proposed to withdraw the order for the second reading of the Bill, with a view to fix the motion for tomorrow.

opposed the proposition, stating, that he should rather move the postponement of the second reading of the Bill to this day six months.

then moved, that the Bill be now read a second time and argued in favour of the measure, by referring to the grievance to which not only the Catholics but the Protestants of Galway were subject in consequence of the extraordinary privileges vested in the corporation of that town. Through these privileges the warden and corporation, who were appointed by external influence, granted the right of voting to a body of peasantry, subject to that influence, and this body, consisting of several hundred, were marched into Galway, conscript like, at each election, to vote according to orders—to exercise a privilege from which the resident Catholics of Galway, and many of the Protestant residents also, were wholly excluded. Thus was the genuine right of election perverted into a mere mockery of the Act of 1793, extending the privilege of voting to the Irish Catholics, rendered unavailing with respect to this important town.

said that he would yield to no one in attachment to the interests of the Catholic body, but he could not support a measure which proposed a direct infraction of the chartered rights of Galway. The Catholics of Galway, who were not invested with the privilege of voting, had, in fact, no more right to complain than those Catholics of Dublin or Cork, or any other city or town who were not admitted to a participation of the privileges of the corporation, and he denied that the Act of 1793 ever proposed to interfere with the chartered rights of any place whatever. The hon. member concluded with moving an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, which amendment was agreed to.

presented a Petition against any change in the corn laws from the town of Sunderland, which was, he said, signed by 5,000 persons.

took this occasion of stating, that very improper means had been used to obtain signatures to some of the petitions presented to the House upon this subject. In one instance, that of the town of Kelso, he was assured by the most respectable authority, that the signatures of children were actually annexed to the petition; nay, even French prisoners were resorted to in order to swell the list of the petitioners. Such, or similar impositions upon the House, ought, he felt, to be fully exposed.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the able.

began, by declaring his surprise to learn, that doubts were expressed by some persons as to the right of that House to make any inquiry respecting the fees received in the courts of justice: for such doubts could not possibly be entertained by any one acquainted with the records or the duties of parliament. In the 27th Report of the finance committee there was a distinct declaration of the right and duty of parliament to enquire into, in order to check great abuses, and to regulate the fees or charges made by the officers of the several courts, and the interposition of that House upon this subject in 1664 and 1693, was recorded on the Journals. Therefore he felt that he was following various precedents and performing his duty to the public, in moving this session for a return of the fees received by the several officers belonging to the different courts of Great Britain. The House had thought proper to adopt his motion, and among the returns made in pursuance of its order, he was concerned to say, because he must conceive it to proceed from error, that some of them were manifestly erroneous. For instance, the return from the clerk of the rules of the court of King's-bench stated, that there had been no additional fees in that department since the returns made in 1798, although from a bill of costs which he held in his hand, there had been a considerable augmentation. In 1798, the charge for a rule was only 2s. 6d. whereas it now amounted to 4s. and of this increase it appeared extraordinary, that when the legislature imposed a tax of one shilling, the clerk of the rules thought proper to add sixpence for his own profit. Thus an office, which, according to the report of 1798, yielded 2,900l. a year, had received an additional revenue of 830l. at the expence of the suitors for justice, and this, too, in an office that was saleable. The return also from the marshal of the court of King's-bench was equally erroneous, for to the fees which amounted in 1798 to 13s. 4d. no less than 7s. had been since added. Yet the return distinctly stated, that no change whatever had taken place, and this it was to be recollected was an office held by the son of the chief justice, and executed by deputy. The return from the clerk of Nisi Prius was also erroneous; for there, too, it was stated, that no change had taken place since 1798, although the fees which then amounted to 15s. had been since augmented to 22s. and this office too was held by a son of the chief justice. Upon such extraordinary returns from these offices, which were either saleable or held by the chief justice's own relatives, he (sir J. N.) did not think fit to make any comment. With respect to the court of Chancery, it was remarkable, he said, that no return whatever had, up to this hour, been made from that court. Then, as to the Irish courts, there had been no enquiry since the Union, although that measure rendered enquiry more necessary. For the House was not to learn that whenever abuse was likely to occur it was most to be apprehended in places remote from the seat of sovereignty, because there it was less exposed to observation. In referring to the proceedings of the several courts, in consequence of the order respecting fees, a fact had been communicated to him, which was of a very peculiar character indeed. The chief judge of one of these courts had ordered the officers connected with it not to make any return to that House until previously revised by him; and this judge, upon seeing a statement in one officer's return of a sum received for a search, had immediately expunged it, observing, that this sum was a gratuity and not a fee; to another officer also, this judge observed, that a fee which had been received for 20 years was truly a new fee, and, therefore, not within the view of the order of the House, which referred only to the augmentation of fees. These officers had in consequence made no returns, from a proper feeling of unwillingness to make any returns inconsistent with the sense and spirit of the order of the House. The right hon. baronet here took a review of the conduct of the Scotch courts, and observed that from the returns before the House it appeared that the lords of session had thought proper, of their own authority, to order a fee of 3s. to be exacted for every paper presented to their clerks, although the Act of 1810 contained a schedule of fees, with which schedule this order was quite inconsistent. This additional fee, which served to put about 3,000l. a year into the pockets of half a dozen clerks, and which in fact imposed a tax upon suitors, he thought an extraordinary assumption, upon which it would be for parliament to decide. Into these several points he did not, at this late period of the session, propose any specific enquiry, but he felt it necessary that the House should declare its opinion upon the subject. The right hon. baronet then moved a series of Resolutions declaratory of the various points urged in the course of his speech. Upon the first Resolution being read by the Speaker.

rose and suggested to the right hon. baronet the propriety of postponing the discussion to some future period. From the short notice that bad been given, it was impossible that the House could have anticipated the nature of the Resolutions, the first of which he decidedly condemned. He did not rise to oppose the motion, but only to put it to the right hon. baronet, whether, considering the thin state of the House, and the absence of the ministers of the crown, necessarily caused by the arrival of the illustrious personages who were expected, it would not be expedient to defer the consideration of the subject to some future occasion. The House, indeed, was hardly prepared to go into it, for of the various returns referred to by the right hon. baronet, only one, he believed, that relating to the court of King's-bench, was in the possession of members.

said he was glad to hear the hon. gentleman say he had no objection to the principle of the measure, because such motions as the present were of the utmost use to the public, by calling the attention of parliament from time to time to the various abuses that existed. He had no doubt his right hon. friend would willingly concur in the wish expressed by the hon. gentleman, for postponing the discussion at present.

explained, and begged that he might not be be understood as giving any pledge to support the principle of the motion. He had merely stated that he did not object to the motion being discussed.

then withdrew his Resolutions, and fixed them for that day sun night.

moved the order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider further of the Bill to repeal part of an Act passed in the 5th year of queen Elizabeth, intituled, "An Act containing divers orders for artificers, laborers, servants of husbandry, and apprentices."

said that counsel were waiting to he heard at the bar in behalf of certain artificers and journeymen who had petitioned that House against any alteration of the law as it now stood.

wished that the discussion should be postponed to a future day, considering the great importance of the measure itself, and the very few members who were present.

objected to any delay. Sufficient notice had been given of the whole measure, and it had been deferred from day to day already, so often that he thought himself warranted in pressing the consideration of it now. With regard to the petitions that had been presented, very few of the persons signing them were really affected by the proposed alteration. He had looked into sixteen or seventeen of them, and found that to be the case with all of them. In one the wool-combers of Devonshire prayed that no repeal might take place, when, in fact, a repeal had actually taken place four years ago with respect to all the woollen manufacturers of England and Wales.

After a few words from general Gascoyne, who spoke in favour of going into the discussion, the House resolved it self into the Committee. Counsel was called in; when Mr. Alderman Atkins said that if the Committee persisted in hearing counsel on so important a measure, and with so small an attendance of members, he should feel it his duty to move that the Committee be counted.—A conversation ensued, in which sir F. Flood, Mr. Serj. Onslow, sir J. Newport, and Mr. Protheroe participated; when Mr. Alderman Atkins moved, that the Committee should be counted. It was accordingly done, and there being only 27 members present, the House adjourned of course.