Reform in every shape? He had been sent to the House to do his duty to his constituents and to the country, and he would never allow it to be said that it was a sufficient Reform which gave the suffrage to no more than one-seventh of the whole male population. Since the years 1806 and 1807, when the Whigs were in power, he had adhered to the creed which the hon. Baronet had taught him. He had never been a Whig, nor professed to be a Whig; but, on the contrary, he had always said, that, bad as were the Tories, they were still better than the Whigs.

these Gentlemen. He regretted that the and it was not he, but the hon. Baronet hon. member for Preston, and other Gen- himself, that had changed sides. What tlemen who sat near that hon. Member, sort of alliance did the hon. Baronet form availed themselves of every opportunity to when he, the advocate of short Parliaembarrass the business of the House, and ments and Universal Suffrage, became the to impede the progress of Reform. He supporter of Mr. Canning, and was seen thought the alliance which that hon. sticking his knees into that right hon. Member had formed was most unnatural; person's back, after his declaration that nor could he understand how that Gen-he would to the last hour of his life resist tleman reconciled his votes with his speeches. The hon. Member's conduct was very different from that of all the true friends of Reform throughout the country. All those who were sincerely desirous of Reform had determined to accept that measure which gave the best chance of being carried into effect; and when such a measure was offered to them, they, with the greatest wisdom and prudence, concurred in supporting it, and each of them gave up his own favourite plan. It seemed to him to be most extraordinary, that any friend to Reform could decline to support the only measure which had a good prospect of success, and should persist in calling for another measure which could have no chance of being carried into effect. He thought the conduct of all the other Reformers was much more sincere and judicions. They were unanimous in favour of the Reform Bill, to a degree such as never had been witnessed before in this country upon any public question.

|

Sir John Newport said, that if the hon. member for Preston's declaration were to receive credence, it would appear that he alone spoke the sentiments of the people; and that he alone, of all the Members of that House, was their real Representative; so that he stood in the situation of being an universal Member-a position in which he did not feel disposed to allow the hon. Member ot stand. He must remark, however, that Mr. Hunt said, the hon. Baronet had he rose for the purpose of replying to an accused him of forming an unnatural assertion of an hon. Baronet (Sir R. alliance with Gentlemen on that(the Oppo- Vyvyan), who contended that Ireland had sition) side. Now, was it not the fact not contributed her fair proportion to the that he had always voted against them? burthens of the State. Now he must say, As to his inconsistency on the subject of that he could prove, by reference to an the Reform Bill, the hon. Baronet must authority of undeniable weight, that Ireknow very well that he expressed the land had not only paid her proportion, same opinion on that Bill on the first day but had paid a sum towards the public that he spoke about it as on the last day. burthens much exceeding her proportion He did not think it a sufficient measure, of the weight, and this fact would be found and he said the first day that the people in the Report of the Committee, at the would be dissatisfied with it. But still he head of which was Lord Bexley, which voted for it, as he would have done if it had been appointed in the year 1816, for did not go half so far; and he would have the purpose of inquiring into the subject voted for any measure that went to re- of Finance. move even a part of the abuses in the Representation. The hon. Baronet could not fairly blame him for not supporting the Whigs, for it was the hon. Baronet who taught him to distrust them, when the hon. Baronet used to talk of the Constitution being crucified between the two thieves. It was from the hon. Baronet that he had learned his political creed;

Sir Richard Vyvyan said, that he had been misunderstood, for he had confined his remarks to the statement of a simple fact-namely, that in his opinion, Ireland did not contribute so large a proportion to the public burthens as to entitle her to a larger share of Representation than she now possessed.

Sir John Newport said, that he had

Sir Richard Vyvyan assured the hon. Baronet, that he had been misunderstood, what he had repeated was the full substance of his former remark.

Colonel Trench said, he must corroborate the hon. Baronet in the denial he had given of the observations imputed to him. He was prepared to admit, that the people had been carried away by the delusions which had been practised on them with regard to the Reform Bill; but they were fast coming to their senses. He must also remark, that the Press was daily becoming more licentious and abusive with respect to the Bill. He himself had seen a paper that day, at the head of which was a gallows, and three Bishops suspended from it, the contents of which pointed out to the people that they ought thus to take vengeance on that body for having contributed to throw out the Bill. He did not mean to say that Government ought to take any measures with respect to these publications: but he did really think that they had of late given an indirect and tacit encouragement and sanction to such attacks from the Press.

certainly not understood the hon. Baronet's just the same inconsistency, he had supobservation to be so confined as he had ported the Administration of the Duke of then explained it. Wellington and Mr. Peel, by whom that. great measure of civil and religious liberty was successfully carried through. He had always looked upon the system of religious disabilities, which was then abolished, as the great stumbling block which it was necessary to remove before they could ever be able to proceed to Parliamentary Reform. He would go further, and assure the hon. Member, that if the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel had gone on in the way in which they had set out, he would have continued to give them his support. If there were now any set of men in the country who thought that the Reform Bill did not go far enough, he thought it would be a sufficient answer to them to say, that no more extensive measure could be carried into effect, although no measure less efficient would be offered. It seemed rather inconsistent of hon. Gen tlemen opposite, in the same breath to blame his Majesty's Ministers for exciting the people, and to assert that the people were not excited. But the fact was, they represented the excitement of the people to be great or small, not as it really was, but just as it answered their own purposes. When the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Trench) said, that the people were now coming to their senses, of course he attributed their restoration to reason to the wise and temperate appeals that had been made to them, and to the conciliating language that had been employed by the hon. Gentleman's friends around him. But the excitement which prevailed, was only the excitement of anxious hope, that his Majesty's Ministers would adopt every measure which could assist them to carry the Bill. But if it were supposed by the country that Ministers would shrink from employing all the means in their power, they would lose all the regard and confidence, which, fortunately for the peace of the country, they now possessed. He thought that hon. Gentlemen were mistaken, if they supposed that there was any diminution of the feeling of the people upon the subject of the Reform Bill. On the contrary, their anxiety was wrought to the highest pitch, and the worst consequences would follow if anything were done to destroy their hopes, or to delay the realisation of them too long. It certainly could not be denied, that the Members of that House required some relaxa

Mr. Dominick Browne, in moving that the petition be printed, said, he must object very strongly to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Vyvyan) on the subject of the contribution of Ireland towards the demands of the State. He wholly denied the correctness of the assumption of the hon. Baronet.

Sir Francis Burdett looked upon the two factions of Whig and Tory to be now nearly extinct in everything but the name, and he believed that the Reform Bill would put an end to them altogether. It was true that he supported Mr. Canning, when that right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of his intentions in favour of religious liberty, was deserted by his party, who pulled the best feather from their own wing when they drove Mr. Canning from their side, and they ever afterwards made but a bad flight--something between a hawk and a buzzard. But the hon. member for Preston who now attacked him (Sir Francis Burdett) must be well aware, that he supported Mr. Canning for the purpose of enabling that Minister to carry the great measure of Catholic Emancipation. On the same grounds, and with

The Attorney-General was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make a remark which was, in effect, contending, that quesSir Richard Vyvyan, in answer to the tions of law and equity ought to be decided hon. member for Mayo, wished to remark, in proportion to the value of the property that all he had said was, that if popula-in litigation. According to the present tion only was the test of representation, any part of the empire might be taken. Petition to be printed.

system, it was usual for a Commissioner to postpone a case until he could obtain the assistance of his fellows; but really this Bill did make a provision to meet the BILL-COM-circumstance complained of, as there were

two jurisdictions to be established, either | Mr. Paget said, that under the Bill, the more or less expensive; and the Commis- official assignees might control the others sioner would, of course, refer the question in the matter of appeals. This, be thought, at issue to that Court which was best was giving them too much power. adapted to settle the question according to the funds of the estate.

Clause agreed to.

On the Clause giving to the majority of Assignees the power to authorise an appeal,

Sir Charles Wetherell said, this was a new and novel mode of limiting the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. He objected to it, on the ground that it would alter some of the most important principles of equity-practice. As the law at present stood, the Chancellor had the power to refuse an appeal in a matter of fact, on his own discretion, but he was not compelled to do so; but by this clause, the judges appointed by it, were finally to decide upon all matters of fact without appeal. This was giving them too great a power.

Mr. Warburton differed wholly from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He approved of the plan, that the judges of the Court of Appeal should decide finally. There was one point, however, he wished to have altered, and that was, that when a case was remitted for a further trial, on the plea that evidence had been wrongfully rejected or received, it ought to be sent to another set of Commissioners, and not to those who had previously decided the

case.

The Attorney-General said, his hon. and learned friend the member for Boroughbridge was in error, when he said the decision of the Court of Review was to be final, for from their decision an appeal might be had to a Jury.

Mr. Freshfield had been told by the hon. Gentleman who supported the Bill, that there was to be a two-fold appeal, but here there was only one, for there was to be no appeal from the inferences drawn upon matters of fact by the Commissioners, which was giving them a power superior to the Judges of any other Court, against whose judgment a bill of exceptions could be tendered.

The Attorney-General would agree to diminish that power, if, upon consideration, it appeared expedient.

Sir Charles Wetherell said, there could be no doubt but that the Commissioners would have more power than any other Judges of the land, except the Lord Chancellor. He would say no more of that part of the clause which had been postponed, but he must again declare, that, in his opinion, these Commissioners ought not to have the power to direct issues to be decided by a Jury when they thought proper, as he believed it would operate as a premium for them to send all cases to a Jury, instead of taking the responsibility of deciding them themselves.

The Attorney-General said, there were only two cases where the Commissioners had the power to send cases to an issue; these were by the assent of both parties, or by deciding when called upon by one of the parties for an opinion, to say whether the case was fit to go to an issue. If the Commissioner decided at once and was wrong, he would certainly hear of it from his brethren the next day, or if he was in the habit of remitting cases for the opinion of Juries which were of trifling consequence or easy of decision, the same measure would also be dealt out to him; so that they had pretty good security against the Commissioners falling into either extreme.

Mr. Hunt heard quite enough to convince him that the Bill would not work well, and when the public found that out, they might also learn that it was discussed in a House of about thirty Members.

Mr. Warburton said, the effect of these appeals, would be endless expense and delay. It was provided, that if one of the partics and the Commissioner agreed, there was ground for an issue. There must be one, unless the other parties appealed against it to the Court of Review, which must lead to expense and litigation.

The Solicitor-General said, an appeal could be made from the Commissioners' judgment on a point of law, but a Jury would find as to the facts. If a case was not referred to a Jury, that in itself would be a sufficient proof that the parties themselves agreed as to the facts, and were satisfied with the decision of the Commissioners., and would work well.

Mr. John Campbell said, a Court without an appeal from its decisions, was an anomaly in our system of law. Too many appeals on the other hand were bad. Looking at the clause as a whole, with these views, he thought it would answer the purpose for which it was intended,

Clause agreed to.

On a Clause relating to the new trial of issues being moved,

Sir Charles Wetherell said, he wished to have an appeal to the Lord Chancellor by this clause.

Mr. Warburton disliked the whole system of these appeals; the suitor would have more than enough of these shuttlecock proceedings, in being sent from Jury to Judge, and back again, without the help of the Lord Chancellor to play out the game.

Mr. Paget had no doubt appeals might be sport to the lawyers, but they were death to the suitors. He had been once concerned in a case of bankruptcy which got into Chancery, where it stuck fast twenty years; he therefore wished to keep his shuttlecock out of Chancery at any

On the question that the Bankruptcy Court appoint official assignees to bankruptcies now existing, and removed into the Court, stand part of the Bill,

Mr. Warburton wished to know whether in those cases in which official assignees were to be appointed, together with assignees acting under existing Commissions, they would be entitled to a per centage? It had also been stated, that the parties interested, under existing Commissions, would not be entitled to partake of the benefit of the fees to be reduced. If they were not to have the benefit of the smaller charges, they certainly ought to be allowed to retain their own assignees.

an unfair proceeding, if assignees were to be called upon to give up all the effects now in their possession to the official assignee, they certainly ought to have the benefit of the reduced charges.

Mr. Wilkes said, it certainly appeared an absurd proceeding, to give these official assignees an ex post facto control over the existing Commissions.

Mr. Freshfield said, the object of the clause could be obtained, by directing the existing assignees to pay the assets of the estate into the Bank.

The Attorney-General said, the object of the appointment of official assignees was, to insure that responsible persons should have the control of the assets; if there were to be any exceptions to this authority, the powers of the Bill would be much cramped in its operations.

Mr. Paget said, it should be left to the creditors under every estate to determine whether they would have an official assignee or not.

Mr. Daniel W. Harvey said, that this appointment was proposed with a view to give the creditors security for the due payment of the funds received under the commission. As things now stood, Commissions were often made the means of jobbing among some of the leading parties concerned. To obviate these jobs was the object of this clause.

The Attorney-General said he proposed to introduce some words to prevent this clause from affecting such suits as were now in existence; and with that view, he would beg to move, that these words be inserted at the end of the clause. "Without prejudice to any action or suit commenced, or contract entered into, prior to the passing of this Act.

to.

Amendment adopted, and clause agreed

On the Arbitration Clause being put, Mr. Warburton said, that one of the duties which this proposed tribunal should consider, as that for which it was principally appointed, was to mediate as far as possible, between the parties. It often happened, that the matter in dispute, was not with the expense to which persons in their exasperation against each other, were disposed to go. Hitherto no attempts had been made to prevent this; on the Mr. Warburton begged to ask, how it contrary, the principle had always been was, that the assignees now conducting" We have nothing to do with mediation, Commissions, were not to have the benefit of the reduced rate of charges? This was

The Solicitor-General said, the official assignees would have nothing to do with the management of such bankrupts' estate, they were merely to get in the assets.

litigation is our work." He wished it now therefore to be a part of the law, that an