said, he rose to bring forward his promised motion for a return of the Commitments by magistrates, in certain districts, together with the names of the magistrates by whom such commitments were made. He understood that objections were made to returning the names of the magistrates, unless in specified cases, where it could be shewn they were necessary. To this he answered, that there was an opinion abroad that a certain set of gentlemen in the magistracy were convicting magistrates—that was to say, that any culprits brought before certain magistrates stood little or no chance of escaping being committed. New, he felt, that if the commitment were a just one, no objection could be urged to giving the name of the magistrate, and if unjust, then the name of the magistrate became absolutely necessary. He wished to obtain correct returns, in order to ascertain the causes of the disproportion between the commitments and convictions in the city of London, and in the county of Middlesex, and which disproportion was highly to the credit of the former. The returns already on the table were very imperfect; but if they had been made out according to his original intention, he apprehended they would have borne out the statement he formerly made. At present, a comparison could not be fairly instituted. He would first advert to what appeared on the face of the documents furnished. One magistrate had committed 152 prisoners, and of that number bills were found only against 66, and 58 were convicted. Another magistrate at Union-hall had committed 139 persons, while bills were found only against 48. It was to be observed, that the different police offices varied in the mode of making those returns; indeed, they were upon some points so contradictory, that further information was absolutely necessary. During the inquiries of committees on prison discipline much had been said of the evil of allowing persons not hacknied in vice to mix for months together with the most degraded criminals. If this contamination amounted to only half what was stated in the various reports, it was a subject requiring the utmost attention. In this point of view it became of consequence to ascertain with precision the disproportion between the commitments and the convictions. The courtesy of the secretary for the home department had furnished him with a document of value, inasmuch as it shewed the proportion between commitments and convictions at two periods, viz. for the seven years before 1816, and for the seven years before 1823. In the seven years before 1816, there were committed for trial 36,000 men, and 11,000 women. In the seven years preceding 1823, there were committed for trial 78,000 men and 14,000 women. With such an enormous increase of offenders in so limited a time, was it possible to pretend that the community was in a moral healthy state? Looking at the comparative number of convictions in the same period, it became an important matter of attention, whether some other mode could not be invented to prevent persons, proved in the result to be innocent, from suffering the moral infection of a prison. Of the 47,000 men and women committed in the seven years prior to 1816, 29,000 had been convicted and 18,000 acquitted, being in the proportion of 33 in the hundred found not guilty. In the seven years preceding 1823, the total number of commitments was 93,000, and of these 62,000 had been convicted, and 31,000 acquitted, being in the proportion of 33 in the hundred. In London and Middlesex the proportion was nearly the same; the committals during 7 years before 1816 were 12,000, the convictions 7,400, and the acquittals 4,700, which was in the ratio of about 39 per cent. During the seven years before 1823, the committals were 18,000, the convictions 11,000, and the acquittals 7,000. It was lamentable to find, on the same authority, the number of our fellow creatures sentenced to death by the present state of our penal laws. In the first period to which he had alluded, they were 1,018, of whom twelve in the hundred were executed; and in the last period 1,216, of whom 14 in the hundred were executed. This brought him back to the consideration how it happened, that so many more of the prisoners committed by one magistrate were acquitted than by another. Was the mode of conducting business different at different police offices? He had been also anxious, when he formerly brought this question before the House, to learn the proportions of the persons committed, convicted, or acquitted by magistrates, who were not stipendiary, in order to see whether there were any deserving the title of "committing magistrates," who, without due attention to the evidence, allowed their fellow-subjects to run the risk of the injury to be derived from intercourse in a gaol. A magistrate, with his commission, undertook a highly responsible duty; and he could not conceive any good reason why the magistracy should be desirous of concealment. As to the numbers, they had been obtained already; but he wished also to see on the table the names of the committing magistrates. He had been informed, that the number of persons convicted in Scotland, compared with those committed, exceeded the proportion in any part of England, arising probably from the peculiar care taken in the examination of witnesses. How far the method, pursued in Scotland, ought to be adopted in England, was another question. His motion would extend to Scotland, and he saw no reason why Ireland should be excluded, so that the whole might be seen at one view. The hon. gentleman then moved, "that there be laid before this House, a return of the number of persons charged with criminal offences, who were committed to the different gaols in England and Wales during the year 1822 or 1823; distinguishing those by summary commitments, and those for trial at the assizes and sessions held for the several counties, cities, towns, and liberties therein; showing the name of the magistrate or magistrates who signed the warrants of committal, and distinguishing the number of persons so committed by summary commitments by him or them, and the number committed for trial, who were convicted, acquitted, or against whom no bills were found, or who were not prosecuted."

said, that he had expected to have heard from the hon. member a less objectionable motion than that with which he had concluded, and the returns to which would not, in point of fact, assist him in his ulterior object. The hon. member had said, that when these returns, with the names of the committing magistrates, were made, some individuals would be found who were unnecessarily rigorous in their commitments, and who were designated in their counties as "committing magistrates." He protested that be had never heard of such a distinct class of persons; but, what he principally rose to show was, that the returns called for would not raise the inference which the hon. member supposed, and would therefore be useless for his general argument. For instance, there were several prisons in England in which commitments in execution were only taken; and the hon. member must not confound such commitments in due execution of legal process with the summary commitments in the ordinary administration of magisterial duty. Then, again, the disproportion of commitments between one magistrate and another would not raise the inference of undue rigour in the committing magistrate. For instance, at this time of the year, whilst members were attending their duty in parliament, there must be other magistrates in the counties, whose returns in the discharge of their duty must necessarily be larger than those not so actively engaged, from local removals, without there being the slightest ground for supposing from the distinction, the undue exercise of power. When the hon. gentleman first brought this subject forward, he had said, that there was an immense disproportion between the commitments by police magistrates and by magistrates of the city of London. He (Mr. P.) had then thought, that a prima facie case had been made out against the stipendiary magistrates, and that they were the more responsible, be- cause they received salaries, although he was satisfied that they were men of the highest honour and respectability, and that their conduct would bear the strictest examination. Those magistrates who were unpaid and acted merely from a sense of duty and a love of utility, were of course in a different situation. As far as the hon. gentleman wished to correct the return already made, he (Mr. P.) was ready to concede what was required. There was no indisposition in the home department to give all useful information: but, under no circumstances could he consent to include the names of individual magistrates. He asserted distinctly that it was a criminatory motion. It was criminatory, because it went to shew that magistrates had acted on vague and insufficient grounds. The hon. member had talked of "committing magistrates." He (Mr. P.) had never heard of any individuals deserving such an offensive distinction. Was it fair to brand a gentleman as a "committing magistrate," because he devoted more of his time to the service of his country, and had a larger number of criminals brought before him? Besides, if the returns were made as desired, it would be impossible to draw any fair inference from the intelligence it supplied. The hon. gentleman, on the former oceasion, had introduced the names of three magistrates, Mr. Allen, Mr. Dyer, and Mr. Swabey, and in consequence he (Mr. P.) had sent for Mr. Dyer, and had asked him to furnish some cases in which he had committed, and the grand jury had afterwards thrown out the bill. In the first place, Mr. Dyer proved that the disproportion in his case was not greater than in others, and he pointed out fifteen or sixteen cases in which grand juries had ignored bills, but in which Mr. Dyer would have grossly misconducted himself if he had not committed the party charged. Sometimes the matter had been compromised: perhaps the principal witness was a near relation, and, not wishing to disgrace the family, upon reflection did not choose to persevere in the prosecution: sudden wrong had made him bring the offender before a magistrate, but in his cooler moments perhaps he had repented. In one case, though the charge had been clearly made out before the magistrate, the prosecutrix went before the grand jury in a state of intoxication, and they, of course, threw out the bill. In another case of a criminal assault upon a girl of ten years old, the grand jury obtained information which did not come before Mr. Dyer, shewing that she was not worthy of credit; and on this account the man accused was never put upon his trial. In some instances, parties, though duly bound in recognizances to prosecute, did not appear; and as they were poor, their sureties were of no value, and could not be estreated. In other cases, misunderstandings occurred as to the time when witnesses were to appear, and in others, the prosecution was dropped from carelessness, indifference, or idleness. While these circumstances vindicated the grand jury from any charge of neglect, they at the same time shewed that there was no ground for inculpating the committing magistrate. Unless, therefore, the return could be accompanied with a detail of all that appeared at the police-office, it would be of no use, as it could lead to no just conclusion. For these reasons, he should negative the motion.

said, he concurred in many of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, respecting the obscurity in which the larger question would still remain, after the returns, as now called for, were produced; but, it would be easy to make the distinction required in the returns, so as to show the commitments in execution, and also those by summary process. He could not, however, concur with the right hon. gentleman in throwing round the magistracy generally, that species of exemption from inquiry which he had talked of. On the contrary, he thought that when parliament were every year intrusting such extended powers to the magistracy, they were bound to investigate with a jealous eye their administration; and the more so on account of the liability to abuse in the exercise of all human power. He rather wished to see the public eye jealously fixed upon the conduct of magistrates, for the sake of bringing to bear upon their acts the wholesome control of public opinion; and he could not disguise from himself, that however meritorious as a body, there were many individual cases in the magistracy, which required revision and correction. It was singular that, the moment the slightest attempt was made in parliament to control or investigate the authority of the magistrates, it was met by the highest panegyrics upon their general honour and utility. This reminded him of the remark of a judge once at the Old Bailey, who, when he heard characters given by witnesses to notorious thieves, exclaimed, "I wonder what has become of the rogues, for every man is honest now-a-days." Unquestionably the mere circumstance of throwing out the bill afforded no ground of charge against the committing magistrate; but, it was a most appalling fact, that for the seven years before 1816 the commitments were only 47,000, and that for the seven years preceding 1823 they had increased to 93,000. They might have been augmented, in some degree, by the greater readiness with which courts granted their expenses to parties prosecuting; but, at all events, it was a very proper subject for inquiry.

said, there was no class of persons who had performed more services to the country than the magistracy. Unless a strong case should first be made out, he could never give his assent to a motion of this nature. There was a sufficient jealousy amongst the magistrates themselves, which made them watch the proceedings of each other; and in this circumstance he saw the best security for the proper discharge of their functions.

thought the motion would be ineffectual, unless the commitments were returned with a specification of the circumstances of each case; but no man would undertake the arduous duties of a magistrate if his character were to be subjected to this kind of suspicion.

said, if he thought there was any intention of casting an imputation on the magistrates, he should not give the motion his assent.

said, he should like to know who were the individuals who were designated "committing magistrates." He thought it unfair to throw out a general aspersion of this nature.

thought that the motion should not be entertained, unless good reason were first shown.

said, that if the hon. member would point out any one instance in which there had been an improper committal, he would give him any explanation on the subject which he might require.

said, that all he wanted was sufficient data on which to form a just conclusion. A very unfair construction had been put upon what he had said respecting committing magistrates. He did not mean by that expression those who committed the greatest number of pri- sorters, but those who were in the habit of committing without sufficient evidence. He hoped the right hon. secretary would furnish the House with the necessary information; and, in that hope, he should withdraw his motion.

said, he felt it due to the magistrates, not to allow the motion to be withdrawn. It must be negatived.

said, there was such an esprit de corps in the country gentlemen, that he never knew an instance of inquiry being called for into the conduct of magistrates, that they were not immediately up in arms to stifle all investigation. It had certainly been his understanding when he submitted to withdraw his motion, that the right hon. gentleman would give him the information corrected according to his own statement. He would now move for returns of the number of persons charged with criminal offences in Ireland, and committed in the years 1822 and 1823, excepting such as were committed under the Insurrection act.

denied that he had entered into any agreement with the hon. member as to any course which he should pursue in the event of the former motion being withdrawn.

could not see that the motion cast any stigma on the magistrates. If there were any who did not do their duty, inquiry was desirable, to show who they were.

did think that his hon. friend had not been quite fairly treated. There appeared a considerable degree of soreness on the part of the magistrates; but this stolen march would not tend to raise them in the estimation of the country. It was said, that no case had been made out. Certainly, no case was made out, because no case was intended to be made out. There could be no case of general oppression against a most numerous body. The proposition of his hon. friend was, that a constant and regular return should be laid before the House; because the effect of such a return would be to create a powerful control on the actions of public men. Would it be denied, that such a control was necessary? Was it calumny to argue that magistrates were accessible to the common frailties of human nature

observed, that as there was no charge against the magistracy, there was no necessity for the returns, to grant which implied an accusation.

thought that no case had been made out for inquiry, and that when motions of this kind were made groundlessly, the result must be injurious. In defence of magistrates who were not members of that House, he should oppose the motion.

was at a loss to understand on what grounds the returns were refused. Was it not material for that House to be put in possession of the proportion between the number of commitments and convictions? Much had been said in praise of the unpaid magistracy; but he must say he did not think so highly of them. He would prefer a stipendiary magistracy, who would not think it above them to render an account of their conduct, to those unpaid magistrates who exhibited, on all occasions, such a noli-me-tangere disposition.

said, that this information was necessary, if it were merely with a view to statistical information. It was desirable that the House should know the amount of crime, and whether it was on the increase or not. The number of summary convictions, too, was important; for as that mode of proceeding was a supersession of the common-law, it was essential to observe its operation.

rose, in pursuance of notice, to move a standing order, that no member having an interest in a Private Bill should be allowed to vote on the committee on that Bill. He had been strongly impressed with the impropriety of the existing practice, not merely during the present session, but for many sessions. It had gone on from worse to worse, until, at length, it had arrived to an extent of injustice and evil which could no longer be tolerated. The House were bound to interfere in order to do justice to the parties before them, and to render their proceedings respected. The business in committees above stairs was no longer a question of justice between the parties; it was one merely of canvas and influence. It was very common, even in the House itself, to see members remain out of it until the division, and then come into vote. But that was nothing compared with what took place in committees above stairs. No individual who had not attended those committees, could possibly judge of the proceedings which occurred in them. As he was not a frequent attendant, it was only lately that he had become aware of the extent of the evil. Many of the members of committees on private bills were in the habit of daily receiving letters and applications from the solicitors and other parties concerned. Such communications ought to be treated with the indignation with which a judge on the Bench would treat similar documents. A recent instance had occurred of the proper indignation of a judge on such a subject; and, by a parity of reasoning, he was warranted in drawing the conclusion that the similar practice with respect to private bills ought to be put an end to. The usage was, for every member of a private committee to receive a letter, requesting him to come down, not to hear the evidence before the committee, but at three o'clock, when the division was expected; and this was asked as a personal favour. At other times members were entreated to speak to their friends on the subject of private bills. These were not rare, but frequent practices. Now, if they were at all to consider themselves in the situation of judges, he put it to the House, whether the members of committees on private bills, although not bound by law, as was the case with the members of committees on contested elections, constantly to attend, ought not to conform to that which was the spirit under which they were appointed, and attend as closely as possible to hear the evidence adduced by the various parties. If not as judges, the members of a committee on a private bill should at least consider themselves as jurors, and should take care that they were not liable to be challenged. It was by no means wonderful that the character of the committees of that House had been so completely lost, when it was stated, as he had himself heard, that a solicitor had been known to declare, that with names or money he could carry or defeat any private bill. He did not say that such was the case with respect to every private committee; but it was the case with respect to so many, that the character of the House of Commons, as regarded private bills, was completely lost? so much so, that few indi- viduals would venture to introduce or to oppose a private bill, unless he had abundance both of money and of friends. This was an abuse which no man could defend. He had formed an opinion himself of the manner in which committees above stairs might be reformed; and he had no doubt that his plan, if carried into effect, would be succeesful. But he thought that such a plan would much better originate in a committee than in an individual. There was one crying evil, however, which might be put a stop to by the House, without precluding them from appointing a committee for the consideration of the other parts of the subject. In that committee, a reform might very probably be commenced of the whole system respecting private bills, the fees to clerks, &c. &c. None of the abuses to which he had alluded, existed by the sanction of the House. He could prove to the House, that not one of the many abuses that existed in the system of these committees upon private bills, existed by the sanction of the House itself; and he had always understood, that when a committee up stairs was vested with the power of calling for persons, papers, and records, it was vested with the same rights, and was to be regulated by the same rules and principles, as the House of Commons was vested with and regulated by. In their committees, therefore, he conceived that no practice ought to obtain, which was contrary to the spirit of their own proceedings. But he would cite a few cases to shew that, on the contrary, great abuses of those rules and principles were tolerated above stairs. In saying this, he meant to impute no blame to any one. To the system,, and the system only, and not to any particular individuals, was the evil to be ascribed. If hon. gentlemen would take the trouble of referring to Hatsell's Precedents, they would find that the observations he had just made were there offered twenty years ago, in the most forcible manner, and the necessity of correcting the abuses in question insisted upon. His principal object in quoting this authority was, to show that there were numerous precedents in which the principle had been enforced by parliament—that no person interested in the fate of any private bill should vote in the committee upon it. On the 12th of June, 1604, a Mr. Seymour was requested to withdraw from the House, pending the debate on a certain bill, such request being found to be, under the circumstances, agreeable with former order and precedent in like cases. The hon. gentleman proceeded to notice very briefly a variety of cases appearing upon the Journals of the House; which cases, he contended, went to prove, that the House itself had always refused to allow members interested in such bills to be present at their discussion: still less had it permitted them to vote on such occasions. Now this rule was constantly violated in committees; who, nevertheless, it was quite evident, were bound to observe and follow the rules and orders of the House. Before he concluded, he would just mention, as a strong exemplification of the evil which he complained of, that of a committee upon a recent private bill for incorporating a company in the nature of a Joint-stock company, 16 individuals, of course members of parliament, occasionally met, and discussed, and voted, and sat in judgment upon that very measure, and assisted in the examination of the witnesses, they themselves being shareholders of such company, in various sums, from 30,000l. and 20,000l. down to 500l. The fact was, that every projector of a new company, for which a legislative sanction was necessary, thought it absolutely necessary to have among his subscribers a certain number of members of parliament; without whose aid he could entertain little or no hope of getting his bill passed. He contended, that the rule to be applied to committees of the House of Commons should be—if not more strict, at least as strict as that which applied to juries—namely, that no man should be a judge in his own case. The hon. gentleman said, he asked no more of the House than that they would put an end to. such a crying evil; and he would therefore conclude by moving," That it be a standing order of tin's House, that no member shall vote in any committee above stairs on any question where his pecuniary interest is directly concerned, as in bills for establishing Dock Companies, Canal Companies, Joint-stock Companies, of which he shall be a member, or for inclosures of commons, making of roads, when the measure is expected to confer pecuniary advantage, or to diminish pecuniary loss to him; and that the practice in committees above stairs be regulated on the same principle, and in the same manner, as the decisions of this House have been regulated, when members have had a direct pecuniary interest in any bill before the House."

said, that if he entertained any doubt upon the expediency of adopting the hon. gentleman's recommendation with regard to the constitution of committees up stairs, it was not upon the soundness of the principle on which that recommendation was founded, for every body must concur with him in admitting that to the hon. gentleman; but he doubted very much whether a new standing order would at all remedy the evil complained of, and whether the adoption of the resolution submitted by the hon. gentleman would not rather leave the House in a worse situation, than establish it in a better, as to those committees. The right hon. gentleman then appealed to the chair in order to know, whether the rules of the House itself governed the proceedings of committees?

said, he held it to be quite clear, that all the rules by which that House regulated its own conduct continued in full operation in every committee that sat above stairs. The hon. gentleman who had opened this case had, in his judgment, very distinctly stated this as the ground of his proposition.

resumed. He said, he had always understood, that the rule of proceeding on committees, must depend, in a great measure, upon the circumstances of the individual case. The rule might exclude, he thought, in many cases where it could be shewn that the interests of members on a committee were concerned in the bill under their consideration; but the question—the difficult question— would always remain, as to who should be admissible members, and who should not? Now, he took it, that no order of the House could solve that difficulty; but that the matter out of which the abuse arose—and an abuse it certainly was, in the case put by the hon. gentleman—must be left generally to the honour and the feeling of members. So in questions of contested elections; he apprehended, that however members, almost all of them, might be imagined to be influenced on one side or the other, it was always to be supposed, that such questions would be decided upon principles of honour and justice There seemed to be no difficulty in supporting the mere theoretic principle, which was so properly contended for; but a vast deal of difficulty in enforcing its application. The principle, as he had before observed, no one could doubt. If the hon. gentleman could see any prospect of practically enforcing it, he would not object to the resolution: but, as it stood at present, it certainly did infer, that, up to this period, such had not been the principle that the House had laid down, or that if it had so laid it down, the principle had not been observed. The hon. gentleman, indeed, had said, that upon such a principle that House had formerly acted; but it seemed to have been so in cases only where individuals had had the courage to stand forward and challenge the vote of that particular individual who was an interested party. And he could not help thinking, with regard to the bill of which the House had heard such a curious account, that if the hon. gentleman possessed so accurate a knowledge of the particular interests of members in it, and had thought proper to challenge their votes, the question of such challenge must have been decided up stairs, upon the same principles and in the same way as if the question had arisen in that House. It did not appear to him, that the hon. gentleman's motion would be at all effectual or conclusive, or in any degree help to cure the evil of which, with so much justice, he had complained. Until a new system could be devised, calculated effectively to remedy the abuse that had been alluded to, he should feel justified in meeting this sort of proposition by moving the previous question; thereby not at all intending to dispute the propriety of establishing the principle for which the hon. gentleman contended.

deprecated the system upon which committees above stairs were conducted, both as to the mode in which members on them permitted themselves to be canvassed, and in which the committees were got up: and particularly as to the way in which the wandering members were brought in and frequently voted, in utter ignorance of the anterior proceedings of a committee, and without the benefit of that knowledge of the business before it, which the regular members of such committee must necessarily possess.

concurred in thinking, that the House would be rather diminishing the ground upon which it stood in regard to its committees of this nature, than gaining any better station, if it acceded to the proposition of the hon. gentleman. A popular feeling prevailed, that some al- teration ought to take place in the formation of these committees; but he could not exactly agree with the hon. mover in thinking the subject a proper one for the discussion of such a committee as he wished to refer it to. He fully concurred with the hon. baronet in condemning the practice of members coming into a committee at a late hour, and voting on a question on which they had not heard a word of the arguments or evidence. The object the House should have in view was, to impress on members, that if they did not choose to attend committees, they should think themselves bound not to vote.

would beg to suggest to his hon. friend, after all that had been said, to withdraw his motion. But, at the same time that he suggested this, he would say, that the House and the country were indebted to his hon. friend for having brought it forward. From his own knowledge of the practice of one committee, at which he had attended for a considerable time, he would assert, that the mode of proceeding was not only a perversion, but a complete denial of justice. It was-quite hopeless, in many cases, to expect to carry anything against the views of particular parties. With the knowledge which the House now possessed on this subject, he did hope that some remedy would be speedily applied; and if the forms of the House, after the previous-question having been moved, would allow his hon. friend to withdraw his motion, he hoped he would do so, and move that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the evil, with the view of applying some remedy. Some such course was absolutely necessary to rescue the House of Commons from the disgrace which would otherwise attach to them, from the mode in which business was conducted in some of their committees up stairs. From what he had seen of the practice in some committees, he would say—Let a private bill be brought in on the first day of a session, and let that session be the longest known in the history of parliament, and he would undertake (provided he got money enough) to prevent that bill from passing, by the delays which he could, according to the present practice, occasion in its progress. He had known an instance, in a committee, of a counsel speaking for five hours and a half on one point, and another speaking two hours and a half on the same point; and let the House understand, that this mode of pro- ceeding would occupy a committee for two days of their sitting; for committees seldom met before half-past 12, and were at an end when it was known that the Speaker was in the chair in the House. But this length of speaking was not confined to the object before the committee. It had often no more to do with it than if the counsel were to take a page out of Hume's history and discuss its merits. But it was of no use to interrupt counsel on such occasions, for the interruption and the arguments to which it would give rise, would occupy a still greater portion of time than if he were allowed to proceed. He could not, while he was upon this subject, avoid adverting to the practice of canvassing members out of doors for their support to particular measures before private committees. This was carried to an extent scarcely credible: but it was not a modern evil. And here he was reminded of an anecdote of the late Mr. Burke, who, being warmly urged by a lady of high rank to give his support to a particular measure then before a private committee, replied, "I am extremely sorry I cannot oblige your ladyship, but I have already promised my injustice to the opposite party."

also wished the motion to be withdrawn, and that his hon. friend should give notice of a motion on the subject for next session.

was of opinion, that a more strict attention to the standing orders of the House, with respect to private bills, would be the best remedy which could be applied to an evil, the existence of which was not denied. When there were sometimes forty committees on private bills sitting on the same day, how could proper attention be paid to them all?

thought that a great deal of inconvenience was created by the inattention of members who were nominated on private committees. He had recently witnessed the inconvenience produced by the non-attendance of members on private committees.

recommended the hon. member to withdraw his motion, and to move for a select committee to inquire into the evil complained of. He would not, however, wish that such committee should be delayed till next session.

said, that if the House made the regulation, that no member in a private committee should vote upon a question at the discussion of which he was not present, (which he himself did not object to), the public, seeing the importance thus attached to private bills, would pray, that no member who had not been present at its discussion should be allowed to vote upon any public measure; which, perhaps, though a very reasonable request, might be found inconvenient in some cases.

said, that after what he had heard, he had no objection to withdraw his motion; and in lieu of it, to submit a motion for a committee to inquire into the subject.

said, he would withdraw his amendment, in order to give the hon. member an opportunity of withdrawing his motion; but he would recommend him to attend to give a notice of motion for next session, rather than the present, as the committee would then have sufficient time for going fully into the question. The motion was then withdrawn. After which, Mr. Hume moved, "That a select committee be appointed, to inquire whether the present mode of conducting the Private Business of this House, in Committees above stairs, requires any and what regulations and alterations; and that they do report their observations and opinion thereon to the House." The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.

strongly opposed the clause, which could not, he said, be tacked on thus slightly to a clergy-residence bill, but ought, if adopted at all, to be made a specific subject of legislation.

said, he must object to the clause. Though he was strenuously opposed to any interference with the property of the church, he did not carry that opposition to the extent of denying that there might be a beneficial modification with respect to pluralities. Should his right hon. friend introduce any measure of that nature, he should be most happy to give it his support, so far as a sense of public duty would permit. But his right hon. friend must be aware, that his clause not only ought to be made the subject of a specific enactment, but that it must also be accompanied with a peculiar and effective machinery to put it into action; for, according to the present state of the Jaw, it would, if brought in by itself, produce the strangest confusion in the property of church livings. What, for instance, would be likely to happen to the patron of a living who should present one of these clergymen already possessed of another living of the value of 400l.? If he did not know it beforehand, the presentation would be void, and the right would lapse to the next in succession to the freehold property which he had in presenting. The law, as it would then stand, would leave him without remedy against this evil. If, on the other hand, he did know of the other living, and still persisted in presenting, he would be troubled with a quare impedit, and all the other vexations which could be brought against him at the instigation of some one who would most certainly start up to claim the exercise of the patronage by lapse.

objected to it, as a direct infraction of the spirit and letter of the corn laws, which were designed to protect the British grower against the competition of any grain coming from abroad, which had not been charged with a weight of taxation equal to that which fell upon wheat of British growth.

thought under all the circumstances of the case, it would be wiser to adopt the proposed clause, and thus admit the Canadian wheat now in this country, by degrees, than to allow it to come all at once into the market, as it in all probability, must do by the 15th of August next.