brought
forward arguments arid proofs that had not been answered by
those Hon. Members who had spoken on the other side.
Lord F. EGERTON—The lion. Member who had just
sat down had laid down the broad principle, that whoever was
fit to be an elector was fit to be elected.
Mr. lIITME explained—What he had said was, that per-
sons qualified to vote were, under the ancient practice, eligible
to be representatives, if elected be their fellow-citizens.
• Lord F. EGERTON said, admitting the explanation of the
lion. Gentleman, it was clear to him that it would be argued,
from the principle of the elector needing no qualification, to
the principle that the person elected needed none. It was on
this broad ground that he differed from the supporters of the
proposed Bill; and he could not but add, as one of " his Ma-
jesty's genuine Opposition," who had been called upon, that
if Ministers met with any of those little obstacles which their
supporters seemed so much to fear from that (the Opposition)
side of the House, it would arise from the introduction or the
sanctioning of such measures as these.—( Cheers. )
Mr. O'CONNELL—Did the Noble Lord really imagine
that if that House were disposed at a future time to agree to
grant universal suffrage, they would stoop to found their con-
cession upon the circumstance of the property qualifications of
Members of Parliament having been done away with ? When
the time came for the establishment of universal suffrage, and
ho sincerely hoped it soon would come, the Noble Lord
might depend on it that the proposition would be founded on
a much broader principle.—( Hear.)---With respect to the
question of a property qualification for Members of Parlia-
ment, he felt that the law as it existed was quite anomalous.
There was no such law in Scotland. Ireland had had no such
law until the Union ; nor had it been known in England in
the reigns of the Edwards, the Henrys, of Elizabeth, the
Charleses, of James, of William—not until the " glorious"
reign of Anne had that principle been introduced into the
electoral law; and now to hold the scruples upon it which
some Members professed to entertain was really absurd.
When introduced, it was got up to serve the purposes of a
party, and was by no means to be looked on as a part of the
great principle of the Constitution. He recollected a saying of
Jonathan Wilde, that mischief was of too much value to be
wasted. On the same principle he would recommend Hon.
Members opposite not to throw away their powers of mischief
upon objections to Reforms—at all events let them not waste
them upon: the mere introduction of_a Bill. They would
have quite enough of a necessity for them afterwards.—
( Hear, hear.) Above all, lie would suggest to them not to
waste their expressions upon those whom one Honourable
Member (the Member for Durham) had called the lower or-
ders, and whom another Hon. Member (the Member for Ox-
ford), had thought proper to designate the canaille.—( Hear,
from the Ministerial benches.) Lower orders indeed I lie
would be glad to know what the Hon. Member meant by that
epithet.
Mr. A. TREVOR had never made use of the expression
attributed to him by the Hon. and Learned Member.
Mr. MACLEAN also rose in explanation. He' certainly
had made use of the term canaille. Did the lion. and Learned
Member mean to say that there was not in all countries a class
of persons to whom that designation applied ?—(" hear,
hear," from the Opposition, and cries of " No, no," from the
Ministerial benches.)
Mr. O'CONNELL—I certainly understood the Honour-
able Member for Durham to have used the expression " lower
orders ;" and it seems the Honourable Member for Oxford
aid use the epithet canaille, for he justifies Hear, hear.)
But I believe the phrase " tag-rag and bob-tail" was also
used by the Honourable Member for Durham. —( Laughter,
and cries of " Hear.")
Mr. TREVOR again rose, and said with much warmth—l
ask, Sir, whether the lion. Member for Kilkenny is justified in
going on imputing to me ad libitum expressions which I never
used ?—( Laughter, and cries of " Hear," with ironical cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) What he (Mr. Trevor) had
really said was, that one of the evils this measure might pro-
duce was that there would be nothing to prevent the mendi-
cant who begged his bread in the street from being forced into
the House to legislate for those who had millions at stake. He
had never used the words " lower orders," or " tag-rag and
bob-tail."--( Hear. )
Mr. O'CONNELL—At all events my mistake was shared
by the Hon. Member for Oxford, for he, too, had thought that
the Hon. Member for Durham had used the phrase " lower
orders." But he (Mr. O'Connell) maintained that the pro-
perty qualification, when compared with the evidence of fitness
afforded by the election of a poor man, dwindled into insignifi-
cance. It was in human nature to respect the rich man, and
to accord advantages to the possessor of riches which the poor
man could not hope to attain. The rich man, then, was almost
certain of success, from circumstances apart from his fitness or
ineligibility for the office of Representative. But the poor
man must be supposed to have some very high talents and
qualifications, indeed, in order to ensure him the choice.—
( Cries of " Hear, hear.") He maintained that the selec-
tion should be left at the full option of the people of Eng-
land, as it now was to the people of Scotland. What right
had they to assume that the people would abuse the
trust reposed in them ? What right had the lion. Members
opposite to stand in the gap, and say that the question should
not even be considered in that House—that no Bill should be
brought in having for its object to relieve candidates from this
drawback ? Would it not be time enough to oppose the Bill
when it was in Committee ? It was not treating the people of
England well ; nay more, it was riot adopting a prudent course
with them.—( Hear, hear.) lion. Gentlemen opposite had
much better save themselves for their operative Conservative
societies—those associations which showed that they were glad
enough to gain the support of a small portion of die people,
although they were for excluding the great mass from their
confidence. Ile hoped that at least the Bill would be allowed
to come in, and that the people would be shown that the House
was desirous of increasing the facilities afforded them in the
choice of candidates for their representation.—( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had come down to the
House prepared to support a motion of which the lion. Ba-
ronet had given notice, " For leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the law relating to the qualification of Members of
Parliament ;" but the motion which the lion. Baronet had
actually made was one of a very different kind, inasmuch as
it set out with abolishing the property qualification. He
( Lord J. Russell) was decidedly of opinion that it was inex-
pedient to make laws which never ought to be enforced, and
which every man might conscintmusly evade. No one, for
instance, thought it necessary that every member of that
house should have a landed property rental of 3001. per
annum, because it seemed anomalous that a merchant who,
although worth hundreds of thousands in money, yet might
not have a rental from land, should be excluded from that
House.—( Hear, hear.) To this extent he was certainly de-
sirous of going on re-modelling the law of qualification, be-
cause it would do away with an absurd law,- and one that must
almost necessarily be evad ,d. At the same time, also, he
must say that he did not think the law as it existed, was con-
sonant to the spirit of time ancient Constitution. For by the
meaning, as he took it, of the old custom of election the can-
didate must be a citizen and burgess, in the sense of his being
a trader and a man possessed of property in the town for which
he was to be elected ; and not that the candidate might be a
mere stranger, if possessed of a sufficient landed qualification.
The Act of Anne was, in point of fact, the result of a jea-
lousy at the time existing between the landed interest in the
country and the trading interest, when the latter were favour-
s should
certainly
shape
able to the Hanoverian succession, and the influence of the
former it was that procured the passing of the Act in order to
mhgebueersstiquestion
property
of
abolitonkeep down the trading interest, and throw the electioe qua-
lification into their own hands. Therefore it was he ( Lord
J. Russell) was anxious that the
Hear,
}aarroe tofofsrhil
his motion as originally intendeed(o.plelioef didthiis rciooutnmtrey,aarwnliaatsmoeemsnatiy..
that any great harm would be done, ifieet
qualifica-
tionbelieved Nver e
thatabo a
tine bolished
sensealto altogether—( tthhcer
\Vfieii the Bill atsh
iii cseolinecntiiiotnteco,f
might be brought on ; but, unless the lion. Baronet would
consent to move in the first instance to amend the existing
law, without pledging the blouse to the principle of abolition,
he would be compelled to vote against the motion.—( Hear.)
Sir WILLIAM M Of, Es\vo la II said that the discree
pancy between the first notice and the motion had been the
result of accident only. He had all along intended to move
for the abolition of the qualification.
Mr. C. BULLER hoped that the Hon. Baronet would
not accede to the request of the Noble Lord—that he would
not make concession where no positive good was to be ob-
tained by it, nor be splitting straws about such a trifle as the
practical operation of this Bill must be. It was well known
that this Act was as it stood but a picas of foolery and fraud,
and that the only motive for its repeal was, that there might
be as few lies as possible upon the statute book. Therefore,
by all means, let it be repealed, even though Hon. Gentlemen
opposite should be terrified by the weak argument that the
abolition of property qualification in Members would be fol-
lowed up by a similar measure as regarded electors. He cer-
tainly thought that they should as little as possible fetter the
people in their choice of Representatives.
Lord lifilNGTOlki--If the 1-04. 44rottet cgried thv

question to a division he should certainly vote for him.—
( Hear, hear ) Whatever might have been the circumstances
under which the originators of the Act of Anne introduced it
the times were now altered. While the holder of a borough
could send any man whom he chose to Parliament—in times
when one of those individuals could gravely threaten to send
one of his own blacks into that House—it was advisable that
there should be some provision against the occurrence of such
contingencies ; but in the present day the good sense of the
electors afforded a guarantee which rendered such an Act un-
necessary, and rendered it impossible that the contingency
contemplated by the lion. Member for Durham could
arise. But the great objection in his ( Lord Ehrington's) opi-
nion to this property qualification was, that it led to practices
of ,deception on the part of Members of that I louse whirl',
although custom sanctioned them, and relieved those who re-
sorted to them from the stain of all dishonourable imputation,
were yet calculated to hold them up to the contempt and
odium of the people. Ile alluded to the practice of fictitious
qualifications, and to the virtual perjury that must arise out
of that practice. Ile entertained no fear of the proposed
change. The example of Scotland supplied him with reasons
for resorting to it. But, above all, he called on the House to
look at the question as bearing on a recent proceeding of his
own. Only a few nights ago they had appointed a Committee
to inquire into the practice of creating fictitious votes in Scot-
land. How could they, with any consistency, condemn this
practice, if they admitted the same principle in the qualifica-
tions of Members of that House ?—(llear.)
Mr. WA KLEY rose, amidst cries of " Divide." He would
not have risen at all but for the remarks of the Hon. Member
for Durham. That Hon. Member in commencing Ida opposi-
tion had said that the Members of that House were there to
protect the lauded and commercial interests of the country.
But were there no others who demanded protection from the
House ? Were they not sent to protect also the rights and
►iberties of the people of England ? —( Cheers from the Minis-
terial Benches, and " Hear," from Mr. Trevor.) The Hon.
Gentleman cried " Hear," but they were items which he had
certainly forgotten in his account.—(Ministerial cheers, )
Mr. A. TREVOR, attempted to explain, but
The SPEAKER. reminded him that the present was not
the proper time, unless with the consent of the Member ad-
dressing the House.
Mr. WA KLE Y continued. lie maintained that there
were no rights of more importance in this country than the
rights of labour. Those rights were wholly unrepresented in
that House.----(" No, no.") Hon. Gentlemen said "No I"
but what was the real state of the working men ? Were they
not in a state of constant excitement on account of their real
or supposed wrongs? For his own part he would be glad to
see some working, men in that House.—( Hear, hear.) Yes ;
and he felt convinced that the country would never enjoy com-
plete internal peace until the working men were some of them
present in that House, and see the workings of Legislation,
the difficulties that lay in its way, and so make those allow-
ances which were not now made out of doors. He repeated
that the working men were not protected in that House, and
that they would not be until they were represented there by
some of their own body. The qualification had originally
been proposed, because it was expected that men of property
inside the House would sympathise with men of property out
of doors, and with no other classes of men. If the Noble
Lord supposed that by the course he had taken he would con.
ciliate his enemies he was very much deceived, for he was
winding through a devious course of right and wrong, which
would not only shake the confidence which his friends had in
him, but lead the Reformers to the conclusion that they were
betrayed by their advocate, and that, until Radical Reform
was obtained they never would be represented.—(Cries of
" Divide, divide.")

Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, in explanation, said that what
he had said was, that they sat there to represent the landed,
the commercial, and the moneyed interests, and protect the
rights, privileges, and immunities of those who sent them to
that flousc.—( Hear. )

Sir W. MOLES \S-70RTH said that he was exceedingly
sorry it was not in his power to comply with the request of the
Noble Lord the Member for Devon, in adopting the sugges-
tion of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment. He considered a property qualification bad, but he
was by no means favourable to universal suffrage.
The House then divided. The numbers were—
For the motion lO4
Against it .. 133
_ _

Majority 29
Mr. WAKLE Y moved for leave to bring in a Bill " to
abolish the system of plural voting in Vestries and Unions, and
to secure to each rate-payer the right of giving one vote and
no more." The Hon. Gentleman said that as this was the
same Bill that he introduced last session he would the discus-
sion of it on the second reading.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as he had consented to
the introduction of the Bill of last year, he would not object to
the course which the Hon. Gentleman proposed to pursue.
He should, however, most certainly oppose the measure on the
second reading.
Mr. C. W. WYNN thought it a waste of the time of the
House to consent to the introduction of a measure, when it
was intended to oppose the principle of the Bill at a future
stage.—Leave to bring in the Bill was then giren.
LAW OF PATENTS.

Mr. MACKINNON moved for leave to bring in a " Bill to
alter and amend the patent laws, and for better securing to in-
dividuals the benefit of their inventions." The Hon. Gentle-
man pointed out the defective state of the laws relating to pa-
tents. A patent extending over Great Britain and the colonies
cost as much as 350/. or 3601. ; but, in his opinion, 2001.
would be amply sufficient for the purpose. He proposed that,
instead of the present machinery, three Commissioners should
be appointed, with powers to grant patents, and, with the
sanction of the Lord Chancellor, to make all by-laws that
might be necessary on the subject. He proposed that the sum
to be paid for patents to the Commissioners should be from
81. to la, and that the Commissioners should open a gallery
for the exhibition of models, drawings, &c., somewhat like a
national gallery, and he calculated that if a shilling were
charged for admission to this gallery it would produce a very
considerable sum annually, which might be made available for
the purposes of the plan which he proposed. He thought
those who had taken out the license, and whose models were
axhibited, should be entitled to the full benefit of their inven-
tions for one year certain. He contended that from the exhi-
bition proposed a fund would be created much beyond that
which was derived under the present system—a fund which,
after providing for all necessary demands, would put into the
hands of the Government annually a considerable sum of mo-
ney. He wished that full compensation should be given to
those who at present derived fees and emoluments from the
registration of patents.

The SPF.AKER having put the question,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not feel any dispo-
sition to oppose the motion. He was fully aware that, under
the existing system, very great inconvenience was felt, and
he was glad that it was proposed to amend the present system.
He, however, would remind the Hon. Member that a com-
mission had been brought forward to inquire into the whole
system. lie (the Attorney-General) was afraid that the
Board proposed by the lion. Member would be invested with
powers of too arbitrary a nature. He thought also that the
establishment which the lion. Member proposed, consisting of
three commissioners, a secretary, and clerks, would be an ex.
pensive establishment.
Dr. BO WRING agreed with the Hon. Member opposite
that some important change in the law respecting patents was
necessary. He doubted, however, whether the machinery of
the present measure would be found effectual.
Mr. BWA RT thought the subject of importance, and was
glad it had been brought forward.
The motion was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be
brought in by Mr. Mackinnon and Mr. Baines.
CASE OF MR. JOHN DILLON.
t o thelA aßttpe
nr
no s
ne inth
ep uHrsnunasini c et
oo f
the tl e nnoatsiee e
01 ife hadlr. given,
John
Dillon. w
Cork
010
f,
a,
vesselin 123, had
laden
with
a preventedn the
nn
t rah
an d landing onthe
cargo,
and coasthad
of
forced the vessel into Kinsale, where she was seized, and her
cargo sold ; and it was stated that -it produced upwards of
53,000/. This individual, at the time being a chief officer in
the Coast Guard, understanding that a vessel of this description
was off the coast, proceeded to sea with two boats for the pur-
pose of boarding her. On nearing the vessel he found that
her crew was too large to admit of his attempting to board her
with any chance of success. He, however, continued to dis-
charge a constant fire of musketry into the vessel until he forced
her into the harbour of Kinsale, where she was seized by the re-
venue, condemned, and herself and her cargo sold for upwards
of 53,000/. The party whose case he now submitted to the House
applied for the share of this seizure to which he considered
himself entitled. His application was, however, met at the
time by an assertion that, as there was an appeal against the
condemnation of the vessel, his claim could not be entertained
until the appeal was decided. Ile subsequently took the com-
mand of a vessel in the West Indies, and, whilst there, was
constantly looking to the Gazette to ascertain whether the
vessel had been condemned. When he returned to this
country, in 1828, he renewed his claim, but was met by a
charge that he had been guilty of cowardice in not having
boarded the vessel in the first instance. Circumstanced in
this way, and with such an imputation upon him, he felt desir-
ous that an investigation should take place ; and when Lord
Althorp was a member of the Government, an inquiry was
granted. The matter was at last referred to Sir Edward
Codrington, and that officer declared in June, 1836, that no
imputation of cowardice could he brought against Mr. Dillon.
[ Here the lion. Member read a note from Lord Spencer, de-
claring that no charge was maintained against Mr. Dillon.]
This statement would be found to be the correct representa-
tion of the whole matter. Mr, Dillon, when lie returned from
the West Indies, found that grievous imputations had been
cast on his character. As was natural, he tried to have the
charge investigated, and, after 10 years' anxious intreatics, he
obtained from Lord Spencer that Sir Edward Codrington
should decide on the case. That officer acquitted him of cow-
ardice; but a second plea was set up against his claim, namely,
that his application had been too long delayed, and was then
too late. But it would he proved by the documents which
were to be produced that he had before put in his claim for a
share of the prize-money. Under these circumstances, he
now prayed the House to grant him a Select Committee, to
investigate the circumstances under which the Peru was
forced on shore at Kinsale, and captured, in the year 1823 ;
and to inquire into the disposal of the prize-money proceeding
therefrom.

On the question being put from the Chair,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
in nothing should the House more practice economy than in
the distribution of the public time. But it would act altoge-
ther in opposition to that rule if it did grant a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the case of Mr. Dillon, who had ap-
pealed to successive Governments, and had had his documents
examined by each, and judgment given against him in every
case. Mr. Dillon had not the slightest claim to any share of
the money he demanded. Gentlemen of all parties had been
at various tiine4 Mr, Wiw's Wii4t wait it that

the House was now asked to do ? Why in I 837 to decide on
a case which had occurred in 1822, and which depended on
nice evidence respecting minute matters. The House was, in
fact, to assume that the decisions come to by a special Court,
and by gentlemen of various parties, were gill erroneous. The
lion. Member for Bradford seemed to have adopted a fallacy
at the very root of the matter ; for he assumed that the deci-
sion of Sir E. Codrington ought to be conclusive. But if the
Hon. Gentleman read attentively the letter from Lord Spen-
cer he would find that it declared against what he demanded.
Sir E. Codrington merely declared that there was no ground
for charging him with cowardice. Mr. Dillon after this re-
ceived 501. front the Treasury, which certainly was a small
sum, but which lie thought fit to pocket. He made no claim
for a number of years, and the reason he assigned for such a
line of conduct was, that his crew were exceedingly unruly
and disagreeable, and as they might claim a share of the money
arising from the sale of the vessel if his demand was allowed,
he had determined to postpone his claiM for some years, and
thus punish them. Such a reason was in contradiction to the
common motives which governed human nature, and ought not
to meet with much credit. He could not see that the case had
been made out, and therefore he would oppose the motion.
Mr. HARDY maintained that the Committee ought to be
appointed, and alleged as a reason for Mr. Dillon's accepting
the 50/. given by the Treasury that he was in extreme want at
the time.

The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —26
LAW OF LIBEL.

Mr. O'CONNE L said that in bringing this subject be-
fore tyre house, he brought a matter with which they were al-
ready acquainted. Two•ycars ago he had called the atten-
tion of the House to the subject, but before the second reading
of the Bill which he had introduced had taken place a Select
Committee was appointed, and the Session was wasted in
taking evidence on the subject. Last year he was unable to
proceed, being much occupied during the early part of the
Session, though when he was returned again for Kilkenny he
again obtained leave to bring in a Bill on the subject. The
Attorney-General at present did not object to his again taking
up the subject, though he reserved to himself the power of
opposing it in an after stage of the proceedings. As he had
twice obtained leave, he did not then anticipate any objec-
tion to bringing► in the Bill.—Leave was then given.