he right of peers to
vote by proxy. Mr. Duncombe observed, that after the house should have
affirmed that resolution, he would move, "That a message be sent to
the house of lords, requesting a conference, at which the foregoing
resolution might be communicated. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel met
Mr. Duncombe's arguments on the subject, by endeavouring to show that if
voting by proxy was absurd, the custom of pairing off in the commons, or
of coming in to vote at the division without having heard a syllable of
the debate, was open to the same objection." Sir Robert went so for as
to parody Mr. Duncombe's resolution, by drawing up a similar one against
the practice of pairing; and he concluded by recommending that they
should take the mote out of their own eye before they made any attempt
to extract the mote out of that of another. On a division, the motion
was negatived by one hundred and twenty-nine against eighty-one.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe's motion on the subject of the rate-paying clauses
of the reform bill was disposed of in a similar manner. He brought this
forward on the 9th of March, by moving for leave to bring in a bill
for the repeal of those clauses. Mr. Duncombe made no prefatory
observations; on which, the chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that
on so grave a motion he thought it much better that argument should
precede rather than follow the introduction of the bill. Mr. Duncombe
then said, that it was his conviction that the clauses in question
operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the
country. It was promised that the reform act should add half a million
to the amount of electors, whereas it did not give more than three
hundred thousand. The great reason for this was the want of punctuality
in the payment of rates and taxes, and the partiality shown by
collectors. The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the
principle on which the clause was founded was one of the oldest in the
constitution; namely, that no man should enjoy civil rights who did
not discharge his civil obligations. If there was any unfairness in
collectors it should be inquired into; they were not appointed by the
crown. After a few words from Mr. Wakley in support of the motion, and
from Mr. Pease, who opposed it, the motion was carried by forty-nine
against thirty-eight. On the second reading of the bill, however, Lord
John Russell moved its postponement for six months, which was carried by
one hundred