rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to vacate the seats of Members of Parliament who have accepted offices in India. He said, he did not intend to trouble the House at any length, as the measure might be more advantageously considered on the motion for the second reading. At the same time he thought it due to the House to state the objects which he had in view. In the first place, however, he begged to say, that what he was about to do, he did without communication with any other person; without having any interest whatever in the city of Canterbury, which was the place that would more immediately be affected by the bill; and, he hoped he need not add, without the slightest feeling of hostility to the individual whose case had made the existing deficiency of the law on the subject more apparent he meant Mr. Lushington, the governor of Madras. That case was so strong, and made the necessity of some alteration in the law so evident; that he was sure the House could not, resist the proposition which he was about to submit to them. It was imply this—that, in 1827, the hon. gentleman to whom he alluded, and who was one of the members for the city of Canterbury, accepted the I office of governor of Madras; and embarking, for India, without vacating his seat, left, the city of Canterbury, with only one representative, The House well knew that, in most great towns, the representation was divided between two parties. It was so divided in the city of Canterbury. One large portion, therefore, of the inhabitants had lost their representative in that House. For, although no body of constituents could have a better or a more active representative than his noble friend who was the other member for Canterbury, yet the being thus left with only one representa- tive was undoubtedly a serious grievance, of which the inhabitants of Canterbury had a right to complain. With respect to the city of Canterbury, he was wholly unconnected with it. He had not the slightest knowledge who was likely to be returned, if the bill for which he was about to move should receive the sanction of the legislature. It was evident, therefore, that he could not be influenced by any personal motive; nor could he have any party or political motive, because there could be no doubt that whoever might be elected would, like his predecessor, sit on the benches on the Treasury side of the House. He trusted, therefore, that the House would see that he was actuated solely by a sense of what he conceived to be his bounden duty. It would be for them to judge whether the measure that he intended to propose was just and necessity. It was his intention, that the bill should apply to persons accepting offices in India; and that it should be not merely prospective, but be applicable to this particular case of the city of Canterbury. If this last-mentioned provision should not be considered desirable by the House, it would be easy to omit it; but it would, undoubtedly form a part of the bill when introduced. The specific offices under the Crown, the holders of which should be allowed to have seats in parliament, and those the holders of which should be excluded from seats in parliament, had already been determined by a select committee of that House. He by no means wished to trench on the decisions of that committee. He was not one of those who were disposed, at the present moment, to complain of any great influence of the Crown in that House which called for reduction. It was undoubtedly true, that as some of the offices in India were conferred by the East-India Company, subject to the approval or disapproval of the Board of Control, those offices might in one, sense, be considered offices held under the Crown. But it was, by no means on that ground that he, made his present proposition. It was on the ground stated in the petition, which, had been presented to that House from the electors of the city of Canterbury; namely, the incompatibility, of the situation of governor of Madras with the discharge of the duties of a member of the House of Commons, He knew it might be said, that many of the members of that House were absent voluntarily—that others who were naval and military men were occasionally ordered by the Crown on service in distant parts of the world; but those were cases quite distinct from the case in his contemplation. If any hon. member, jealous of a new precedent, were to recommend an adherence to what was sometimes called "the wisdom of our ancestors," he would beg to remind that hon. member, that our ancestors were infinitely more difficult to satisfy, on the point of the personal attendance of members, than we were. Our constitution, however, had a constant tendency to get rid of all loose operations of the prerogative of the Crown on the one side, and of the privileges of parliament on the other; and to reduce to the form of specific laws whatever of both it might seem desirable to retain. Therefore, although in the olden time there were precedents of moving for new writs on the ground of the absence of members, and even when that absence was occasioned by ill health, yet such a practice had been so long disused, that it would be justly considered to be a stretch of authority to have recourse to it; and it would he much better to pass a specific act to meet the case. He was no friend to legislating on any speculative contingency; but here a real difficulty had arisen, and a complaint had been made to the House of it. He had not heard any objection made to the principle of the measure, as far as respected its prospective operation. But he had heard objections to its being applied to any existing case; or, in other words, to Mr. Lushington. His opinion was, that the bill ought to cover that case; and that it ought to provide for the filling: up of the vacancy in the House created by the impossibility of performing incompatible duties The hon. gentleman, concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill "to exclude persons accepting Offices in India from sitting in the House of Commons."

considered it rather unprecedented to render any measure of this nature retrospective. It was clear that the retrospective clause could affect only one individual, the member for the city of Canterbury. He was quite sure that, that hon. member would not desire to retain his seat a moment longer than was consistent with the wishes of his constituents and the opinion of the House. He would not enter into any explanation of the particular circumstances of the case; but he must beg to observe, with respect to the petition from Canterbury, to which the hon. member had alluded; that that petition was signed only by those who were politically hostile to the hon. member against whom it was directed. If the hon. gentleman and the House would advert to the various sections of the 43rd of George III., c. 52, which provided for the vacating of seats in parliament, they would find that all the provisions of that act were prospective. He must say, that he thought great caution ought to be used in framing any new law and that a retrospective operation, such as that proposed by the hon. member, was unwise in any case in which injustice might be the result, and where there was no urgent necessity for such a step.

observed, that there were only three cases of appointments in India to which, the proposed measure could possibly apply. If it were expedient to pass a bill to vacate the seats of members who had accepted offices in India, he did not see why the bill ought not to be extended to persons who embarked for India, although without the acceptance of office. Under any circumstances, he was at a loss to conceive why the constituents of any hon. member who should thus vacate his seat were not to have the power, as in other cases of electing him, if they chose to do so; yet he did not understand that the bill proposed by the hon. member was to contain any such permission. He would ask also, whether there were no other parts of the world as well as India, a visit to or a residence in which was incompatible with the discharge of the duties of a member of the House of Commons? Why was not New South Wales or the West Indies equally obnoxious? Either, therefore, it, should be provided, that a member who absented himself for a given period to any place out of England should vacate his seat, or the proposed measure would be partial and unjust.

said, it was now seven years since a measure recognizing the principle upon which the hon. member for Callington wished to act had been introduced. Upon that occasion it was decided, that a person holding the office of master in Chancery in Ireland could not, at the same time, retain a seat in that House; and the bill was passed, but without having a retrospective effect. He thought, however, that the present case differed materially from that to which he alluded. He had had a conversation with Mr. Lushington shortly before his departure for India, and that hon. gentleman had assured him, that he had not the slightest wish to retain his seat for Canterbury, and that his doing so was altogether at the request of a large portion of his constituents. Now, he could not see what right the House had to interfere with the constituents of that borough; for if they suffered from the absence of their representative they did so with their own good will. He did, however, think, that some measure ought to be introduced upon the subject, but without having a retrospective effect.

thought that appointment in the East Indies differed from the appointment to the government of Colonies. With respect to the case immediately before the House, he thought that though an hon. member might, under such circumstances, afford his constituents an opportunity of selecting another representative, still he doubted the propriety of setting a precedent which would inflict a disqualification upon such persons. He confessed, that, although the law upon this subject ought to be equallized, he could not help feeling that its application, in the present instance, would be an implied censure upon the hon. member at present holding the government of Madras. There were certain parts of the bill which he was ready to support, without pledging himself to any thing like an acquiescence in its details.

thought it would be most advisable to tact on old precedents, and have it at once declared, that a seat became vacant upon an appointment to a distant office.

said, he should certainly oppose the retrospective operation of the bill, without pledging himself either way with respect to its other provisions.

thought there was no occasion for the bill, inasmuch as the acceptance of any such office as that in question should in itself operate as an exclusion from a seat in that House. But, unless the present ease could be shown to be a hardship upon the electors of Canterbury, he could not see why any specific measure should be introduced respecting it.

said, it was not his intention to take any part in this question, between the electors of Canterbury and their representative.

felt thankful to the hon. member for having introduced this measure, which he considered of great importance to the country. Precedents bad been spoken of; but, he would ask, what would be thought of the circum stance, if Mr. Canning had retained his seat for Liverpool, after his appointment to the governor-generalship of India? he thought the principle which the hon. member for Callington's motion went to correct one of a most injurious tendency.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.