said, that, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend the laws on the subject of Controverted Elections, he felt it necessary to offer a few observations. The House knew, that it was now fifty-eight years since a Select Committee had been appointed to inquire into those laws, and that since that period ten acts of parliament had been passed on the subject. It was his wish to consolidate all these acts into one. He had prepared the bill, and would state shortly to the House the material alterations which it was the object of that bill to make in the present laws. In the first place, great difficulty and inconvenience had arisen from that part of the law which rendered it necessary that, on the presentment of petitions, the parties should enter into two recognizances; the one, to prosecute the petition, and the other to defray the expenses of its prosecution. It was clear that only one of; these could be necessary; and it was his wish therefore to remove the other. It repeatedly happened under the present laws, that the very clay before the trial of a controverted election was to come on, when the petitioning party had made all the necessary preparations, summoned his witnesses, and brought them to town at a considerable expense, the sitting member declined I to defend his seat. Hence arose a new delay of thirty days, and the witnesses were sent back to the country. It was his intention to give the sitting member fourteen days to decide whether he would defend his seat; and in the event of his; not declaring his intention within fourteen; days after the presentment of the petition, to make him liable for the costs that might have been incurred. He did not think that this, which was merely an act of justice to the petitioner, could be considered as any hardship upon the sitting member. Another reason why this alteration ought to be made was, that supposing the contents of the petition to be substantiated, the sitting member was completely out of court, and a person re- turned who might have no legal claim. He therefore proposed, in order to remedy this defect, that in all cases any persons claiming the right of voting should be admitted as collateral parties. He had heard of bargains being made on this subject, and compromises entered into. A committee, too, of last session—of which he had no wish to speak but in terms of respect—had thought themselves justified, without hearing a syllable of evidence, to seat the petitioner, because the sitting member said he would not defend his seat. It was necessary that compromises between the sitting member and the petitioner, and this consequence of the sitting member refusing to defend, should be both prevented.—He now came to the mode in which these committees were appointed. The House was aware that at present the number of names directed to be struck was forty-nine. He thought it quite unnecessary that so large a number should be struck, in the first instance. His intention was to assimilate these committees as much as possible to the nature of juries. Looking at the original bill, he found that it gave the power of striking off the names of members on cause being assigned; but, the House had found the exercise of this power to be most invidious. It seemed to him that it would be sufficient to draw only three times as many names, in the first instance, as would be required, and from them to strike off only a complete jury. He thought that the number of which these committees were at present composed might be reduced from fifteen to eleven, to be selected from the thirty-three names which he assumed to be sufficient to be struck in the first instance.—As to the I matter of nominees, he had reason to think that the House did not originally intend that they should be as they now were. It was well known that hon. members upon being appointed nominees had; enlisted themselves among the contending parties. He regretted to say that this had happened in many instances. The argument urged in favour of the appointment of nominees was, that the responsible situation in which they were placed would make them most scrupulous of being biassed, especially when they acted under oath. He regretted, however, to say that this was not the case. He had consulted several professional gentlemen who had been concerned on these occasions, and from them he had learned, that it was the practice, not only for the nominees to go up stairs and advise respecting striking out the names, but even to attend consultations; and that these judges, therefore, had actually made themselves parties in the dispute. He did not mean to cast any imputations on individuals, but he was sure there was no hon. gentleman who would not see how inconvenient it was to persist in the present course. In his opinion, it would be better to do away with nominees altogether. Gentlemen were now better informed on these subjects than they were sixty years ago, and the different reports which had been presented to the House had turned men's minds more seriously to the law on this subject. The only course which could be substituted for the present would be to give the committee the power of electing the nominees. But even this course was subject to objection, and he thought the better way would be to do away with them altogether. These were the principal alterations which it was his wish to make. His bill included all the acts upon the subjects, with the exception of that of 1803, which regulated the examination of witnesses. He thought that had better remain as an object of separate attention. He saw many inconveniences in the present practice, but he confessed that he could suggest no remedy for them. He had, therefore, left that act to be altered as the House should think fit.

agreed in all that had fallen from the right hon. gentleman. He wished to say a word or two on the question of nominees. When the Irish parliament adopted the acts of the English parliament on this subject, they left out the part respecting nominees, and never found that the omission of it caused any difficulty, either from want of information or want of justice.

said, he never was in a more unpleasant situation in his life, than when he had been appointed a nominee. He would throw out, as a suggestion to the right hon. gentleman, whether a convenient substitute for nominees might not be found by resolving, that the committee should choose a chairman, not from among themselves, but from the body of the House.

entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. mover. In the course of his parliamentary life, he had often thought of the propriety of abolishing nominees; and what they had just heard with respect to Ireland confirmed his notions on this subject. He was glad to find the conduct of this business in such able hands.

agreed, that the time was come when these laws ought to be consolidated, and thought the House was under great obligations to his right hon. friend. He was sure that great advantage would result from the measure. The constitution of committees ought to be altered with respect to nominees; and he thought eleven members quite enough for a committee. Besides, it might be necessary that many committees should be appointed, and therefore the more the number of persons in each committee was reduced, the greater provision there would be for committees. At the same time, the loss of the nominees ought to be compensated for by some other means, in order that ability and experience might be ensured to each committee. He thought great inconvenience would result, if the committee was allowed to select a chairman from the body of the House. He wished to suggest to his right hon. friend, whether some person might not be appointed by way of assessor. All he was afraid of was, that if there were only to be thirty-three names, with the power of striking off twenty-two, committees would be appointed which, from their inexperience, would not obtain the confidence of the House.

said, his suggestion was, that it should be made imperative on the committee to select a chairman from the body of the House. This would do away with the reflection which the right hon. gentleman had alluded to.

thought there ought to be an assessor appointed. A committee of which he was a member had actually overturned a decision of the Court of Session; which decision was afterwards confirmed by the House of Lords.

agreed that nominees ought to be abolished. He had often been a nominee, but he would not plead guilty to all that had been said against them. He did not like the proposition of an assessor. He thought the suggestion of making it imperative on committees to select a chairman from the body of the House was a very proper one. The House and the country would, he was sure, be obliged to the right bon. gentleman for bringing this matter forward.

said, he had served as a nominee on the committee to which his hon. friend (sir G. Warrender) had alluded; and so far from that committee having' violated the law, he was sure that its decision was founded on the soundest principles of law. He agreed that nominees ought to be abolished; and thought that if a committee had the benefit of two expert counsel, they would seldom decide wrong.

thought the constitution of election committees bad. It was bad that their proceedings should be conducted with closed doors. Whatever the strict rule of the House might be, no gentleman would say, that the two Houses of parliament could perform their functions with effect, unless the public were made acquainted with their conduct, and the reasons and principles on which they decided upon public questions. But in a committee up stairs every thing was decided irrevocably, and in the dark; and though it was known what decision they had come to, the reasons of that decision were concealed. He would state one curious fact. A petition had been presented against the return of his hon. friend (Mr. Hume); but there was not the shadow of a case made out on the part of the petitioner, and it was therefore voted unanimously, that the hon. member should not be called upon for a defence: but, when the question that the hon. member should retain his seat came to be decided, four of the committee who had so voted unanimously, voted also, that he should not retain his seat. What possible reason could have actuated these four, it was not for him to divine; but he was sure that no such thing could have occurred if the doors had been open.

thought if the hon. member's plan were adopted, that a little debate would be got up upon every question, however unimportant.

said, that though long speeches might be an inconvenience, the benefit which would result from the doors being open ought not to be left, out of the consideration. Publicity was the true corrective for the evil.

thought that every committee should have a person of knowledge and experience to counsel and advise them. A committee, of which he had been a member, had decided on a point of evidence, twice one way, and once a contrary way.

said, he felt it his duty to address the House on a subject which deeply concerned, not only the interests of humanity, but the national faith. Official advice had now been received, that—he had heard even seven thousand persons, but certainly—several thousand persons, men, women, and children, had been forcibly taken from the Morea, put on board the Egyptian fleet, and landed at Alexandria, where they had been publicly sold as slaves. The sufferings of these unhappy persons had been highly aggravated, from their having been torn from their country at a moment when the blessings of freedom had just begun to dawn upon it. The right hon. Secretary had, on a former occasion stated, that orders had been issued that none of the non-combatting part of the Greek population should be removed. He would ask then, how it was possible, while such orders existed, that the Egyptian fleet, or rather that remnant of a fleet which had escaped the battle of Navarino, should have been allowed to commit this piracy; for, to tear women and children from their homes and consign them to slavery was the worst of piracy? He wished to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether any official advices had arrived in this country which explained this transaction? He wished, also, to ask the right hon. gentleman whether any measures had been taken by this country, by itself, or in conjunction with its allies, to redeem these unfortunate persons from their bondage? This reparation, at least, was due to Greece, which had a right, under the treaty of the 6th of July, to claim the protection of the allied powers from wrongs like these, and all the relief that could be afforded them when the infliction of such wrongs had been allowed.

said, he had already stated, that in 1825, and consequently long before the protocol was signed by the duke of Wellington at Petersburgh, and long before the treaty of the 6th of July, his majesty's ministers had received an indistinct intimation, that the commander of the Egyptian forces intended to take away the inhabitants of the Morea to serve in Egypt; and before the treaty of the 6th of July was entered into, a distinct and formal intimation was given to Ibrahim Pacha, that his majesty would never agree to such an exercise of the rights of war, or allow the inhabitants of the Morea to be converted into slaves by force. No attempt was at that time made by Ibrahim to put this intention into practice, and it was not therefore necessary then to take any measures of prevention. He believed it was correct that some women and children had been taken forcibly from the Morea since the battle of Navarino. Instructions had been given to the British admiral before the battle took place, and those instructions were consequently still in force; by which the British fleet was directed to prevent any movement whatever of the Egyptian force, with this exception only,—that if any attempt were made to remove the Egyptian army from the Morea every facility should be afforded for the execution of such an attempt; but it was perfectly understood, that the Egyptian forces only were to be removed, and that any attempt at removing any portion of the population of the Morea was to be resisted. On the 28th of December, a fleet, consisting of forty-five sail, arrived at Alexandria. This fleet was the remnant of that which had been engaged in the action at Navarino. These vessels had on board the disabled seamen and soldiers, and also some women and children, but what the number of them was he could not tell. He had seen an account which rested upon tolerable authority, and that account stated that the number did not exceed six hundred. For the rest, he could assure the hon. member, that the subject was one to which ministers had given their best attention. Immediately upon the arrival of the intelligence in this country, instructions had been sent out to the British admiral; and in a very short time he had little doubt of being able to enter into full explanations without any prejudice to the public service.

thought that the honour of the country, no less than the interests of humanity, was implicated in the question; but he was bound to admit, that the observations of the right hon. gentleman were so far satisfactory, that they displayed no want of proper feeling upon the subject. At the same time, he rejoiced that the question which called forth those observations had been asked; and trusted that proper steps would be taken to restore those unhappy people who had been carried away into slavery to the home from which they had been so atrociously removed.

said, that in 1825 a project had been conceived by Ibrahim Pacha, of carrying off the whole population of the Morea into slavery in Egypt, and re-peopling the country with Arabs. As soon as that intention had been known at St. Petersburgh, a declaration of the strongest character had been issued, stating that the first attempt to execute it would be held to justify the most decided measures on the part of the powers of Europe for its prevention. The abominable outrage by which so many unoffending women and children had been carried into captivity, seemed to be a sort of remains of the project of 1825; and merited the promptest notice by this country. He could not doubt that the inquiry, in which the government was engaged, referred to the most convenient measures for restoring the unhappy victims to their country, and he trusted that every effort would be made, not only to disclaim any acquiescence in such an act on the part of England, but to repair, as far as possible, the consequences of it. With respect to the great general question connected with this subject, he should at present abstain as far as possible from making any comments on it, although it was a topic upon which he and those who thought with him observed silence with difficulty; and how much longer it would be possible for them to persevere in a silence which cost them so great an effort, and which might be liable to misconstruction, it was impossible for him to say. It was a little extraordinary, that, while the other powers, which were parties to the Treaty of London, had declared their intentions plainly, England alone should refuse to speak out. In, France, the full explanation of M. Peyronnet, left no question as to what the policy of that country would be. Russia, in a communication which was substantially official, had avowed to all the world the motives of her policy, and she was at that very moment probably on the eve of executing it. Even the Turks themselves had made known the whole course of fraud and delusion which they had been practising upon all the powers of Europe for a series of years. Under these circumstances, he would, shortly after the recess, call the attention of the House to the situation and duties of this country under the treaty of the 6th of July. The more he reflected upon the treaty in question, the more firmly he was convinced of its justice, lawfulness, and wisdom.

said, he had never been convinced of the wisdom of the treaty upon which the learned gentleman had laid so much stress. He called upon ministers rather to revise their course of policy, than allow their feelings to hurry them into a war.

said, there was one point of the speech of the learned member for Knaresborough upon which he must observe, lest he should be supposed to acquiesce in it. The learned member said, that he presumed the "inquiry," of which he (Mr. Peel), in a former address to the House, had spoken, could be nothing else than an inquiry into the best mode of restoring that part of the population recently carried from the Morea to their country. Now, he was not aware that it was possible entirely to go that length. Undoubtedly, if the instructions of government had been strictly complied with, the transportation of those persons would have been prevented. No blame was to be attached to the conduct of our fleet, the physical powers and means of which had been cramped by the battle of Navarino: but the orders, if it had been possible to have executed them fully, were to prevent any movement of the hostile fleet, unless one which should be sanctioned by the English admiral, and of which the object should be to transport the Egyptian forces employed in the Morea back to their own country. As the intelligence at present stood the extent of the spoliation that had been committed was uncertain. Unfortunately, too, those slaves had been landed in Egypt, and sold in the public market. If the ships which contained them had been taken at sea, there could have been no difficulty about their disposal; but now they were probably divided, and the property of private individuals. At present he would go no further than to repeat, that within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the news, the most active inquiry had been entered upon by government, as to all the facts connected with the case. Sufficient information had not yet been received; but the investigation was going on.

inquired when the Report of the Commissioners might be expected

said, he understood that the report would be ready about the 21st of the month.

thought that the commission looked very much like a job. That Mr. Telford, Mr. Brande, and Dr. Roget, should have been six months examining whether there was a sufficient supply of water for the town, and whether that water was of a wholesome quality, seemed to him inconceivable.

said, that the commissioners had not been employed so long as six months; and, in addition to an analysis of the water, they had to examine the books and affairs of the water companies. The commissioners were gentlemen of the highest character, and were incapable of being concerned with a disgraceful job.

doubted whether any analysis would satisfy the public: a given quantity of water might be perfectly clear, but unless it was drawn from a pure and wholesome source, the inhabitants of the metropolis would never be satisfied.