presented a petition from Mr. John Mitford, praying for an inquiry into the state of Private Mad-houses. The petitioner stated, that he had himself been confined in one of these institutions, and that he had lately published a book describing the abuses which existed in them. To obtain materials for this book he had visited a variety of private lunatic asylums: but at those of Mr. Warburton, he had been refused the means of information which he wanted.

said, he had himself communicated with one or two persons, who had been confined in private mad-houses; and, from all he had heard, he thought the subject worthy the attention of parliament. The system of private madhouses was peculiarly calculated to open the door to most iniquitous offences, and unfortunately, the most difficult of proof. In his opinion the true course would be to put them down altogether; or to increase the public establishments at least to such a degree as should tend to diminish their number. The trade was a highly lucrative one. Individuals kept, in many cases, several establishments. Mr. Warburton was the proprietor of two or three different houses.

said, that private madhouses were establishments almost necessarily open to abuse; and where abuses did exist, it was most important that they be hunted to detection. At the same time justice was due to a number of highly respectable medical men, who were proprietors of houses of this description, and among others, to Mr. Warburton, with whom he was professionally acquainted. In the course of his legal practice, he had frequently seen Mr. Warburton examined in courts of justice; and his character stood equally high, both for medical skill and for humanity. Now it appeared that Mr. Mitford had himself been confined in a mad-house as a patient; and it should be recollected that a man might sufficiently recover from an attack of insanity to he discharged from confinement and yet not be in a state to appreciate, dispassionately, the very treatment which perhaps had been conducive to his cure. It frequently happened, that actions were brought against the keepers of lunatic asylums by people who had recovered under their care. One word as to Mr. Mitford. He had spoken of himself as the author of a book on the subject of mad-houses; and certainly he was the author of as scandalous a publication as ever bad issued from the press. The work in question was filled with the most slanderous anecdotes, and with details too disgusting to be repeated; and the names of persons of high respectability, and even of young ladies of rank, who had been visited with that dreadful malady, the privation of reason, were treated in a manner deserving the severest reprehension.

saw no ground in the present case for establishing an inquiry. To suppress private mad-houses, would be to create an evil greater than any which such a course could remove. Confinement in a public institution, under any circumstances, would always appear to many a very severe infliction; and the attempt to abolish private mad-houses would inevitably lead to the confinement of lunatics in private houses—an arrangement under which every facility to abuse would 'be increased. Upon the petition before the House, he would Only say thus much—that a variety of statements had been presented to him, in his time, by persons, sane to all appearance, complaining of abuses practised in mad-houses; he had examined into these statements over and over again, and he had, in almost all cases, discovered that they were without a shadow of foundations.

confirmed the statement of the right hon. gentleman opposite, as to the very slight degree of reliance due to the accounts of persons who had been insane; but he thought, notwithstanding, that further regulations in private, madhouses were necessary. Upon the point however, altogether, he confessed he entertained little hope; for, so long as certain persons in another place systematically opposed every, thing tending to a reform in the law, there could he little expectation of any advantageous change, until Providence should: be pleased to remove them from their situations. With respect to the petition, he had seen Mr. Mitford, and thought that he certainly appeared in his senses at present; he made some assertions which he (Mr. B.) knew to be untrue. He trusted that Mr. Warburton would prosecute the publisher of Mr. Mitford's book.

observed, that this subject was well worthy the attention of parliament. It had formerly been much considered; and three bills had, at different periods, been sent up from that House to the Lords, relative to the inspection of houses of this description, which, he regretted to say, had not been passed. He should be extremely sorry if any proposition were brought forward, similar to that spoken of by the hon. member for Westminster; because he believed that, though abuses might exist in some of these establishments, they were, on the whole, well conducted. There was little chance of patients being restored to their senses unless a certain course of treatment were adopted; and with that view, it was better that they should be taken care of in houses exclusively appropriated to the reception of persons labouring under this malady, than that they should be placed in private lodgings, and intrusted to the keeping of individuals who were not con versant with the disease. Persons ignorant of the treatment which should be extended to insane patients, frequently gave them medicines and bled them, for the mere purpose of reducing their strength.

opposed the motion. The system, he admitted, required change; but not such a change as was contemplated by this bill. It was a puerile species of legislation, to come down with a measure, not absolutely to do away with a certain power, but to cast a slur on the manner in which it was exercised. He felt strong objections to nominating the jury by ballot. The hon. member for Knaresborough had, on a former evening, said a. great deal about the advantage which would be derived from nominating the jury by chance; and he had alluded to the mode of appointing committees of that House, which was done by ballot. He (lord B.) looked upon that to be the very best mode of appointing committees in cases of contested elections, &c. But, would any man like to go to trial before a jury so formed? Several petitions had been presented on this subject by the hon. member for Aberdeen, who had prefaced their presentation with speeches which reflected on the way in which the law was administered in Scotland; and his noble friend (lord A. Hamilton) had cast reflections on the judges, to whom h attributed motives of a personal nature. Now, as he considered all those insinuations to be unfounded, he looked with great jealousy at every measure which seemed to throw a slur on the judges; which the present bill did; since it took from them a duty, which they had exercised from the time of Charles 2nd; and which had heretofore been acted on for the benefit of all parties.

said, that the noble lord, in opposing this bill, had not stated his real objection, which could only be guessed at. The noble lord was adverse to the appointment of juries by ballot, because it would be a matter of blind chance. Now, it was for that very reason that he (Mr. A.) approved of it. To him it appeared to be, as it would depend entirely on chance, the fairest mode that could be proposed for nominating a jury. He could not argue this point, since the noble lord had advanced no reason for his opposition. All he said was, "I don't like this proposition, and I won't agree to it." The noble lord admitted that a change was necessary. If that were the case, then the question was, how it could be effected. The present measure had been considered in the committee as the best that could be devised; and he should like to know why the noble lord had not urged his objections on that committee. No objection was, however, offered to the bill in the committee; and therefore he contended that the noble lord was now too late with his opposition.

said, that the present bill could not passion such argument as that of the learned gentleman's, which had nothing to do with the measure, but was in fact an argumentum ad hominem, directed against his noble friend. The question was—whether the alteration which it was proposed to make in the administration of the criminal law of Scotland, by this bill, was or was not a wise one? He had very serious doubts of the wisdom of passing this bill; and he believed, that before two sessions had passed, the hon. member would be an advocate for the amendment of his own measure. The jury-books were made up alphabetically; so that before they could proceed to the letter B, they must exhaust all the names under the letter A, and the whole jury might be composed of Abercrombies [a laugh]. Now the having an entire jury of the same name might, in cases of assault, or offences growing out of ancient feuds, have a very bad effect. He thought that there were to be found considerable difficulties in the way of carrying the bill into effect. He could not consider it prudent in the hon. member to attempt so considerable a change in the criminal law of Scotland by any bill brought in so late in the session, and with so very little opportunity allowed for the discussion of it.

said, that by the admission of almost every one in the House who had spoken, the principle of judicial selection had been condemned. If any novelty were to be introduced, it must be founded either upon selection or upon a fortuitous mode of appointment; The right hon. gentleman himself did not approve of selection by the judges; and his hon. and learned friend near him had adopted that which he considered the most unexceptionable mode, that of ballot. The objections of the right hon. gentleman, as they went merely to possible difficulties, were of a nature so general that no measure could be invented to which such objections might not be opposed. Having, however, admitted the impropriety of judicial selection, and suffered the opportunities escape him of discussing the bill on the second reading, or of improving it in the committee, the right hon. gentleman, in proposing to put off the proper remedy, was proposing the continuance of an evil to Scotland which he himself did not justify, and which was generally reprobated.

could not allow that his right hon. friend was bound to approve of this bill, because he disapproved of judicial selection; especially as he had opposed the second reading of it, and the committee upon it. For his own part, he disliked the present mode of selection by the judges; not because any thing improper had been, or could be alleged against it practically, but because he considered that mode unsightly, and unseemly in theory. But he by no means wished on that account to be considered an advocate for the ballot, to which he felt strong objections. He did not consider himself sufficiently acquainted with the details of the bill, to warrant him, considering the important measure it comprised, in giving his support to it. He thought the subject could not be safely determined upon until next session, when, if he found the objections removed, he would give his concurrence to some modification of the system which now existed.

, in moving that the order of the day be read for the third reading of this bill, took the opportunity of entering into an explanation of the object and provisions of the bill. He observed, that it was by no means intended to abolish by the bill the forty-three Commissary Courts, but to transfer the business of them to the sheriffs depute. This would be generally advantageous; as it would have the effect of allowing the cases of litigants to be tried nearer home.

complained of the manner in which the learned lord had conducted business in the present session, which was such, that bills arrived at their third reading, without any chance of an opportunity to any hon. member to deliver his sentiments upon them. The necessity under which the learned lord had just felt himself, of explaining the object of the present bill, on moving the order of the day for its third reading, was a striking illustration of the fact. With regard to the present bill, the learned lord had, on a former occasion, declared that the fault lay with him (lord A. H.). That he positively denied; and he appealed to his hon. friends near him, whether he had not sought most diligently during two months for an opportunity to give his opinion on a bill, which, as it was an original measure, ought to have been fully discussed in every stage. Was that a proper time of the session was that a proper state of the House, in which to press a bill of so much importance? He could scarcely believe, that the only two ministers of the Crown present would be induced to give their support to such a measure. He did not think that the learned lord had followed the report of the commissioners in many material points; one especially with regard to the discretionary power of requiring fees. One of the offices, that of the Procurator Fiscal, was stated, both in the reports of 1808, and 1817, as proper to be abolished; but, notwithstanding this recommendation, a sum of 500l. had been given by an individual for that situation. Why was the sale of offices permitted in such a manner; and particularly, when the commissioners declared, that the office of Procurator Fiscal had long ceased to be of any practical utility? Another important point embraced in the bill, was the compensation given to persons deprived of offices by the abolition of the Commissaries. Now, in the report made in 1808, it was expressly recommended, that the right of compensation should be withheld from all persons who might, subsequently to that period, be appointed to those situations. Had this reservation been made in the present bill? He would here observe, that he was favourable to the object of this bill; although he was opposed to the mode in which it had been framed. He had himself last year moved for leave to bring in a measure of a similar nature, which he had afterwards withdrawn. But he could not help expressing his astonishment that the learned lord should suffer the evils which the commissioners complained of in their reports, to remain in existence from the year 1814 to the present hour. The government had been most neglectful of its duty, in allowing those evils to go on year after year, without applying a remedy. It was indeed true, that about three lord-advocates ago, if he might so express himself, a bill like the present was brought in and read a second time, but from that period till the year 1823 nothing had been done. And now, when the learned lord undertook to remove the evils, in what manner did he attempt to do so? The first step in this bill involved a principle which he could not conceive how either the learned lord or his majesty's ministers could sanction. It did not direct what other persons were to do in obedience to the legislature, but it gave authority to certain individuals in Scotland to legislate themselves, merely with this provision, that they were to have regard to the report of the commissioners. The main object of the bill was, to abolish the inferior commissary courts; and if the learned lord meant that the sheriffs and stewards should perform the duty of the commissioners, why did he not lay the expenses which would be thus incurred before the House? This course was recommended in the report of the commissioners; but instead of that, the learned lord delegated a power to the lords of the courts of session to determine those expenses. With respect to the courts of the sheriffs, the learned lord there again delegated the power to legislate to the court of session. The regulation of those courts, instead of being framed by the learned lord in conformity with the recommendation of the commissioners, and embodied in the bill itself, were to be submitted by the sheriffs to the lords of the court of session for their approval. If, then, there should, on this point, be any difference of opinion between the sheriffs and the lords of the court of session, the present measure must prove abortive; for the only guide which the lords of the session had was, the report of the commissioners. It was true, that the sheriffs were to record those acts by acts of sederunt, but the learned lord ought to know, that the people of Scotland considered all acts of sederunt as encroachments, and therefore as obnoxious to their rights and privileges. The present bill, however, not only went to multiply those acts now, but to render them necessary in all times to come. Why had not the learned lord avoided this course, by first ascertaining the collective wisdom of the court of session, and submitting it to the House before he brought in his bill? The power of legislating would then be placed in parliament, and not delegated (as it now was) to the judges of an inferior court. A clause, indeed, was introduced by way of salvo, providing that a copy of the regulations made by the lords of the session should be laid before each house of parliament, before the expiration of two months after it next met, and that they were not to become law previous to that period. But why did not the learned lord obtain this information in the first instance, and embody it in his bill before its arrival at the present stage? There was another point to which he would call the attention of the House—he alluded to the mode in which compensation was to be awarded under the present bill. And here he could not help again observing, that if the right to compensation had been withdrawn from persons appointed since the report of the commissioners in 1808, there would, perhaps, be no claimant for it under the provisions of this act. But, laying that consideration aside, those persons were to have their claims decided by the barons of the Exchequer, who were to investigate their legality. Now, he could not understand what was meant by legality in that instance; for he denied as a principle, that any of the individuals in question had a right to compensation at all; and yet the barons of the Exchequer were to award each of them either a gross sum or an annuity, in lieu of the emoluments of which they were deprived. He would say, that the measure, though in its last stage, had never yet been discussed. In its present shape, he considered it discreditable to his majesty's government, and should vote against it.

hoped the House would not be induced, by what had fallen from the noble lord, to reject the present bill. Some of the noble lord's objections, however, were not unworthy of attention. As to the measure itself, it was of great importance to the people of Scotland. The districts, under the jurisdiction of the commissaries, were so extensive, that the revenue was, in consequence, defrauded to a large amount, and the, administration of justice generally obstructed. The persons, too, who held the situation of commissaries were not bred to the law, but were mostly country gentlemen; whereas, the sheriffs appointed to discharge their duty by the present bill, possessed legal knowledge, and were thus qualified for the office. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to mention the other evils which the measure was intended to remedy, and concluded by giving it his support.

objected to several clauses of the bill. One of these transferred the duties of the commissaries to the sheriffs, who were enabled to depute their power to their substitutes, who again were to do the duty without granting them any additional remuneration. He could not allow that opportunity to pass, without observing that sheriff substitutes of Scotland were a very respectable body of men, but very ill paid; and he hoped that their situation would soon be considered in the proper quarter, and that a provision would be made for them, more suitable to their station and the various important duties which they had to perform.

concurred in what had been said by the hon. member, with respect to the respectability of the sheriff substitutes, and was anxious that a suitable addition should be made to their incomes; but the hon. gentleman must be aware that it rested with the treasury to give that compensation.

regretted the necessity he was under of opposing this bill, because he felt that its object was, to confer political power, and not a mere qualification for office. He could not see the distinction between the franchise of electing and that of being elected. If parliament chose to extend to the Catholics the one, they ought also to grant them the other, and at once concede the privilege of representation. The hon. gentleman then cited the authorities of dean Swift and Burke, to prove that it was absurd to suppose, that one political concession could be made by such a government as ours to Roman Catholics, without all other concessions in church and state following as matters of course. He understood it to be a favourite proposition with some hon. gentlemen, that the numbers of those professing, and not the truth of the doctrine, ought to determine what the religion of a state should be. According to that proposition, therefore, the religion of the state in Ireland ought to be Roman Ca- tholic, seeing how numerous were its followers. But, was it meant, to be said, that no attempt was to be made to advance the Protestant faith, merely because of the comparative paucity or Protestants; or were greater facilities to be given to the Roman Catholics to advance theirs? The whole argument, however, stood in a singular dilemma. On the one hand, the numbers of the Irish Catholics (and they had of late certainly increased), and on the other, the paucity of English Catholics, were adduced in support of the claim for an extension of their privileges. Now, the evils of the enormous population of Ireland were on all hands admitted; but he would appeal to hon. gentlemen, whether any one thing so much tended to create those evils, as the fatal measure of increasing the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland, a measure which had caused infinite and ruinous subdivisions of property? The hon. gentleman then alluded to the notorious existence in Ireland of an establishment of the order of Jesuits—a sect renowned in all history for their energy, their zeal and their perseverance in the work of proselytism—an order the more dangerous for being generally appointed to superintend the education of youth, and the destructive tendency of whose tenets had caused their expulsion from every territory in which they had settled. The fact of their re-establishment in Europe, and more especially the alarming fact of their existence in the sister kingdom, ought to induce the House to pause, before they did any thing which should encourage the hopes and foster the pretensions of the decided enemies of the Protestant church. For the concessions which the House was now called upon to make, he had heard no one adequate reason adduced. Against them he saw many, and should give his decided opposition to the bill.

thought the speech of the hon. member for Corfe Castle had little relevancy to the bill before the House. His argument went to the danger of granting to the Catholics an increase of political power. Now, the number of Catholics which by this bill would be admitted to vote was so very inconsiderable, that the influence of Catholics over elections could hardly perceptibly increased by its passing Mr. G. said that he had once been in a borough where one. Catholic had been prevented from voting, but where the in- fluence of a Catholic lord in the neighbourhood had been sufficient to decide the return. In counties it was much the same. Catholic landlords of ancient families and ancient possessions had great influence; but the votes they would carry were votes of Protestants. As to the anomaly of persons being able to vote for members of parliament who were disqualified from sitting in that House, it was the case with the whole body of the clergy; and he did not conceive that his hon. friend opposite, the member for the University of Cambridge, could be greatly shocked with this equal inconsistency.—Mr. G. regretted that the noble lord had been prevailed on to except Scotland from the operation of his bill. The Catholic Heritors there were very few, but of the highest respectability. The words of the act of Union which had been quoted, appeared to him to bear as much upon the question as the union between the Scots and the Picts. And, at least as one proof that the spirit of John Knox was not to be attributed to the whole church of Scotland in these days, it was a curious fact, that, after the failure of the negociations at Chatillon, when the plenipotentiaries, assembled there, put in their demand to the French government that the pope should be restored in entire liberty to his full powers, the instrument was signed but by one Catholic, and by two Scotch Presbyterians.

supported the bill, but protested that he would not go one iota beyond its provisions, in the way of concession.

said, he well knew that the hon. member for Corfe Castle was generally opposed to all concession, under any circumstances, to Roman Catholics. Now, if he (Mr. S.) were called upon to point out any one body of men, whose political and moral conduct had been for ages most irreproachable, he should turn to the English Roman Catholics. He was extremely averse to inflicting any penalty-upon men for their religious opinions: and he could easily instance the folly of such a policy. He had the pleasure of knowing a great many individuals among the society of Friends, called Quakers: a body of men more excellent, more upright, and of greater correctness in all their dealings, could not be named. This character was generally admitted to them; and yet he wondered how they had existed so long in this country, seeing how opposite their maxims of policy and religion were to our own, and how much Roman Catholics had suffered from a similar cause. Their doctrines were at total variance with the first principles of civil society; for it was part of their creed, that when they were smitten on one cheek, they were to offer the other: and when an enemy came, that they were to make no resistance: yet for a man to speculate on this passive principle would be a somewhat dangerous experiment. He remembered an instance, in which an ostler in an inn-yard, supposing he might be so with impunity, had been extremely insolent to a Quaker, whom he abused in the most vehement terms. The Quaker, with much deliberation, observed to him—"Though I am forbidden to strike thee, it may be good that I should cool thy passion;" and so saying, he deposited the refractory ostler in a horse-trough full of water; having held him there for about five minutes, he let him go, with this admonitory remark:—"Friend, I hope that thy heat hath now left thee." As preposterous as was this fellow's speculation on the habits of the Quaker, were the prejudices entertained against those whose religious observances did not accord with our own. It was upon their conduct, and not upon their principles, that he would try the English Catholics. Their conduct had been uniformly such as entitled them to the protection of the House; and he therefore felt it his duty to support the present measure.

, although opposed to the general measure of Catholic Emancipation, was ready to support the bill before the House. Nothing which had fallen from the hon. member for Corfe Castle had convinced him, that there was any danger in the measure; or that he should compromise, by voting for it, any principle which he had heretofore professed. He could not see by what process, upon granting the elective franchise to the Catholics, he was at all bound to grant them the further right of sitting in parliament. In fact, the two. privileges, as it seemed to him, had no connexion at all with each other. The hon. Members for Corfe Castle said—" This measure gives us in England a class of men who may make members of parliament, but who cannot become members of parliament themselves." Why, what was there new in this From the different rights to attaching to different kind of property, there were already thousands of men in the country, who could vote for members of parliament, and yet could not sit in parliament themselves; and vice versâ, there were many who were competent to sit in the House, who had not, nevertheless, the qualification for voting. Again, as the hon. member for Newtown (Mr. H. Gurney) had stated, there were the clergy of England, a whole body of individuals who were excluded by law from being elected to parliament, although they possessed, or might possess, the elective franchise. As for danger in the present measure, he saw none; and he denied that it bound its advocates to support any ulterior measure. The Catholics of England were few in number; and even taking Lancashire, the county in which their party was strongest, he did not believe that they would have influence enough to return a single member to parliament. There was nothing in the ancient law of the country, to oppose the grant of this cession to the Catholics; nothing anomalous in granting it. The law of exclusion at present was one of the very worst character. Its enforcement depended upon the pleasure of individuals, who could never make use of it upon public grounds, or upon principle; because the individual who barred the Catholic from voting was always the party against whom he was going to vote. If the exclusion were to continue, he would prefer seeing the veto made absolute, to leaving the law in its present state; but, as he thought that one admission could do no possible mischief, and that much advantage would accrue out of that community of feeling between Catholic and Protestant which the bustle of an election would produce; he should give his hearty support to the measure.

entertained the highest opinion, personally, of the English Catholics; but looked upon the measure before the House as part only of a new system. He could not help regretting the support given to it by the right hon. Secretary, and thought that the opponents of Catholic Emancipation generally would differ from him decidedly in opinion.

supported the bill, and warmly expressed his feelings in favour of the Catholic generally.

was happy to join in an act of rather tardy justice. He wished that the Catholics of Scotland had been included in the measure. As the exclu- sion of that class, eo nomine, was guaranteed by the act of Union, he had not pressed for their admission, lest the bill before the House should be lost. At the same time, although he would touch the Union, and matters connected with it, with all the caution and respect which he felt for it as a Scotchman, still he could not think it right that it should be permitted to perpetuate against any class a course of injustice and oppression.

said, he knew many Catholics who were loyal and respectable men; but he must oppose the removal of the restrictions placed on them.

said, that he had come down to the House, intending to vote against the bill, but had been converted by the speech of the right hon. Secretary, and should support it.

said, that the suggestion of the noble lord (Binning) sufficiently proved that the concessions to the Catholics were not to stop at the present measure. He heartily wished that the right hon. Secretary might not live to regret his assent to it.

saw no possible danger to be apprehended from the bill; and hoped to see the time when its own feeling of justice would carry the House to ulterior measures.

declared, that he could not consent to the measure then before the House. If parliament granted the boon now called for, it would be the first step towards making still greater concessions to the Catholics. They would not rest satisfied here, but would demand still greater privileges. To prove the truth of his assertion, he need only refer to the fact, that when the elective franchise was extended to the Catholics of Ireland, they soon began to claim more extensive privileges. He could not agree, that those rights contemplated by the bill should be granted to them, because he considered the principles of the Catholics not to have undergone any change. The fears which were formerly entertained of the Catholics were as well founded now as they ever were. The same intolerant spirit still prevailed amongst that sect. So much were the intrigues of particular orders among them dreaded, that the Jesuits had been suppressed in every part of Europe. In the late settlement of the kingdom of the Netherlands, the monarch wished to extend the privileges of the Protestants; but the Catholic bishops complained against the adoption of any such measure, as trenching on the prerogatives attached to their religion. He was a sincere friend to religious freedom, and therefore he opposed this bill.

rose to protest, in the strongest manner, against the species of argument made use of by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. Such observations were unfit for any man to make; but as the hon. gentleman was himself a sectarian, and enjoyed all the benefits of toleration, he was doubly criminal in harbouring sentiments so intolerant. The hon. gentleman had expressed his dread of the Jesuits; but he would tell the House, that there was a class of Protestant Jesuits who were much more to be feared. The church establishment had much greater reason to apprehend danger from the sect to which the hon. gentleman belonged than from the Catholics. There was not a point that could be favourable to their interest, or by which they thought they could undermine the established church (notwithstanding all their declarations of devotion to it), that they did not, most assiduously, endeavour to gain. He looked upon the Methodists to be the Jesuits, above all others, from whom the church of England had most to apprehend. It was quite clear to him, from the observations made by the hon. gentleman, that it was impossible that he could have a particle of tolerant spirit in his breast. The whole of his speech breathed nothing but persecution. He again asserted, that the government ought to look after the Metholists, instead of the Catholics. For the last fifty years they had shown themselves most anxious in making proselytes, and most assiduous in their hostility to religious liberty; and he must say, that he believed no Roman Catholic had ever expressed Such intolerant opinions as the hon. gentleman had uttered that night.

said, there was no necessity for him to defend himself against the attack of the hon. member. The sect to which he belonged was highly complimented by the censure of a gentleman who had defended the principles of Carlile in that House.

said, if the hon. member attended to facts, it would be much better. He had never defended Mr. Curlile's principles. The statement was not true [Hear].

—If the hon. gentleman stands up and asserts that which is not true, I have a right to contradict him. I declare that the hon. member has made an assertion with regard to my conduct which is not true.