HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 22.

The Lord Chancellor brought forward a motion respecting the COURT OF CHANCERY, and its Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy cases. His Lordship dwelt at great length on the abuses of the Court, and on the general character of the remedies which he intended to provide. He said he contemplated, first, a change in the constitution of the Court; secondly, to keep apart the administrative Judges and the judicial functionaries; and thirdly, to substitute vivá voce evidence, where practicable, for depositions. One distinguishing feature of his plans would be, the payment of Judges, Masters, and their dependents by salaries, instead of fees. The evils of fees he considered as almost indescribable, especially as far as dependents were concerned. The fees to Masters and others, and particularly fees and "gratuities" to the Masters' clerks (which the public called "bribes"), his Lordship proposed wholly to abolish. In speaking of the abuses in the Masters' offices, his Lordship mentioned, that as much as fifty pounds (6 gratuity "had been given to a clerk for a report, where the usual fees did not exceed 71. His Lordship said, that his plan also embraced reform of the practice in lunatic cases; amongst other improvements he proposed to provide, that questions respecting the soundness of an individual's mind should be tried before the Judges and a jury in Westminster Hall, and not by a commission. Another reform was the extinction of the fourteen lists of Bankrupt Commissioners, and the providing in their stead ten Judges, consisting of one Chief Judge, who should preside over the whole, three senior and six junior Judges. Cases to be heard before them sitting in banco, or before the Chief Judge (or president) and juries; a power of appeal to lie to the Lord Chancellor on points of law alone. The noble Lord described the abuses of the country commissions as very flagrant; he should make some alterations in the mode of appointing the commissioners; and if the plan he had proposed should succeed, some of the Judges in bankruptcy might go circuits at fixed periods. By separating the bankruptcy business from the Court of Chancery, he calculated that the Lord Chancellor's annual income would be diminished between 7000l. and 8000., and he would lose the patronage of 70 offices. There would also be a reduction of fees receivable by individuals from suitors, &c. to the amount of 73,000l. a year. The noble Lord concluded by laying

[March,

before the House the first of his three bills, which was read the first time.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, the same day, Lord Howick moved for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of facilitating settlements by voluntary EMIGRATION to his Majesty's foreign possessions. To supply the means, his bill would empower parishes to mortgage their rates, for a term not exceeding ten years, with the consent of twothirds of the rate-payers. It would be a provision of the bill, that the emigrant thus provided for should not be permitted to return to this country, so as to be again liable to be thrown for support on the poor rates. -Several Members condemned the scheme of mortgaging the poor-rates, and considered the provision that those who should emigrate under this plan should forfeit all claim to future parochial relief, as an impracticable measure.---Leave was eventually given to bring in the bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 25.

The Lord Chancellor introduced the second of the bills for the better administration of justice in the CHANCERY JUDICATURE. This bill related to cases of Bankruptcy, and all he should now ask of their Lordships was to permit him to lay it upon the table.Lord Lyndhurst, at great length, took a review of the whole series of measures proposed by the noble Lord, showing that all the leading points he (Lord Lyndhurst) had himself introduced to Parliament in a bill which was thrown out chiefly by the exertions of the present Lord on the woolsack.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 28. In a committee of the House, Lord Althorp moved that the Excise Duties and Drawbacks upon Printed Cottons should cease and determine. His Lordship said that he intended to take off the ad valorem duty of six per cent. on the importation of the raw cotton, which was equal to threeeighths of a penny on the lb. and to impose a duty of five-eighths of a penny on the lb., and to allow the drawback on printed cotton for three months. The motion was agreed to.

March 1.-Lord John Russell brought forward the important measure of PARLIA MENTARY REFORM. After some introductory observations, on the policy and expediency of effecting a Reform in the Representation of the House of Commons, the noble Lord proceeded to explain the nature of

1831.]

the measure which his Majesty's Ministers wished to propose for the adoption of Parliament. He said that the chief grievances of which the people complained were three : first, as to the nomination of Members by individuals; secondly, elections by close corporations and thirdly, the expenses of elections. With regard to the first head, where it was found that boroughs contained but few inhabitants, and where the elective franchise was only a means of enabling certain individuals to nominate and send Representatives to that House, it would be right to take away the power from the individuals, and to deprive the borough of its franchise. It was proposed, that every borough not having a population of 2000 inhabitants, according to the census of 1821, should lose the right of sending Members to Parliament a measure which would utterly disfranchise sixty boroughs (cheers). Of fortyseven boroughs, the population of which was only 4000 each, it was proposed that they should only have the right to send one Member to Parliament. Weymouth, which now sent four Members, would in future only send two. The result would be this: the disfranchisement of the sixty boroughs would take away 119 Members; these, with the Members taken from the forty seven boroughs (one from each), and the two taken from Weymouth, would give a total of 168 Members deprived of seats. The mode of extending the elective franchise was proposed to be as follows: every householder, rated at 10l. per annum, whether the house which he inhabit be his own or be only rented, should possess the right of voting; persons at present possessing the right of voting not to be deprived of that right, provided they actually resided in the borough for the representation of which they possessed a vote. With regard to nonresident voters, they were, under the present system, productive of so much expense, caused so much bribery, and led to such manifold evils, that it was not deemed expedient that they should retain their privilege. With respect to the elective franchise for counties, it was proposed that copyholders possessing property rated to the amount of 10l. a year (which included persons now qualified to serve as jurors) as well as persons holding leases of the yearly value of 50%., and to the extent of 21 years, should be entitled to a vote for the county. The proposed plan would cause a reduction of 168 members of that House, but it was the opinion of Ministers that it would not be expedient to fill up all the vacancies thus created. It was proposed that seven large towns, now unrepresented, namely, Manchester and Salford-Birmingham and Ashstead-Leeds-Greenwich, Deptford, and Woolwich-Wolverhampton, Bilston, and Sedgeley-Sheffield-and Sunderland and GENT. MAG. March, 1831.

the Wearmouths, should each return two members. It was also proposed that twenty other towns, which were smaller in size and less in importance, now unrepresented, namely, Brighton-Blackburne-Macclesfield-South Shields and Westoe-Warrington-Huddersfield- Halifax Gateshead-Whitehaven, Workington, Harrington-Kendal-Bolton-Stockport-Dudley -Tynemouth and North Shields-Cheltenham-Bradford-Frome, Wakefield-and Kidderminster, should each send one Member to Parliament. There was a great portion of the metropolis, the inhabitants of which, 800,000 or 900,000 in number, were wholly unrepresented in that House; it was therefore proposed to give to them the right of electing eight additional Members. The districts on which this right was to be conferred, were, the Tower Hamlets, and the districts of Holborn, Marylebone, and Lambeth, each to return two Members. It was also proposed to make an addition of two Members each to the following twentyseven of the larger and more productive counties; which, each, contained not less than 150,000 inhabitants, including two ad ditional Members for each riding of the county of York, Chester, Cornwall, Cumberland, Derby, Devon, Durham, Essex, Gloucester, Kent, Lancaster, Leicester, Lincoln, Monmouth, Norfolk, Northumberland, Northampton, Nottingham, Shrop shire, Somerset, Stafford, Southampton, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Warwick, Wilts, Worcester, and the East, North, and West Ridings of Yorkshire. An additional Member was also to be given to the Isle of Wight.

The noble Lord then proceeded to notice the present mode of voting at elections, which he characterised as very imperfect. In order in a great measure to remedy the evils of the system, it was proposed, that for the future all the electors of boroughs, cities, and towns should be registered. A list of all persons occupying houses rated at 10l. a year, was to be prepared by the parish officers and churchwardens in their respective parishes, including all those persons at present entitled to vote. This list was to be placed on the church-door, and at a certain period of the year the returning officer of the borough was to hold a sort of court, and hear the claims and decide the rights of those persons whose votes had been deemed objectionable. This done, he should declare and publish the list, so that every body might obtain a copy; that list to be the election-roll for the ensuing year. These arrangements would be found as easy of execution as simple in proposition, and would, it was believed, put an effectual stop to those riotous and disgraceful proceedings which at present so frequently occurred at the election hustings. The thing being thus simplified, it was intended to limit the duration

25.

258

of the poll to two days. It was to be hoped that the time would arrive when the most populous boroughs would be enabled to poll all their voters in one day. The next consideration, said the noble Lord, was the mode in which it was proposed to take the sense of the counties with regard to the election of their Members. It was suggested that the churchwardens, &c. should make out lists of persons in their parishes entitled to vote, affix them to the church doors, and that a person should be appointed by the Judges of Assize, who should make a circuit through the whole county once in each year, and hear and settle all disputes as to the rights of voters. The list, when settled, to be signed and transmitted to the Clerk of the Peace, and constitute the roll of electors for the ensuing year. In order to obviate the enormous expense incurred by county elections, it was proposed that the poll for each county should be taken in separate districts, which were to be named and decided upon at the quarter sessions; the arrangement not to undergo any change for the space of two years. It was intended that the poll should last three days, and the poll-books being conveyed to the Sheriff by the proper persons appointed to superintend the election, on the sixth day he was to declare on whom the choice had fallen. The districts were to be so dispersed over the whole of the counties, that no voter should henceforth have to go more than fifteen miles to tender his vote. The arrangement of these districts being a matter of some difficulty, Commissioners of the Privy Council were to be named by his Majesty, to see that the thing was properly done; and also to be empowered, when the number of electors by the proposed regulations should be found too small in any of the boroughs, to add to their numbers from the adjoining parishes and chapelries, and thus form a larger body of electors for such places as should be found to be deficient. These High Commissioners, whose known responsibility and character were to be a guarantee for the proper performance of their impor tant functions, should report their proceedings to his Majesty in council, who would cause public proclamation to be made of the mode in which the divisions of the counties had been effected, and how the deficiency in the electors for boroughs had been supplied. The noble Lord stated, that, according to the present plan, the man who acquired a vote for any city, borough, or town, would not have the right of voting for the county; thus, while the towns possessed a representation of their own, the electors should not interfere in the election of county Members

the two classes of voters being for the future to be kept entirely distinct from each other; at the same time it was not intended to interfere with the freeholders who at present held their rights as such in Great Bri tain, Government being ced that

[March,

even the 40s. freeholders were well qualified to exercise the elective franchise, and that it was by enabling sinall proprietors to vote, that they should give that extended basis to the representation of Great Britain which it was desirable for it to possess. His Lordship then read the following list of the boroughs intended to be disfranchised, amid shouts of laughter from all parts of the House, as each unlucky place was mentioned :-Aldborough (York), Aldborough (Suffolk), Appleby, Bedwin, Beeralstou, Bishop's Castle, Bletchingley, Boroughbridge, Bossiney, Brackley, Bramber, Buckingham, Callington, Camelford, Castle Rising, Corfe Castle, Dunwich, Eye, Fowey, Gatton, Haslemere, Hedon, Heytesbury, Higham Ferrers (one Member), Hindon, Ilchester, East Looe, West Looe, Lostwithiel, Ludgershall, Malmesbury, Midhurst, Milborne Port, Minehead, Newport (Cornwall), Newton (Lancashire), Newton (Isle of Wight), Okehampton, Orford, Petersfield, Plympton, Queenborough, Reigate, Romney, Saint Mawe's, Saint Michael's (Cornwall), Saltash, Old Sarum, Seaford, Steyning, Stockbridge, Tregony, Wareham, Wendover, Weobly, Whitchurch, Winchelsea, Woodstock, Wootton Bassett, and Yarmouth. The following is a list of the boroughs, each of which would be allowed to return one Member to Parliament :-Amersham, Arundel, Ashburton, Bewdley, Bodmin, Bridport, Chippenham, Clitheroe, Cockermouth, Dorchester, Downton, Droitwich, Evesham, Grimsby, Morpeth, Northallerton, Penryn, Richmond, Rye, St. Germains, St. Ives, Sandwich, Sudbury, Shaftesbury, East Grinstead, Guildford, Helston, Honiton, Huntingdon, Hythe, Launceston, Leominster, Liskeard, Lyme Regis, Lymington, Maldon, Marlborough, Marlow, Tamworth, Thetford, Thirsk, Totness, Truro, Wallingford, Westbury, Wilton, and Wycombe.- -With regard to WALES, his Lordship said, that it was intended to add Holyhead to Beaumaris, Bangor to Caernarvon, Wrexhain to Denbigh, Holywell and Mold to Flint, Llandaff and Merthyr Tydvil to Cardiff, Welchpool, Llanvilling, and three other places, to Montgomery, St. David's, Fishguard, and Newport, to Haverfordwest, Milford to Pembroke, Presteign to Radnor, and to create a new district of boroughs, consisting of Swansea, Cowbridge, Laugherne, and three other places, to return together one Member additional for the Principality. The right of franchise to be assimilated to that proposed for England.

His Lordship then adverted to the state of the Representation in SCOTLAND, observing, that that country did not even possess a vestige of popular election; consequently, the wealth, respectability, and intelligence for which its inhabitants were so celebrated were virtually unrepresented, the whole number of voters by which the county Mem