rose to inquire, whether it was the intention of the Treasury to take any steps I for inquiring into the complaints of the Maltsters?

said, that his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, would be better able to speak upon the subject than he was; but he knew that his right hon. friend meant to lose no time in entering into personal communication with the parties, upon the matters in which they thought themselves aggrieved.—While he was upon his legs he might as well take the opportunity of removing one or two erroneous impressions which had gone abroad, as to part of the statement which he had made on a former evening. He was aware that in doing this he was a little out of order; but where the personal feelings of a member were concerned, it was the cus- tom of the House to extend some indulgence. He had stated, on a former evening, that he had heard on that evening, for the first time, and with great surprise, the fact, that the resignation of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, had been made known to the noble lord at the head of the late government on the 29th of December. That this, and nothing else, had been his statement he was convinced, both from his own recollection and from, his knowledge of what was the real fact; and, as a further confirmation, he might be excused for observing, that he found his meaning distinctly so expressed in two publications which were known to attend very ably and correctly to the matters that passed in that House. He would repeat, that his observation on the preceding evening had been confined most strictly withinthislimit,—thathe,onthatnight,had heard for the first time, that the Secretary of the Colonies had tendered his resignation to the noble lord at the head of the government on the 29th of December; not that he then learned for the first time (which undoubtedly he could not do) the fact, that that resignation had been tendered at all. In the two interviews previous to that date, he might say safely, that he had been ignorant as to what an extent the perseverance of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, upon the point in difference between them, had been carried. Had he been aware of that fact, it was possible—he did not say that the thing would have been so, but it was possible— he might have been induced to give it further consideration. His statement to the House, on a former evening, had been I such as he now declared, and no other; and both "The Times" and the "Morning Chronicle" had given distinctly the fact, that he had complained, that the resignation of his right hon. friend, on the 29th of December, had not been communicated to him; that he had not been informed of it until the 5th of January. It had been supposed and said that, in what he had stated, lie meant to convey a denial of the truth of the account of the noble lord at the head of the late government, as to the causes by which that government had been dissolved. When any man of character— far less such an individual as the noble lord alluded to—spoke of motives, he could have no hesitation in saying, that such a declaration was unanswerable—that of his own motives he must be incomparably the best judge; but, at the same time, nothing could alter his (Mr. Herries) personal conviction, founded upon all that he knew of the facts, that the trifling circumstance of the difference between his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, and himself—trifling, as compared with other matters, and, he repeated, most trifling, because he had been ready to settle it in the most, amicable way, by his own resignation—by the sacrifice, if there was to be any sacrifice, of himself,—that a difference so easily disposed of never could be, and never had been, the true and operative cause of the dissolution of the late government. Other causes, and far more important ones, had been pressing—that was the truth—with an embarrassing weight upon the administration; and he did believe, that no arguments would ever convince impartial persons, who took the trouble to advert to all the facts, that so trifling a circumstance as was alleged, had been the cause of so important a catastrophe.

said, that his only excuse for intruding upon the House was, the speech which had just been made by the right hon. gentleman; and he confessed, so far from taking it as an explanation, that he had never heard any address from an hon. member that surprised him more. If his senses, on a preceding evening, had not entirely failed him, he had heard the right hon. gentleman say, that it was then, for the first time, that he had heard of the resignation of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. Nay, the right hon. gentleman had repeated the expression: he had used it twice. This was not only his impression, but that of several other members around him; and he was astonished to find the right hon. gentleman, three days afterwards, giving the statement a totally different construction. He expected, after this, that the right hon. gentleman would next explain away the well-remembered words which he had uttered—" I know it." One expression was just as clear as the other. With respect to the whole statement, indeed, of the right hon. gentleman, he came to the same conclusion. He believed that the right hon. gentleman's object was to mystify the late transactions, so that they should be beyond all mortal understanding; and, if such was his intent, he had completely succeeded. If any thing like explanation was meant by the right hon. gentleman's speeches, he protested that he considered them as a most exemplary failure.

said, that perhaps the House would allow him to re-state a fact, which he apprehended the hon. member had not distinctly heard. He had stated, on a preceding evening, not that which the hon. member imputed to him, but that he had heard, on that night, for the first time, that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had resigned on the 29th of December: and he had added a complaint, that he had not been informed of that fact, until the 5th of January. Two morning papers, which had reported his speech upon that evening, distinctly confirmed his present representation of that which he had said. He desired to repeat that representation; and if the hon. member still doubted its accuracy, he might refer to the reports which he had alluded to; but which it was not possible for him, in his own justification, to produce.

thought that the House was bound to take the fact to be as the right hon. gentleman had stated it. There could be no doubt but that he must be best able to decide that which he himself had said, independent of the authority alluded to. But he would put that question entirely aside; for that which the right hon. gentleman had just stated to the House seemed to him to be full of most important matter. The right hon. gentleman, on a preceding evening, had imputed a design—an intention—he did not know whether the right hon. gentleman had used the word" plot," but certainly he said a design, and an intention—to break up the ministry, and that his own threatened resignation had only been made a pretence for dissolving it. The right hon. gentleman had added, "I know it." Now, he would not have referred to that declaration, if the right hon. gentleman had not expressly, on the present evening, repeated to the House, by implication, that he was cognizant of that fact. If the right hon. gentleman was so—if he knew that a design had existed, and knew the parties who were concerned in it,—he had that to state as to which all the explanations hitherto given to the House were not worth common attention —were but as dust in the balance. All that had been stated was nothing—it was valueless and inefficient—as compared with the knowledge which the hon. gentleman, told the House he had behind. If he did know of this design, he must know the grounds of it, the objects of it, and the parties concerned in it; and on these heads it was the bounden duty of the right hon. gentleman—a duty from which he could not retreat—to give the House an explanation [loud cheers.]

said, he had no doubt that the right hon. gentleman was prepared to answer the inquiries of his noble friend. Indeed, it was impossible that he should avoid doing so. But he wished to put one other question to the right hon. gentleman, without which his answer would neither be complete nor satisfactory to the House. If the right hon. gentleman had not, on a preceding evening, come forward with a gratuitous explanation of the charges which he thought affected his character as a public man and as a minister, he should have had no title to ask the right hon. gentleman the question which he was about to put. But, as he had come forward, uncalled upon, to reply to a charge not suggested in the House—a charge that he had gone and consulted with some one out of the cabinet, and out of the circle of the administration—as he had denied that charge, with an explicitness which had scarcely, even in the walls of that House, been exceeded,—that being the case, he wished to know of the right hon. gentleman, whether he rightly understood him to have said, "as he hoped to be saved," and "upon his sacred honour as a gentleman," there was no foundation whatever for the charges and insinuations which had been brought against him elsewhere, that he had gone forth from the cabinet, in the course of the struggles of the ministry, and made a communication in a certain other quarter—the highest quarter in the state: assuming the right hon. gentleman to have said this, since it was not contradicted,—that he most solemnly denied having consulted any party out of the circle of the cabinet on the imputed occasion—did the right hon. gentleman mean also to say, that no party out of the cabinet had ever consulted him? He wished to know, whether the right hon. gentleman's denial went to the fact of any individual having consulted with him, as well as of his having consulted with any individual?

said, that he did not think the hon. and learned gentleman had a right to put that last question. He doubted whether it ought to be asked: at least, he thought it would more properly have been omitted. All he would say was this, that he entirely abided by his explanations already given. He would enter into no more. On any subject relating to the dissolution of the late government, he should decline to go further.

observed, that he had claimed no right to ask any question. He had put his inquiry, he thought, in a way calculated to disarm all personal feeling. He had distinctly said, that he should not have thought of putting any question, except for the explanation which the right hon. gentleman had volunteered. If the right hon. gentleman intended to abide in silence now, it would have been infinitely better, for his own sake, if he had never explained at all.

said, that if he had been silent upon a former night, it had only been because he felt that he could add nothing to that which had been stated by others. He had personally been a stranger to the cause which led to the dissolution of the late administration until the 9th of January: but, after all that had passed, he must say, that he thought further explanation from the right hon. gentleman necessary. With respect to the allegation made by the right hon. gentleman, he knew not upon what ground it rested; and until he had further proofs of the existence of a design to break up the government, he must say, with all deference to the right hon. gentleman, that he could not give credit to it. From that which he knew of those with whom he had been united in office, and from his personal knowledge of the noble lord at the head of the late government, he did most entirely believe, that if there were grounds for the insinuations of the right hon. gentleman, as to intention or design—of those intentions or designs, the noble lord and his colleagues in the ministry, from beginning to end, had been entirely ignorant.

said, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from his right hon. friend. The circumstances which he had stated were those which, as far as his own knowledge extended, had led to the dissolution of the late administration. Nothing, indeed, could have come more unexpectedly upon him than the dissolution of the administration. Nothing could have more excited his astonishment, except, indeed, the explanation given on a former night by the right hon. gentleman. The animadversions made by the right hon. gentleman on the noble lord at the head of the late administration, coming from the quarter which they did, had in- deed surprised him. When the struggles between the right hon. gentleman and other members of the cabinet were taking place, and which led, as far as he knew, to the breaking up of the late government, he was in the country, and took no part in them. The first information, indeed, which he had received of them, and of the dissolution of the government, was through the public papers. When he had heard of its dissolution, nothing had given him greater astonishment; except, indeed, the speech in explanation, which the right hon. gentleman had made on a former night.

said, that having read the explanations of a former night, and listened to those given on the present, the members of the late administration did appear to him to have been the greatest set of children that ever matters of importance were intrusted to. If that was the way in which the government of the country could be conducted, he fully agreed with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that it would be an excellent plan to have no government at all. It would be a great saving in salaries and emoluments; and the nation would get on as well by itself as with such a cabinet as the House had heard the history of. Here was a government broken up, and half the members connected with it not acquainted with the fact, until the dissolution was resolved on, and even concluded; and the king sending for the noble duke who was to form a pew one, and plainly telling him—" You must form a new ministry, for these fellows have at last done their own business; but if they could have kept from cutting their own throats, I assure you I would have Stood by them." He was very sorry to hear so lame an explanation from the right hon. Master of the Mint. It was very poor, poor indeed—very round-about, and full of reference to dates and hours, all which seemed to reasonable people very unimportant. He thought that, after what had fallen two evenings since from a noble lord in another place, the right hon. gentleman would have made a better statement to the House. As the account stood, it did appear that the right hon. gentleman had been the means of breaking up the last government, by his jealousy and squabbles; and if that was his general character, the sooner the duke of Wellington turned him out of the present cabinet the better.

said, he was much surprised that the right hon. gentleman did not mean to afford the House any further explanation. If the question at stake was a merely personal one, he should not be disposed to prolong it: but it was neither just towards individuals, nor decent towards the public, that such charges as the right hon. gentleman had made should remain without either being answered or supported. The charge of the right hon. gentleman was brought, if not against all, against a large proportion of his late colleagues. Was it against those who had quitted office, or against those who still continued in it? As well as he could understand the last comment of the right hon. gentleman, upon the declaration of lord Goderich, he seemed to acquit that noble lord of any share in the design which he had alluded to. In that case, did it not appear that the parties conceiving it must have been those even with whom the right hon. gentleman was now sitting? If this was not the case, the right hon. gentleman's insinuations must implicate somebody—they must stick some where—they must apply to those individuals who had been in office under the late government and had not joined the present; and for them, and on their account, he now threw back the charge into the teeth of the right hon. gentleman, who could not, he thought, under all the circumstances, avoid either abandoning it or making it good. If the right hon. gentleman ever expected to receive support, as a minister, from the House or from the country, he could not shrink from further explanation, after having gone the length that he had done. If he meant to remain a member of any government, no matter whether as chancellor of the Exchequer, or degraded to some inferior office, there was no place so low that he would be fit to fill it, or to be tolerated in it by the country, if he could bring accusations of so deep a dye against the individuals as he had done, and refuse either fully to establish or retract them.

said, that after the observations of the hon. baronet, he would offer a few words to the House; but not at all in departure from his already expressed determination—that of entering into no disclosures not absolutely necessary to his own exculpation. An hon. and learned gentleman, who had termed his explanation on a former evening voluntary and gratuitous, knew well that he had been personally called upon for explanation, and that he would have been exclaimed against for ever if he had withheld it. He had explained, so far as was necessary, to clear his own character from misrepresentation; and he was bound to go no further. In the course of his vindication, he had asserted, and he did again assert, that it was not correct to say, that his resignation of office had been the cause of the dissolution of the late government. He had maintained, that there were other causes, and he should always maintain it; for he knew that the fact was so. He said that he "knew"—that was, as far as a man could know, from inference and conclusion; and from that most palpable proof, that a cause so unimportant, unassisted by others, never could have produced such a result. A right hon. gentleman had said, that he did not give credit to this statement. The right hon. gentleman meant, he apprehended, to say that he (Mr. Wynn) was not aware of any other causes than that suggested. To this he would answer, that if the right hon. member did not know of any such causes, he (Mr. Herries) did. There was not, he thought, a man, in or out of that House, connected with government or not—in short, he believed there was not a man in the kingdom, who could come to any other conclusion than that to which he had himself come, respecting the dissolution of government, or at least thus far—that he had not been the cause of that dissolution. He repeated, that no man who was aware of the events which were passing at that time could fail to draw any other conclusion than that which he had done; though, perhaps, he knew more on the subject than others. He would repeat, that no person who saw the transactions which were then going on, could fail to come to any conclusion but this—that there were other causes than his tender of his resignation, which operated in effecting the dissolution of the government. But he must beg the House to bear in mind, that there were others who had undertaken, and who were more competent than he was, to give an account of the cause of the fall of the late ministry, and who had referred to events connected with that event. Some of those to whom he alluded, who had referred to his resignation as the immediate cause of the dissolution, admitted that there were other circumstances which also contributed to it. Why not describe those circum- stances? There was the point at which such description might have been given: Why was it omitted? It was not he who had undertaken to account for the dissolution of the ministry. Why had not those who had undertaken that task given an account of all the causes which led to it? If there were other events in operation which could render so trifling a circumstance as his resignation an immediate cause of the breaking up of the ministry—if it were in such a situation before that, as to be operated upon by so slight a cause, why had it not been thought necessary by others to state all the operating causes that led to that catastrophe? He now begged to call on the right hon. gentleman, and to ask him, whether he was not aware that abundant causes existed at the time, which were likely to contribute to such a result? For his own part, he would now repeat, what he had so often said, and would always continue to say, that his resignation was not the substantive cause of the dissolution of the late government.

begged to repeat in the most distinct and unequivocal terms, his belief that the resignation of the right hon. gentleman was the cause of the dissolution of the late ministry. He knew of no other cause whatever. Whether the government could continue to stand, would have depended on the share of the confidence of parliament which it might possess; but that it was intended to meet parliament and to stand the contest on that occasion, he was convinced. Now, he begged to ask the right hon. gentleman whether, eight and forty hours before he had sent in his resignation, he had not in the cabinet, promised to co-operate in the support of lord Goderich's government to the utmost of his power? He asked him whether he had said or intimated any thing on that occasion, which could give the slightest reason to suppose that he had at that time any intention to resign? He begged to ask the right hon. gentleman whether at that time he had any intention of writing the letter tendering his resignation? If he had, he most certainly had deceived him— he would not say intentionally, but he had deceived him—for he would most distinctly assert, that it was impossible for any man who heard the promise of the right hon. gentleman on the 19th of December, to believe that it was his intention to resign on the 21st. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that no man who had heard him could be dissatisfied with the explanation he had given in defence of his character. Upon that explanation, it was not his intention to offer any comment. He was not called upon to do it. It was a matter with which, in his opinion, the House had nothing to do: it being a point of honour between the right hon. gentleman and one of his colleagues; but, after the bold manner in which the right hon. gentleman had put the question, he would beg to ask in turn, whether, after the information he had received early in December, that nothing had been concluded on the subject of the appointment of lord Althorp, and that the application to that nobleman was merely to sound him as to whether he had any objection to accept the office of chairman, should it be determined by the government to nominate him—he asked, whether, after that, any additional information on the subject had come to the right hon. gentleman's knowledge, before he wrote his letter of the 21st; and if not, on what ground had he assumed, that negotiations had been going on with respect to that appointment, and that it was completed? If he had received no additional information, how was he warranted in the assumption, unless he believed that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) and the noble lord had combined to deceive him?

said, that the question which he had first introduced to the House had now arrived at that stage in which it could not be taken up beneficially by any person except the right hon. gentleman himself. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he had given an explanation which must be considered satisfactory. How far it tended to clear his character—of course he meant his public character—he would not inquire. Neither would he stop to examine how far a minister of the Crown was justified in throwing out insinuations against his late colleagues in office. On all these points he would leave the right hon. gentleman to the benefit of that opinion which he might very easily gather, from all sides of the House, during the present short discussion. He had risen for the purpose of setting the right hon. gentleman right on one point. Any further question he would not put, for the right hon. gentleman seemed as incapable of understanding any question put to him, as he was of answering it in a way in which it could be understood by others. The question which he put was, not that to which, as had been observed by his learned friend, the right hon. gentleman had volunteered a gratuitous answer—for, as to consultations with any individuals out of the cabinet, it would not have come into his head to ask. If any such thing occurred, that House was not the place where they should be noticed, and certainly he was not the person who would introduce the subject. The question he had asked was, how far the right hon. gentleman could concur in a statement made, in the other House, respecting his objections to the appointment of lord Althorp as chairman of the Finance Committee. It had been stated, by a noble lord (Goderich) that the righthon. gentleman had, at three different intervals, made different statements with respect to the appointment of lord Althorp. The first was, that he had no objection to the appointment: the second, that his objection arose chiefly from an implied slight towards him, in not having been consulted in the nomination; and the third, on the ground of lord Althorp's supposed political or party opinions; and the noble lord (Goderich) expressed his surprise that, after the explanation that the right hon. gentleman had received on these points, he should have persisted in what he stated, in his letter of the 21st of December, and have thus been the means of breaking up the government. To those questions, and to those only, he had directed the attention of the right hon. gentleman.

said, that the noble lord had correctly re-stated the points to which he had called his attention. To those points he conceived that he had already given a reply. He had stated his reasons for the delay which occurred between the 3rd of December and the letter he wrote on the 21st. For that, he thought, he had also satisfactorily accounted. But the noble lord objected, that he had shifted his ground, and stated a reason, at a subsequent interval, different from that which he had mentioned at first; and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) said the same thing, and asked, why he had assumed that the nomination of lord Althorp was completed, when he had been already told that it was only proposed. He would answer, that he had a right to assume that the engagement was concluded; and let it be remembered, that when he read the letter to the House, he stated that he had so assumed, in order that, if he were wrong he might be set right at once. The reason why he had assumed that the arrangement was completed, and next that it was made on party considerations, was because such was his impression, and because he wished that, if in that impression he was wrong, he should be set right without delay, by a denial of the correctness of those assumptions. Was that denial made? Was it stated that the arrangement was not concluded, or that it had not been made from party motives? No such denials had been given; nay more, was it not proved in the result, that the arrangement had been completed? [Cries of "No, no."] He repeated, he was justified in the assumption he had made, that it was so. He asked, had any bargain been made? No. Was there any understanding on the subject? Yes. Was it open to discussion? No. There was an understanding, it seemed, but the matter was not open to discussion. Then he maintained, that he was perfectly right in assuming these points as facts, in order that he might be undeceived at once if he were in error. And here he must remark upon the improper colouring, given by the noble lord who spoke last, to his letter, when he drew from it the conclusion, that it was written with a view to break up the government. Why, what was there in that letter which tended to destroy the government. Was not the offer made in fair and amicable terms, that he was willing to withdraw himself from the administration, in order that the government might; go on better? He had said petulantly that he would resign, lest any misconstruction should be put upon it; but finding that he differed from some of his colleagues on what he considered an important point, he calmly, and in the most friendly terms, offered to place his office at the disposal of the noble lord at the head of the government. He would refer the noble lord to the terms of his letter, to bear him out in that statement. Looking at that letter, ands bearing in mind the statement with which he had accompanied it, he called upon the noble lord—divesting himself of all considerations of party feeling, and forgetting that he sat on the opposition side—to state manfully what there was in its spirit tending to destroy the government. It showed that he was anxious to retire from office. Was that a great crime? Was it a great crime, that he was so little tenacious of the honours and emoluments of that office, so little studious of his own private interests, and so anxious to prefer those of the public that he was ready to resign it? Was that, he begged to ask the noble lord, indicative of a disposition to destroy the government? He put it to the noble lord in candour whether, in this point of view, he had not wholly misunderstood the spirit of his letter? He would ask any gentleman of fair dealing, whether, when one man wrote to another, and stated his impression upon a particular subject—when he mentioned to him, that such was his judgment and such his impression upon that subject, with the view that if he were in error he might be set right, by explanation or denial of what he assumed, and that there was no explanation and no denial given, he would not be warranted in concluding, that his assumption had been right, and his impression correct? But the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) had asked, whether, when at the return of lord Goderich to the government, and when he had promised to support him, he had any intention to resign? He would say in answer to this, that it was his intention to assert his own right, with respect to the finance committee. The fact was, that it was not his intention to resign at that time. Did it follow that, because he was disposed to assert his right on that point, that his resignation must have been the consequence? He had no right to assume that the noble lord at the head of the government would have denied him the justice he asked, or that his letter to him would be productive of his resignation. He had no right to assume that, after that letter, he was not to go on as before. This, then, was his anwswer to the questions put by the right hon. gentleman. The subject had not been a matter of consideration among his colleagues generally. It was not discussed in the cabinet. It was merely between himself and one of his right hon. friends; and therefore he trusted it would be readily conceded to him, that the time of the return of lord Goderich to the government was not the most proper for the introduction of such a matter, and to force it on the attention of the cabinet. Besides, he had no reason to believe that when he should mention the subject, the justice to which he thought he was entitled would be denied to him. He was not therefore disposed to press it at that moment. If he had done so, and introduced it to the cabinet, he had no doubt it would not have met with consideration at that time; and the fact of his mentioning it might, perhaps, be taken as an indication that he wished to upset the government. It was because he had no such intention that he did not mention the subject on the 19th. He hoped this would be sufficient to satisfy the right hon. gentleman as to his motives for not pressing the matter, which, when it was pressed, was not, he knew, the cause of upsetting the government.

said, that from the feeling manifested by the House, it appeared to him that it was not its wish that this matter should be pressed further, the more particularly as no further explanation could be expected from the right hon. gentleman. There was only one word which he would add on the subject, in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman as to his (Mr. B. 's) not having spoken advisedly, when he stated that the right hon. gentleman had volunteered a gratuitous explanation. He begged to assure him, that he had spoken advisedly on that occasion, and he was borne out in it by his noble friend; for he remembered that the right hon. gentleman had alluded to attacks made upon him in the newspapers, and had culled and selected one point of attack, and had given his answer to it.

rose for leave to bring in a Bill, "for regulating the Mode of taking the Polls in Cities and Boroughs in England." In bringing forward this motion, he was, he said, the organ of a committee appointed to inquire into the abuses which it was proposed by the bill to remedy. The object of the bill was to extend the facilities of voting at present enjoyed by electors; and the mode in which it was proposed to do so, was by increasing the number of places at which polls were taken, and by limiting the duration of those elections. At present every election presented a scene of licentiousness and riot; the contest was always a source of immense expense; and by the stagnation of business, and the interruption of all affairs of trade, the loss was greatly increased. He anticipated no opposition, and should at present confine himself to his motion for leave to bring in the bill.

said, he was disposed to agree with his hon. colleague, that some measure was necessary to correct the evils of the present system of polling; but, at the same time he thought that great caution should be observed not to abridge the rights of those who possessed the elective franchise.

thought it necessary to have a number of booths and polling places in large towns, to avoid the access to the hustings being blocked up by the adverse parties. He should look with jealousy to the progress of the bill, as it appeared to him not to afford sufficient time for bringing up voters from London to distant places.

was of opinion, that all the evils complained of under the present system, arose from the too long duration of the time of polling. In the borough which he represented, the election was generally, concluded in one day, and the number of voters polled on the last occasion was one thousand five hundred, including three hundred out-voters.

said, that the existing inconveniences were allowed on all hands. By shortening the period, and lessening the expenses of elections, the House would, he was convinced, be enlarging; and not restraining the elective franchise.

disapproved of increasing the number of polling booths. He disliked to see electors shut up in different pens like so many sheep. He thought they ought rather to assemble in a body, and express their feelings in a united voice.

said, that six days, the term proposed in the bill for the duration of the poll, appeared to him insufficient. He thought, likewise, that if the object was, to curtail expense, the having a number of polling places was not the way to effect it; seeing that the candidates would be obliged to have counsel at each place.

suggested to the hon. mover, that the best argument he could bring in aid of his bill would be some instances of the benefit which had resulted from the abridgment of the poll in particular places. In Norwich, he believed, the duration of the poll had been considerably shortened. He threw out this suggestion, seeing that one practical instance would have greater weight than innumerable arguments à priori.

said, that the shortening of the duration of the poll would either deprive out-voters of their franchise, or compel candidates to bring them up numerically and bodily, at an enormous expense.

said, that great anxiety existed as to the object which the hon. gentleman had in view. An idea prevailed, that it was the intention of the hon. member to take away from friendly societies the power of appointing their treasurers and other officers; which, in the opinion of persons connected with those societies, would destroy the system altogether. He was satisfied that the hon. member had no such intention; but hoped that, to allay the apprehensions of others, he would take that opportunity of stating what his object was.

said, it might be a sufficient answer to what had fallen from the hon. member, to state that the bill which he proposed to bring in, did not in any degree affect the societies formed otherwise than under the act which he had the honour to introduce in 1819. The new bill would interfere no further in the matter of appointing officers than the former bill did. The existing act required that there should be certain trustees, and that they should appoint the treasurer. The act interfered in no other way with the management of the societies; so far from it, that all clauses in former acts relating to their management were repealed by it. Except in the matter of securities, the societies framed under his act had more direct management of their affairs than those framed under Mr. Rose's act. The act he had introduced was intended to obviate the numerous evils which resulted from miscalculation; for which purpose it provided, that justices should not allow any society to be formed, whose tables of payments and benefits should not have been approved by two competent actuaries. In the execution of this provision, however, a difficulty arose: it was not easy to know who were competent actuaries. To get rid of this obstacle, he would propose, in the bill he was about to introduce, that the rules and tables exhibited at the sessions should be, by the clerk of the peace, transmitted to the only government-office in London which possessed a professional actuary; namely, the office of the Commissioners for reducing the National Debt.

expressed himself satisfied with the explanation.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for a select committee" to take into consideration the Law of Parochial Settlements." The hon. member said, that after deliberating whether be should embody at once the alterations which he proposed to make in the laws relating to parochial settlement into a distinct bill, or ask for a committee of inquiry, he had thought it his duty to prefer the latter mode; because, if it should be thought that there was too much of novelty in his views, they would be better digested and come with stronger recommendation from the hon. members whom he intended to propose as a committee.—The first objection against the laws relative to parochial settlements was, that they were founded upon ancient habits of serfship, and militated against the liberty of the subject. Under the present system, the unfortunate pauper, on the approach of illness, age, or disability, might, together with his family, be dragged like criminals from one end of the country to the other, that they were finally lodged in some obscure parish, where, according to the opinion of any two magistrates in the vicinity, they had done some act to entitle them to a settlement. This harsh and evil policy had been strongly deprecated by sir William Blackstone and by Mr. Pitt. The former had declared, in his Commentaries that, "notwithstanding the pains which have been taken about the laws of settlement, they still remain very imperfect, and inadequate to the purposes they are designed for: a fate that has generally attended most of our statute laws, where they have not the foundation I of the common law to build on. When the shires, the hundreds, and the tithings, were kept in the same admirable order, that they were disposed in by the great Alfred, there were no persons idle; consequently none but the impotent that needed relief; and the 43rd Statute of I Elizabeth seems entirely founded on the same principle. But when this excellent scheme was neglected and departed from, we cannot but observe with concern, what miserable shifts and lame expedients have from time to time been adopted, in order to patch up the flaws occasioned by this neglect." Mr. Pitt also had, in the year 1796, declared in that House, that the law of settlement "had been peculiarly prejudicial to industry; for, by preventing the circulation of labour, it had increased the burthens of the country, and by oppressing individuals diminished the riches of the state."—The hon. member then referred to the statutes of Richard 2nd, Henry 7th, and Edward 6th, c. 1, which were enacted to repress "vagabondry," and directed the poor to repair to the place where they were born, or were most conversant with for three years;—to the modification of these laws by the act of James 1st, which reduced this qualification to one year; and to the 43rd of Elizabeth. During her long reign, a system of miserable expedients might be traced, of entreating, asking, demanding, and enforcing, charity. To the provisions of the act made in the latter period of her reign, might be attributed, no less the present miserable burthen on the landed interest, than the wretched and humiliating degradation of the poor themselves. From that time to the Restoration, in the 13th and 14th of Charles 2nd, the statutes so rapidly multiplied, that regular notice of them would be almost impossible. He would therefore turn to the heads of settlement, in order to ascertain what clauses might be satisfactorily pointed out for revision; or, if it should be thought fit, for extirpation.—The first was the "Law of Hiring, and Service." Exclusive of the extravagant litigation which, from the number of appeal causes—three thousand in three years—which the law as it at present stood gave rise to, the effect was most pernicious, as far as it regarded the moral condition of the poor. Some years ago, said the hon. member, the residence of every respectable farmer presented a school for domestic and agricultural pursuits. It contained a number of hired servants of both sexes, who dwelt under the same roof, and not unfrequently lived at the same board with their masters and mistresses. They were, consequently, identified with their prosperity; and anxious to repay the kindness they experienced, by every attention to the interests of their employers. There they acquired habits of honesty, sobriety, and regular industry; there, too, the romance of humble life was played off, and instead of rushing into precipitate marriage, as at present, the parties remained in service a few years, reserving their mutual wages, and then coming together with the full consent and approbation of their employers, to whom they looked for support and encouragement in after life. What was now the contrast? At present, the farmer dared not hire a labourer out of another parish, for fear he should become an inmate of his own; and when he looked to that parish he found the demand so inadequate to the supply, that he was unfortunately too often induced to prefer the wretched system of roundsmen to that of the fairly remunerated and independent labourer.—Another, and a most important branch of the general subject was settlement by marriage. That the wife should follow the settlement of the husband appeared at first sight only just and reasonable, but to the perversion of this law much evil might be attributed.—At present, a female of the poorest class had not only no motive to preserve her character, but on the contrary, she had every inducement to forfeit her reputation; as, by so doing, she was likely to obtain not merely a husband, but, what was to her of much greater consequence, a right to select a certain parish, and by swearing her child to a man of that parish, compel him to marry her. The consequence of these forced marriages was obvious; the peasantry were married whilst mere children, and before they had formed any virtuous or lasting attachments; certainly, before they had laid by any reserve to meet the future exigencies of a family. They considered that family as the property of the parish which must maintain them. They were brought up dependent upon the parish, and independent of their parents; and in fact—to use an expression formerly applied—as legitimate paupers.—What he hoped to effect was, that in so serious and solemn a moral obligation, no legal compulsion whatever should be exerted: there might, probably, be difficulties, chiefly as to providing for natural children; still, no system of general policy which militated against domestic morality could be publicly justified. Now, the most simple and efficacious remedy in this case would be to enact, that in all cases where a child might be born within six months of the marriage of the parents, such a child should belong to the parish of the mother, and not of the father. This would put a stop to the juggling system of overseers, who urged their own females to lay their children to men of other parishes, in the hope of removing them; quite forgetful, that the evil was reciprocal, and that if an overseer got rid of three or four females in a year under these circumstances, the same number of his own young men must have been driven into marriage; and thus this wretched system had, consequently, proceeded with mutual infliction of severity.—This measure would also teach the overseer what he ought to have known long ago—that he; ought rather to apply the power with which he was armed to the prevention of mischief —that he ought to look to the early habits of his youthful poor, and endeavour to repress the first symptoms of evil, instead of hoping to profit by the completion of that evil. But, above all, it would teach one most important lesson to the female herself; namely, that as the law, by its strongest enactments had made her the guardian of her own character, such she must remain; and that she would have to attribute her after-success in life to the preservation of her reputation, instead of, as at present, the forfeiture of it.—The hon. member concluded by moving for the appointment of the said committee.

said, he thought it would be advisable to give the powers of the committee a wider range, as there were many other points, with respect to the Poor Laws, which must necessarily force themselves upon their consideration. In some parts of the country, the rate of wages was so low, that even a single man could with difficulty support himself without parochial aid. It was not his intention to trespass upon the attention of the House on that occasion; but if no other member took the matter up, he should feel it his duty to move, that the committee should have power to embrace the more general question of the Poor-laws.

said, he could not promise to give his general attendance at the committee, in consequence of his professional avocations. What assistance he could afford short of such attendance, he was very willing to contribute.

declared himself satisfied with the occasional assistance of the hon. and learned gentleman.

wished to state some objections which he felt, not so much towards the principle of the proposed measure, as to some of its details. He thought it would tend to the ultimate success of the bill, if it were to undergo a little more consideration. The bill had been passed last year in the House of Commons, but had been lost in the other House. Upon the former occasion, the late chancellor of the Exchequer had said, "Where there's a will there's a way," an expression, the meaning of which he did not understand at the time, but which he since understood to mean that, although there was a will to pass the measure in the House of Commons, there was a way to get rid of it in the House of Lords; and so it proved. Before it passed, he should like to know, whether it was likely to be productive of serious loss to the country. If the tax, as it at present existed, operated as a hardship upon Roman Catholics in particular, he was the last man to wish for its continuance. But if the Land-tax was felt as a grievance, then the general question had better go before the finance committee. It had always been an impression upon his mind, that the hon. mover of the bill was rather hostile to the Roman Catholics; but he supposed the hon. member introduced this motion as a sort of balsam —that he intended by it to pour oil into the wounds of that body. He disclaimed all hostility to the Roman Catholics. He cared not whether a man came from Canterbury or Rome, and thought that the Roman Catholic ought not to pay a larger amount of taxation than the Protestant. So much for the policy of the bill; it was much more material to consider its justice. There was, in his opinion, no hardship whatever in the existing system; or if any, it fell almost entirely on the inhabitants of the southern counties of England; and they, in his opinion, had a stronger claim to relief than the Roman Catholics.

said, he should be the last man in the world to object to a measure like the present, which was intended to do justice to persons whose rights appeared to have been injured; but, at the same time, as the indulgence which was now sought to be granted to the Catholics must come out of the public purse, he thought it was necessary that the House should see clearly that the persons who would receive benefit from this act were the parties really entitled to relief. With respect to the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Dormer, and the other noble personages, who had clearly suffered from this double assessment, he was willing not only to give them relief, but to remunerate them for what they had already paid.

said, he was ready to support the principle of this bill, for the same reasons which had induced him to support it in the last session. But he thought, that instead of debating the principle of the measure, on which he believed they were all agreed, they ought to let the bill go into the next stage, where they might discuss the best mode of obviating the difficulties which were anticipated to its practical operation. He agreed that, to impose a different rate of duty on different classes of the community, on account of the difference in their religious creeds, was a doctrine which no man of common sense, at the present day, would advocate.

said, he knew that the statute of William 3rd, being held a very severe measure against the Roman Catholics, had, by collusion and connivance on the part of the early commissioners, never been carried into execution against them. The difficulty, therefore, would be to ascertain the fact, whether the Roman Catholic proprietor had had a double assessment placed upon his land in the time of king William, according to its then real value. He was not satisfied with the nature of the proof which the present bill provided on that point; on the contrary, he thought that the legal advisers of the Crown should have an opportunity of bringing it under revision. There was another provision of the bill with which he was not satisfied. When Mr. Pitt made the Land-tax, perpetual, it followed as a matter of course, that no change could take place in the assessments which were then made, and not appealed against within a given time, An opportunity was then given to the Roman Catholics to get rid of their assessment of 8s. in the pound; of which, however, in some instances, they had not availed themselves. Now, since that time Protestants had bought of Catholics land subject to the double assessment, and had, in consequence of that assessment, given a less sum for it. If they were enabled by this act to get rid of the double assessment, it would not be a boon to the Catholic but to the Protestant landholder. These were the two points of difficulty which he could not get over. He concurred in those feelings of justice which induced the House to adopt this bill to a certain extent, and should be happy to offer his services in the committee, to put it into such a shape as would protect the rights of all parties.

explained the mode in which the commissioners of Land-tax disposed of appeals against the inequality of the tax in his district. He had no great alarm, as to the sum which the revenue would lose by the passing of this measure; for he knew that there was not, in the extensive county of Sussex, a single Catholic who would have occasion to appeal under it; and he believed that the same was the case in Surrey. He was of opinion that public justice required the bill to be passed, and that the thanks of the country were due to the law officers of the Crown for not meeting it with any unnecessary opposition.

said, that he did not look upon this measure as a boon to the Catholics, but as an act of tardy justice. When the act was passed, which made the Land-tax perpetual, the inequality with which it pressed upon the Roman Catholics was dwelt upon by Mr. Pitt. He used phrases which showed that he considered it to be owing to the carelessness of Protestants, that an inequality existed among them; and said, that he could not allow that inequality to be urged as a reason for delaying the passing of his bill, which it was well known was an important financial measure. Not a word further was said at that time by the Roman Catholics; for at that time, too, there was no Roman Catholic in the House to advocate their cause. He, who had always opposed the admission of Catholics into parliament, on national grounds, never supposed that it was not a hardship upon them, that they had not individuals in the House to advocate their rights, and therefore he agreed with the Attorney-general, that though it might not be hard to let the Protestants suffer for their neglect, they were bound to show greater indulgence to Roman Catholics. In cases, therefore, where Protestants paid an equal assessment with Catholics, he did not pretend, by this bill, to give any remedy. The law, however, professed to remedy the injustice which had been inflicted on Roman Catholics, and did not; and all that he now proposed to do was, to assist the law in its operation. The English Roman Catholics had not been passive under the present injustice of the law, but had sought redress for it by every legal means in their power. Lord Shrewsbury, who had six different estates in six different counties, paid on them all, with one exception, precisely the same sum as was first charged upon them fifty years ago. He got rid of the double charge upon an estate which he had in Oxfordshire, by an appeal to the commissioners tinder the act of 1794. But even that was attended with great difficulty. He had to apply to the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus, to compel the commissioners to hear his appeal. He had to take counsel down to the country to try his cause, and at last, in 1799, he got 10l. or 20l. taken off a land tax of 260l. a-year. Suppose the noble lord was right in the course which he had then adopted, he had paid on his five other estates upwards of 600l. a-year in land-tax, more than he ought; a payment which, he understood, could be traced back for sixty years, by muniments in his lordship's keeping.—He hoped he should be able to exempt by this bill, not only the lands of Catholics but also those purchased by Protestants, and which were hitherto liable to double assessments. With a generosity which did them the highest honour, the Catholics of England were desirous, in the event of the measure passing, that the exemption should be made universal. He trusted that in the committee, he should receive the assistance of the law officers of the Crown to remove whatever legal difficulties might arise.