presented a Petition from the City of Waterford, signed by a great number of highly respectable persons, praying for an Inquiry into the late affair at Newtownbarry, and also praying the House to adopt measures to disarm the Irish Yeomanry. He heartily concurred in the prayer of the petition, the compliance with which was absolutely necessary to preserve the peace of Ireland. It was certainly most impolitic to arm the Yeomanry—a measure which had caused great alarm among one part of the population in Ireland. He knew that the Yeomanry of the South of Ireland were a class of persons who had long been in open hostility to the Roman Catholics, and it was, therefore, most impolitic to intrust them with arms before their passions had become subdued. The peace that he was connected with, was solely attributable to the non-employment of the Yeomanry; he strongly reprobated the calling out of the Yeomanry at Newtownbarry as a measure most unadvisedly adopted, unless it was shown there had been a want of other species of force. There was on the spot a body of police, and, if they alone had been employed, they would most probably have prevented so much blood from being shed. It was most imprudent in the Magistrates to call out a body of exasperated men with arms in their hands, and the result was such as might have been expected. They were told that the Magistrate was discreet, and the Clergyman pious; perhaps he was reading his Bible when the Yeomanry were shooting his parishioners; but the facts were, that the levy of tithes had been enforced by the one, and the people shot by the order of the other. Whatever reason there might have been for arming the Yeomanry last year, there was no justification for allowing them to retain their arms now. The noble Lord at the head the Government in Ireland must know, that in case of danger the Yeomanry in Ireland, so far from being of service, would be an encumbrance to the regular army.

would not enter into the painful circumstances which had induced the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Anglesey) to decide upon the step he had taken; at the same time, it was not quite correct to state, that the Government had adopted any new system of arming the Yeomanry. Lord Anglesey only called in inferior arms, and gave out others which would enable the men to do their duty. He would not at present enter into any irritating discussions upon some topics, which only led to accusations and recriminations, nor would he enter into any defence of the deplorable events that had occurred at Newtownbarry, because, as far as the conduct of the Yeomanry and police was concerned, legal investigation was still pending, which would probably lead to the usual ordeal of trial. He could not but deprecate the discussion at the present moment of statements given at the Coroner's Inquest, and in the public newspapers. He agreed that the Yeomanry was not a force which should be hastily called out, at the discretion of any individual Magistrate; and though the Lord Lieutenant thought it his duty to refrain from expressing his opinions respecting the Yeomanry, he had thought it proper to express his disapprobation of the calling them out by the Magistrates. If he did not express his disapprobation of the conduct of the Yeomanry, it was because the subject was still under consideration. He begged also to say, that while he was not prepared to promise that the Yeomanry should be either disbanded or disarmed, he was ready to say that it was under the consideration of Government, whether a system could not be adopted which should take from the Yeomanry all that was objectionable, leaving only that which was useful. At present, however, he could not with propriety enter into the details of that measure; but with regard to individual cases, if any proofs could be brought to convict either the Officers or Privates of improper conduct, there was no man more ready than Lord Anglesey to take the subject into consideration, and inflict the fullest punishment upon the individuals. With respect to the proceeding of the 12th July, Lord Anglesey gave orders that none of the Yeomanry should attend the processions, and upon complaint that some of them had attended, they were instantly dismissed. He would take that opportunity of alluding to a statement made last night by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, respecting the distributing of arms to the Protestants of a corps, and withholding them from the Catholics. This statement he begged the hon. and learned Member to repeat, now that he was present, for he had not heard of the circumstance before. If the case turned out as the hon. and learned Member had represented it, there could be no measure so strong that the Lord Lieutenant would not adopt to vindicate the character of the Government, and to show his sense of such improper conduct. He begged to put it to the hon. Baronet who presented the petition, whether it would be proper to move, that it be printed, in consequence of the language it contained, as he should certainly be compelled to oppose the printing of it. He would not object to its being brought up, but he should oppose a Motion for printing it, for the petition used very strong and improper language respecting the affair at Newtownbarry. It said, that the Yeomanry of Ireland consisted of the most ignorant persons, and that they made their power an excuse for robbery and murder. He should put it to the House whether such language should be allowed.

hoped his hon. friend would persevere in pressing the petition, not only as to its being received, but as to its being printed. The petition stated the fact of the Magistrates having been convinced of the impropriety of employing a force which had done so much mischief. He did not know the distinction between creating and reviving a Yeomanry force; but, until late, that species of force in his own county had been nearly defunct, and merely supported by the Orange Lodge. He was sorry to hear now, that there was no hope that the Yeomanry were to be disarmed, and he could assure the House that it was impossible to say to what extent blood would be spilt by this atrocious force. He was sorry also to be obliged to say, that religious bigotry had been re-animated in Ireland by Lord Anglesey and his servants. They were afraid, too, of the Repeal of the Union, and they encouraged party spirit to weaken the people. If it were intended to massacre the Irish peasantry, if a notion so horrible could be entertained by a set of Ministers with a view of preserving any political system—what better means could be found than to arm one portion of the exasperated people against the other, and exasperate them still more. Let it be recollected, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), who now used mild language, was the individual who proposed to transport those Catholic peasants who had fire-arms in their possession, while he placed fire-arms in the hands of the Orangemen. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to read the speeches of the Protestant gentlemen at a meeting a short time ago in Wexford, and see their feelings as to Government for arming this unbearable Yeomanry force. Let him look at the language of Mr. Boyce and Mr. Osborne, and the right hon. Gentleman would find it ten times stronger than any he (Mr. O'Connell) had ever employed. In regard to the case which he had mentioned last night, he now repeated, that Captain D'Arcy had distributed arms to the Protestants and refused them to the Catholics of his corps, in confirmation of which he read the names of the witnesses to vouch for its truth. The witnesses would require the protection of Government, which no doubt they would receive. This Captain D'Arcy was in a procession on the 12th of July, carrying an Orange flag. He had some recollection that the right hon. Gentleman had, on a former night, said, that the arming of the Yeomanry was to cease; but he had heard that several corps had since then been armed. Unless the Yeomanry were disarmed, there would be more bloodshed. He would not enter into the Newtownbarry case, though that was classic ground in the list of Irish grievances, for it was on a petition from that place that Lord Byron made his first speech in Parliament. He would only say, in that case every Officer denied having given any orders to fire; therefore the men must have fired without orders, which was an abundant reason for disarming them. The House would have petitions upon this subject from every part of Ireland; he should have to present one from Galway in a few days. If the Government wanted an increase of force in Ireland, let them send an army there; the King's troops were the people's friends, and between them and the people, notwithstanding the troops were sometimes required to perform a painful duty, the utmost harmony existed.

knew, that the Officer whose conduct had been alluded to was so respectably connected, that nothing improper he might do would be sanctioned by his friends. He would assert, that the Fermanagh Yeomanry was a most Constitutional corps, and they had taken no part whatever in any illegal proceedings. They were chiefly Protestants, undoubtedly, but that did not arise from any exclusive principle, but because the majority of the inhabitants in Fermanagh were of that persuasion. He entirely disapproved of disbanding the Yeomanry, who were a useful and efficient body in maintaining the tranquillity of the country.

said, this was a petition for the general disarming of the Yeomanry of Ireland; and the present petition occasioned him considerable embarrassment—not, certainly, with respect to the opinion he should give; but placed as he was in the midst of the Yeomanry of Ireland—living as he did in the midst of a camp of armed men—he was afraid lest what he might say should be construed disrespectfully, as reflecting upon some individuals, as such, who were the hardy, laborious, and most valuable population of the North of Ireland. He would speak only of the bad, odious, vicious, and dangerous principle—the principle of religious exclusion—on which these Yeomanry were brought together, and he could not but say it with regret, not hostility, that he viewed that as a most dangerous and ill-timed step, which his Majesty's Government had taken, in renewing that force in Ireland, when it was nearly extinct. He very much doubted the wisdom of such a force, even in this country; but surely, if there was any justice in that opinion, it applied with tenfold force and weight to Ireland, where mutual party hostility so much prevailed, and where the unhappy differences between the members of the dominant religions and the Catholics tended so much to foster dissentions. He trusted, that Ministers would review their opinion upon this subject, and remove the source of universal complaint.

although he did not like the word "massacre," did not think that it was sufficient to justify the proposition not to print the petition. He agreed with the petitioners as to the impropriety of calling out the Yeomanry in the present state of party feelings in Ireland. If a greater force were necessary to maintain the peace of Ireland, he should prefer an extension of the military, and of the police. At the same time he would admit, that the services of the Yeomanry had been considerable in times of internal commotion and external danger, and if the same causes should again require their aid, he trusted they would be found fully as efficient as they had heretofore been. But in times of peace to call out a force, that was viewed with so much discontent, was injudicious.

observed, that during the whole of his life he had disapproved of the establishment of the Yeomanry corps in Ireland. They carried into the ranks, feelings which disabled them from acting with discipline or proper order. If a proof of that fact were necessary, it would be found in the different sentiments with which the people of Ireland regarded the Yeomanry and the regular force. Where the latter were quartered, the people considered themselves safe in person and goods, but they had no such confidence in the former, and this was to be accounted for by the inhabitants being divided by strong political and religious distinctions, which gave rise to great personal animosity. To put arms, therefore, into the hands of one class exclusively, was to risk their being used more against political opponents, than to maintain the general tranquillity. He very much doubted if a Yeomanry force would be expedient in England; in Ireland it was ten thousand times less expedient. With respect to the printing of the petition, seeing that there were many respectable names attached to it, and that, in cases of strong excitement, persons were apt to express themselves in strong language, he should be reluctant to oppose the Motion.

confessed, that he had no local knowledge upon this subject, and even if he had, he would not debate so important a matter upon the presentation of a petition. But he would certainly vote against the petition being printed, because it would be giving the sanction of the House to its contents; and not only that, but materially prejudicing the trial of parties who were now in confinement. The petitioners talked of the unfortunate affair at Newtownbarry as a "massacre," and if this House sanctioned such a charge, the accused could not expect to have justice done them. Upon these grounds he would vote against the petition being printed.

said, that he would certainly vote with the Government against the printing of this petition. The conduct of the Irish Yeomanry was easily to be defended, and if he did not enter upon it now, it was not for want of materials, but because a more convenient, opportunity might soon occur. Some Members, in the course of these discussions, had ransacked a period of ten years back to find ground of charge against the Yeomanry; but they would have done more justice had they referred to the period of 1798, when the Yeomanry stood in the breach, and rendered the most essential service to England and Ireland, and preserved the connection between them. Upon this subject Members would find valuable information in Sir Richard Musgrave's History of the Irish Rebellion. As long as he had a seat, in that House. he would never remain silent and permit the characters of innocent men to be aspersed and calumniated. If, night after night, the characters of pious clergymen and respectable Magistrates were aspersed, he could assure the House, he was amply prepared with evidence to defend them. He could carry the House into a deeper discussion as to the conduct of the Irish Yeomanry than they might be aware, and he was fully prepared with the necessary materials. The Yeomanry of Ireland were loyal and respectable, and had conferred invaluable blessings on both countries.

expressed his regret that this discussion had been protracted, after the tone of moderation with which the petition was introduced.

Moderation with a vengeance!

The hon. Member, in a very unparliamentary manner, has cried out "moderation with a vengeance!" And he put it to the House if the conduct of the hon. Member who presented the petition was not moderation itself, when contrasted with the angry exhibitions so often exhibited by the hon. Member. He had no objection that the complaints of the people should find their way to that House, but he was very much afraid that the medicine of the gallant Officer would rather increase that disease in Ireland, which it might be his object to cure. It was wrong to refer to the period of 1798, except with a view to take warning by the lessons which its history imparted; and it was a little too bad to recriminate the deeds of such a period upon those who were then unborn. If the hon. Member had either that charity or that benevolence to which he laid claim, he would not have referred to 1798. But the gallant Officer had no identity with Ireland—he had neither family ties nor connections with that country—he had no property there to wed him to the soil, or make him seek for the general prosperity of Ireland. Oh, no! if he had, he would not throw such a firebrand amongst an easily-excited people, and thus aggravate the evils which already-existed. There was no objection to the reception of the petition, and after this discussion he saw no great objection to its being printed, as its effect would be stated to the world by to-morrow morning in the usual vehicles of information. His right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) distinctly stated, that some improvements would be made in the organization of the Irish Yeomanry; and also, that, if any specific abuse was pointed out, it should be investigated, and, if necessary, punishment inflicted. A case had been furnished by the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connell), and it had been immediately attended to. He had felt very warmly upon the subject, but he could assure the hon. Member, that he neither meant to give pain nor offence. If he, in the heat of debate, had done so, he begged to apologise to the hon. and gallant Member.

considered the very principle on which the Yeomanry corps were established, to be in itself a vicious principle. He had never heard the loyalty of that corps impugned; the great crime with which they were charged was a superfluity of loyalty, accompanied with a great lack of discretion. In actual war he had no doubt they would render good service, but bands of politicians were unfit persons to be intrusted with arms in times of peace. He objected to the course which his Majesty's Ministers had taken, in opposing the printing of the petition, which he did not consider to be couched in unparliamentary language. He saw no objection whatever to the printing of the petition, and if the sense of the House were taken upon it, he should certainly vote for it.

did not consider, that any measure connected with his Majesty's Government was involved in the printing of the petition, but he objected to it on the ground of its stating, that the whole body of the Yeomanry of Ireland were waiting for an opportunity or pretext of murder, to cover their resentment against the Catholics of Ireland. He considered that an expression to which the House ought not to give publicity. If, however, he found the general feeling of the House was in favour of printing the petition, after having stated what he had done, he should not object to it, and would not press the House to a division.

thought the language of the petition so objectionable, that he must oppose the printing of it. He believed the facts of the case on which it was founded, would by no means authorise the violent and inflammatory language it contained. It alluded to what had occurred at Newtownbarry; he deeply deplored that occurrence—but while legal proceedings were pending on the subject, he thought that no opinion ought to be pronounced upon it, and no sanction given to any opinion by that House publishing it.

said, that if the right hon. the Chief Secretary for Ireland thought it necessary to call out 30,000 or 40,000 Yeomanry, he ought to have, in the first instance, submitted the subject to a Committee of that House. As far as he had an opportunity of observing, not a single Yeoman was necessary. Independent of which, their commanders had been improperly selected; they were mostly violent political partizans, and the armed man who used his weapons against unarmed people, deserved execration, instead of being considered as a brave or useful soldier. The application of Yeomanry to the present condition of Ireland, was like the application of a blister to a sore. Objection had been made to the introduction of the word "massacre" into the petition. To him it appeared, that the act in question was not only a massacre, but an act of cowardice. It was a gross, outrageous, unjustifiable massacre. The Yeomanry of Ireland had been used for the purpose of effecting the Union; he trusted they would not allow themselves to be made the tools of Government in the present times.

said, that many expressions in the petition would be considered libellous in a Court of Law, and that, therefore, the House could not be justified in giving it currency.

said, the Yeomanry were not a description of force which could be safely trusted with arms at this moment. They had themselves allowed, that their only pretext for firing at Newtownbarry was, that the people were noisy and turbulent, but that no actual riot prevailed, nor had the Riot Act been read. He hoped Government would consent to the prayers of the petition, and disarm the Yeomanry. He must, in the language of the petition, designate the affair at Newtownbarry a horrid massacre, and two honest, industrious fellows, who had voted for him, were singled out and shot upon that bloody plain. The bitterness of party feeling, which led to the massacre, did not end there. When the relatives of the dead were assembled to pay the last tribute to the remains of their friends, the atrocious authors of the deed assembled, and, he was must declare, that the conduct of the Yeomanry, in insulting, by firing outside the chapel, the people whose friends had perished, and who were then offering up their prayers to the throne of God for justice, and not for vengeance, as had been falsely stated, was most abomin- able. What, he asked, would be the feeling in England, if so cold-blooded an insult had been offered to any number of his Majesty's subjects?

considered, that if it were the wish of the Irish Government to ensure the peace of Ireland, the best way to begin it would be to disarm this Yeomanry corps. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had said, that this was one of the most loyal corps on earth, and he knew not on what foundation such a statement could have been made. Their loyalty had not been proved—their indiscretion had been demonstrated.

denied, that he had ever used such an expression. He had said, he would not allow any Yeomanry corps, or any Orangemen, or any set of individuals, to lay claim to exclusive loyalty. He recollected, on one occasion, in speaking of this corps, he had said, he did not think their loyalty was to be disputed, whatever he might think of their discretion. That was the utmost extent to which he had ever gone in their favour.

said, that he deplored the unfortunate transaction at Newtownbarry, but he considered it most unjust to apply to it the terms massacre and slaughter, particularly when the bill of indictment preferred against the parties implicated in that transaction for murder had been ignored by a Grand Jury, composed of the most respectable gentlemen. It should be remembered also, that the parties who considered themselves aggrieved, had refused to prosecute for the minor offence. With respect to the Yeomanry, as a body, he must declare his opinion, that they were of the greatest use in maintaining the tranquillity of the country. In that part of Ireland where the Yeomanry force was generally established, there were only three regiments of the line; whilst, in the other part of the country, where the Yeomanry force was not established, it was found necessary to maintain fifteen regiments of the line. This fact, ought to induce the most zealous advocate for the suppression of the Yeomanry to pause.

said, the Yeomanry of Carlow were composed of as bad a description of persons as any that could be found, and that was the corps that so gloriously distinguished itself at New townbarry. One of them, when a prisoner, was brought before him in his character of a Magistrate; that person was dressed in a ragged frieze coat, and did not appear to be more than fourteen years of age. He should like to know who made such a youth as that one of the corps of Yeomanry? He had documents to prove, that the Yeomanry were frequently composed of the very worst characters, though they were all Protestants. He knew many of the individuals by name; there were several sheep-stealers, pick-pockets, and persons guilty of other crimes among them.

rose to order. He said, if the proceedings of that House were confined within its own walls, he would not object to the statement of the hon. Member; but, as there were means by which those proceedings became known to the public, he submitted whether the hon. Member ought to attach crime to persons who were not present, and could not defend themselves.

would only remark then, that these corps were composed exclusively of Protestants, and contained amongst them men of the worst, character. If the people of England did not wish to see a rebellion in Ireland, this abominable force ought to be immediately dissolved. He believed, even in consequence of the existence of this force, that, had it not been for the exertions of the Roman Catholic clergy, Ireland would now be in a state of civil war. He believed, that it was owing solely to the exertions of the Roman Catholic clergy, that the people had not dreadfully retaliated for the Newtownbarry affair.

said, that in the county which he represented, there were only three "Yeomanry corps, which conducted themselves very well. With the view of bringing the discussion to a termination, he begged to ask the right hon. Secretary for Ireland a question. About three weeks ago, the right, hon. Gentleman stated, that the issue of arms to the Yeomanry had been suspended. He had since seen, in a publication, a statement that arms had been issued to a certain corps in the county of Wexford; and as lately as the 2nd of August, he perceived, from the Dublin Gazette, that Yeomanry appointments had been made. He wished to know, whether it was the intention of the Government to increase the Yeomanry force?

said, that Government had certainly given orders to suspend the issue of arms to the Yeomanry. The arms which had been issued since those orders were given, must have been issued by the commanding officers of the different corps, they having received them from the Government previously to the orders being given. In answer to the noble Lord's question, he could state, that Government had no intention of increasing the Yeomanry force in Ireland. The appointments to which the noble Lord had referred must have been made to fill up vacancies which had occurred.

said, that the strongest feeling prevailed in the county of Wexford against the Yeomanry, and that many petitions, of the same nature as the present, would be transmitted to the House. Before this force was organised, that county had been so tranquil, that a company of infantry—the only force that had been stationed there—had been withdrawn. He considered the suppression of the Yeomanry essential to the peace of the kingdom.

said, there was no question in connection with Irish policy which, at present, excited so much attention, among the people of that country, as the continuance of the Yeomanry corps. The petition before them had been complained of, as containing too strong language; he was afraid many more of the same kind might be expected; but he was of opinion all petitions ought to be received, which were not couched in the most disrespectful language, With regard to the utility of the Yeomanry, he would only refer to the presence and efficiency of the regular military at the Waterford and Clare elections, where it was proved, that they had done more to preserve peace by kind words than the Yeomanry had by their bayonets, to show the uselessness of the latter to Ireland. Let Ministers hearken to the advice of their real friends, in this matter, not from this or that section of the country, but from all Ireland, and then they would not need to tremble for its faithful allegiance; but England and Ireland, firmly united, would be one in reality, as well as in name—a blessing which was, however, only to be obtained by equal justice being impartially distributed.

thought, that the time of the House had been most unprofitably occupied for several hours in a discussion about printing a petition. He hoped that hon. Members would discountenance, in future, such a proceeding. He saw no good whatever which could arise from such a debate, but much contention and ill will.

found it necessary to make a few observations upon what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. He knew from experience, that the Irish Yeomanry were an undisciplined and dangerous body of men, who frequently refused to obey their own officers. It had been said, for example, that, at Newtownbarry, they had not been ordered to fire. They were a tumultuous and ungovernable force, and the distinguished nobleman who now presided over that country, who was so good a soldier, would never sanction the continuance of a body which was more efficient to provoke rebellion than suppress disorder. He believed it would be better for all parties if they were disarmed and disbanded.

said, that, in his opinion, the petition ought not to be printed. He had already thrown out a suggestion to the same effect; but, as many hon. Members appeared to wish this should be done, if the matter were pressed to a division, he would not oppose it further.

had very strong objections to the petition being printed, as it referred to a subject which he believed was in a course of judicial investigation.

declared, that it was his intention to oppose the printing of the petition. He had, on a former evening, when a petition was presented by the hon. member for Dundalk, taken the same course; in each instance his motives were the same. He objected to printing such petitions, because it was the duty of that House, and of every Gentleman in it, to do all he could to establish the welfare and tranquillity of Ireland; and, in pursuing that course, to set his face against the promulgation of any sentiments, coming; from whatever party they might, which had a tendency, not to conciliate and soften, but to inflame and exasperate, those angry feelings which at present unhappily existed.

entreated those Gentlemen who were hostile to the petition, not to divide the House upon the Motion for printing it. If they knew the feverish and agitated state of the public mind in Ireland, they would not take such a step. If they refused to print that petition, the suffering people, who sought for redress, would be driven to despair. Instead of three or four petitions, which were now preparing, a thousand petitions would be forthcoming—a thousand public meetings would be held on this subject. Let hon. Gentlemen reflect on the strong language which was held by Mr. Boyce, and other respectable Protestants, in the county of Wexford, with respect to the conduct of the Yeomanry, and learn from it what that conduct was. He was always anxious to make the people of Ireland turn their eyes towards that House, and look to it for justice and protection; but how could he expect that they would do so, if their well-founded complaints were treated in this manner?

said, that, if the House divided, he should certainly vote against printing the petition. He had always endeavoured to view with an impartial eye, the two parties which had so long divided Ireland; greatly did he deplore and regret the excesses which were committed, and gladly would he contribute, by every means in his power, to prevent them. The manner in which the Romans governed their provinces, had been beautifully described by Tacitus, in his life of Agricola. The historian said, "Ceterum animorum provinciæ prudens, simulque doctus per aliena experimenta, parum profici armis, si, injuriæ sequeren- tur, causas bellorum statuit excidere." This ought at all times to have been the policy of England towards Ireland. But it had not been so. In many instances, the policy pursued with respect to that country, had been unjust and oppressive. Insubordination, dissension, and bloodshed, were frequently the consequence; but, instead of looking to the causes of those disturbances—instead of directing a strict inquiry into the reason which gave rise to discontent and dissatisfaction—the general system pursued by England to Ireland, under such circumstances, had been, to increase the oppression, and to extend the injustice; and he did not confine these remarks wholly to former circumstances, but to a recent measure introduced into that House, to show the same system was continued; he alluded to the Irish Arms Bill—a measure which he considered unjust and tyrannical. He lamented that it had been introduced, and it gave him pleasure, that the representations of the hon. member for Kerry had been successful in causing it to be abandoned. If it were even abandoned from, weakness, still he rejoiced in the event. He objected to the printing of this petition, because it contained what he believed to be calumnies against the Yeomanry, many of whom were very respectable persons. He could not consent to the promulgation of a petition which set forth, that the Yeomanry "were actuated by sentiments of bitter and inveterate hostility to the Roman Catholics, whom they on all occasions treated with insult, in order that they might, by provoking, find pretexts to murder them;" because he believed these remarks were calumnious and untrue. He had known the services of the Yeomanry in the year 1798, and on many occasions since, and he believed many intelligent and respectable persons belonged to the corps. Statements of this irritating nature ought not to be sent forth.

said, that the words in which the subject of the petition was conveyed to the House, as well as the nature of the petition itself, placed the Government in a difficult position. It was, perhaps, true, that the printing of the petition would be likely to increase irritating feelings among some classes of people in Ireland, and it certainly ought to be the wish of every Member of that House, to do what he could to soothe the feelings of the different parties there. If they were to print the petition, they would be the means of giving publication to the sentence which they had just heard read; and if they were to refuse to print the petition, they should be irritating the feelings of the people, already enough excited by the affair at Newtownbarry. Seeing the difficulty by which they were met on either hand, he should certainly wish to avoid taking any decisive measure. He should, therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman, the propriety of withdrawing his Motion. If he were obliged to give his vote on the question of printing this petition or not, he should take what he considered at best but as a balance of evils. After the petition had been presented—after it had been received by the House, and ordered to lie on the Table, he must say, that he felt very unwilling to decide, that it should not be printed; but still he thought he should be right in saying, that there would be a less chance of creating irritation in deciding that it should not, than in saying that it should be printed; and if, therefore, the question was put to the vote, he should certainly oppose the printing; but he must repeat, that he should regret the necessity of giving a vote on the subject.

felt himself in a situation of some difficulty. He regretted very much, that he should be obliged to differ from his noble friend; but, knowing as he did, the state of Ireland, and the feeling on this subject, and believing, too, that the people might not be able to understand the distinction between the refusal to print the petition, and the rejection of the petition itself, he should certainly vote in favour of the Motion.

said, that here was a petition, stating that seventeen persons had been killed, and twenty-three wounded, by the Yeomanry, and the petitioners called this massacre, or murder. Now, in the time of Castlereagh ["Oh, oh"]. He was not surprised that the mention of Castlereagh's name induced hon. Members to call out "Oh, oh." Ten years ago, a petition had been presented, charging certain Yeomanry with the same crime, and the humane and generous Castlereagh did not resist the printing of that petition, because he knew that it would allow a vent to exasperated feeling. He hoped that the present Ministry would not be less liberal than Sidmouth and Castlereagh.

did not object to the printing of the petition because it cast imputations upon any particular persons, but because it said, that the whole body of the Yeomanry took an opportunity of murdering the people of Ireland.

said, the question was, whether the House would irritate a class of Yeomanry, or offend the people of Ireland? Who were the authorities on one side, and on the other? First, there was the hon. Baronet, the member for Waterford, a man of high character, and a Gentleman whose opinion was of importance. Opposed to him was the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, a Gentleman of first-rate parliamentary reputation, but who could not possibly be equal to the hon. Baronet, in his knowledge of the feelings of the Irish people. Then came the member for Dundalk—he gave utterance to that hon. Member's name—he thought it would not be necessary to add a comment. Then came the hon. members for Donegall and Enniskillen; and lastly, there was the noble Lord, the member for the county of Kilkenny—a Gentleman who, if not actually a part of the Government, was so linked with it, as to be considered a portion of the Government. What did he say? Why, that the petition ought to be printed—that the Government should, in fact, learn how to steer the vessel of the State in a different course, and raise their eye to a better and more fixed star, than they had hitherto taken as their guide. Under these circumstances, where was the choice of authority? Was it not greater in favour of printing the petition, than against it? He asked the question of the Government, and he put it as a single Irish Member—who had coincided with them? Was there one of all their usual supporters, who joined with them in thinking, that this petition ought not to be printed? The Gentlemen on the other side of the House, their opponents, supported their present view. He warned the Government, however, not to be induced to accept their alliance. What, would the Government select them in preference to its friends? He warned them not to do so—he urged them to reply to their new allies,

"Your praise is censure, and your censure praise."

Their new supporters would only embrace them, to hug them to death. He called on them in the name of Ireland, and of the whole Irish people, not to be afraid of offending the Yeomanry, for they were enrolled together in bands, that were in no danger of separating. Let them not fear to offend the Yeomanry; but with respect to the Irish people, he would only repeat, that there were 8,000,000 of agitated and strongly exasperated men. On these men, the greatest blessing had been lately conferred, and he called on the Ministers, not to mar the effects of that blessing by their conduct at this moment.

thought, that before the House could come to a proper vote on this subject, the petition ought to be read. They had heard what would be the consequence of refusing to print the petition, and he thought they had heard enough to induce them to pause before they determined on rejecting the Motion. The impression on his mind, from all he heard, was, that the conduct of the Yeomanry was unjustifiable. It appeared that this corps was regularly drawn up with prepared arms, and in their front was an unarmed body of persons; without the Riot Act having been read, and contrary to the orders of their Officer, while the people were retiring they fired, and killed and wounded nearly fifty persons. None of the men who had committed this atrocious act had been punished, and the sorrowing relatives of the victims felt strongly, and necessarily, therefore, expressed themselves strongly, when they found that they could obtain no justice against the perpetrators of this murderous outrage. He suggested that the petition should be read at the Table, that every Member might be made fully aware of its contents.

rose and was, received with marks of disapprobation which lasted for several seconds. "I can," said the hon. Member "await the pleasure of those who are thus interrupting me, but I will be heard. If I am trespassing on the House, the fault does not rest with me. I rise to tell the hon. member for Louth, that he shall not, by a sneer—by a rhetorical artifice—hold my conduct up to the contempt and laughter of the House. I tell the hon. member for Louth, and I will act up to my declaration, that he never shall, with impunity, express by innuendo, and without stating his charge, any thing personally offensive to me. It may be quite convenient for the hon. Member to conclude or stop short with a sneer when alluding to me, but I tell him that such conduct shall not pass without the censure and rebuke it deserves. The hon. member for Louth has, I say, acted in an unparliamentary manner, and his language is not that adopted in the society of gentlemen, either expressed or implied.

called on the hon. Member to explain his last sentence.

asked, what portion of it?

said, the hon. Member had alluded to the conduct of the hon. member for Louth, as being unparliamentary, and he had also spoken of language used by that hon. Member as unfit for the society of gentlemen. He had alluded to an innuendo, and also to the silence, or stopping short, of that hon. Member at a particular point. Now the hon. Member might have construed that innuendo, or that stopping short, in a way to satisfy himself, though the House might not be aware of its correctness.

My understanding and construction of the case is this;—The hon. member for Louth said—"It is sufficient to mention the name of the hon. member for Dundalk,—comment is unnecessary." Now I could be at no loss to construe this into a something, which I have no hesitation in saying is not usual in the phraseology adopted amongst gentlemen.

regretted the importance, the undue importance, which had been given to the printing of this petition. He regretted, too, the mode in which the hon. member for Louth had thought fit to address the House. When he recollected the speech which that hon. Member had made on the question of Reform, and the desire he then expressed (and no doubt very sincerely), that all distinctions founded upon religious differences should be for ever abolished, it was with pain that he heard the hon. Member arrogate to one particular class in Ireland the name of the Irish nation, to the exclusion of that other, and that important, though less numerous class, the Protestants of Ireland. He had before opposed the printing of a petition which cast reflections upon his Catholic fellow-subjects, and on the same ground he should now concur with those who determined to refuse the printing of this petition, which cast indiscriminate and groundless reflections on a large body of the Irish people. The petition stated, that the Yeomanry fired upon the people, not only without orders, but in defiance of directions from their officers: that was not borne out by the facts that appeared in the investigation of the charge in a Court of justice. After a full investigation, the charge of murder was dismissed. The case might again come forward for judicial investigation, and he thought, therefore, the House could not sanction the printing of the petition. To him it appeared wholly impossible, that hon. Gentlemen could believe the charges brought forward against the Yeomanry. Did the noble Lord (the member for Meath), who had three Yeomanry corps in his county, of whose conduct he had spoken in the highest terms of praise—did he desire to give currency to such charges as were contained in this petition? It was hardly possible to believe that he could entertain such a wish. On these grounds, therefore, and on the ground that legal proceedings were either still pending, or were now likely to be commenced, with respect to the matter which was the subject of this petition, he should oppose the Motion for printing it.

, in explanation, said, that the right hon. Baronet, with much courtesy, had alluded to a speech of his, expressive of his wish for the abolition of all differences founded upon religious distinctions, and had accused him of having, in the present instance, departed from the precept he then laid down. The right hon. Baronet was mistaken in making this charge; for he (Mr. Shell) well knew the difference between the people of the North of Ireland and a particular class of Irish Yeomanry, and he was most anxious to make a distinction between them. Now that he was upon his legs, he wished to say something in the way of explanation to another hon. Member. He had never intended to say anything that could give offence to the hon. member for Dundalk, and he was most anxious to remove the impression of offence from the mind of that hon. Member. The pause in the middle of the sentence of which the hon. Member complained, was made for the purpose of preserving himself from saying that which might, perhaps, have been offensive. He would now state what that was. It was this—that in his judgment, a Gentleman who, since he had been in Parliament, had evinced feelings so strong on this subject, showing no unsoundness of heart, but a proneness to a particular class of opinions, had, by so doing, taken away from his opinions the value of authority upon Irish questions. He must now observe, that it was a matter of astonishment to him, that a Gentleman who was so strenuous in Christian Orthodoxy should permit such a slight matter so to have ruffled his temper. If, however, he had inflicted a wound on the hon. Member's feelings, he was anxious to say, that he had done so unintentionally, and he regretted it.

begged to assure the hon. member for Louth, that his explanation had conveyed to him a feeling of entire satisfaction. He was one of those who was always disposed to entertain the highest respect for persons who conscientiously differed from him in opinion. He should be the last man to find fault with difference of opinion, but he had thought that the insinuation of the hon. and learned Member was intended to dip below that. It gave him much pleasure to find that he was mistaken.

, as he had been pointedly alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, must beg, that the House would permit him to trespass on its attention for a few minutes. He had certainly stated, that in the county of Meath there were three corps of Yeomanry, composed of most respectable persons, but he wholly denied the inference the hon. Baronet drew from that statement, viz. that he (Lord Killeen) could not vote for the printing of a petition which cast a stigma upon all the Yeomanry of Ireland. He certainly intended to vote for the printing of the petition, without, however, adopting all the language it contained. The wording was much too general, but as it emanated from a general county meeting, he thought on that account it ought not to be rejected. The House, he acknowledged, was placed in some difficulty with regard to it, but he thought that the printing of the petition would not add much to the publicity which it would obtain by the discussion that had already taken place.

said, that the House ought by no means to reject the petition in consequence of the informality of the expressions in which it was couched. If such a rule of rejection were established, scarcely a petition from Ireland would ever be admissible. The House was not bound to adopt as its own the sentiments and feelings of any petitioners.

wished to know, before he gave his vote on this subject, whether proceedings relative to this affair were still pending; or whether it was still intended to bring this matter to a legal inquiry? As he was answered upon that question, he should give his vote for or against the printing of the petition. It was said, that printing this petition would calm the public mind in Ireland; but if judicial proceedings upon the case involved were instituted, or were to be instituted, he should object to the Motion; for to calm the public mind at such a sacrifice, by tainting the stream of justice, would be utterly unworthy of that House. The laws should be held sacred, their course should be unimpeded, and if that were not the case, justice would become a victim to the slavish tyranny of public opinion. No man living had kindlier feelings towards Ireland than he had; but he must say, that some of the Irish Members bore too keenly upon the present Government. He firmly believed, that the present Government were anxious to heal the wounds and to redress the wrongs of that hitherto misgoverned and ill-fated country; but the Members should remember, that the cure could not be effected in a single day or by a single statute. He hoped to hear from some responsible member of the Government, that this dreadful transaction was undergoing or would undergo, a strict investigation. If such was the fact, if a legal inquiry was in progress, he appealed to the House whether it would be proper to give circulation to an ex parte statement.

rose, merely for the purpose of directly answering the question of the hon. member for Colchester. Bills had been sent up to the Grand Jury for murder, and all of them had been ignored. When these bills for murder were ignored, the persons who acted for the relatives of the parties, refused to send up bills for manslaughter to the Grand Jury. The persons, however, who acted for the Crown, very properly thought, that it was their duty not to let the matter rest so, and they therefore sent up bills for manslaughter. All these bills, except one, were ignored; and when the trial of the person against whom this one bill had been found, came on, none of the witnesses were in attendance. The Crown, however, intended to proceed with this trial at the next assizes, and, besides this one person, some other men had been held to bail, and would also be proceeded against at the next assizes. The legal proceedings, therefore, which had arisen out of the unfortunate affair mentioned in the petition could not be said to be concluded; and it should also be recollected, that the relatives of the parties might, if they pleased, prefer bills before another Grand Jury. While upon this subject, he thought he might, without any violation of confidence, read a passage from a letter which he had received a day or two ago from Lord Anglesey. The passage ran thus—"I have directed a letter to be written to the Wexford Magistrates, the sense of which is to condemn the calling out of the Yeomanry upon the late occasion, and accounting for no opinion being given, or measures taken, upon the matter, on the ground that it is still the subject of legal investigation." In conclusion, he would only express a hope, that the hon. Baronet would not, under all the circumstances of the case, press his Motion to a division.

said, that it was by his advice that the agent of the relatives of the parties had acted. They had declined to prosecute further, and there was, in fact, therefore, no legal proceedings pending on the subject. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would press his Motion to a division, in order that the people of Ireland might see, that they had, at least, some friends in that House.

said, that the people of Ireland had, and they ought to feel it, not only some friends in that House, but a great many friends. Indeed, he thought he might safely say, that there was not a single Member of that House, who was not the sincere and warm-hearted friend of Ireland. He could not help appealing to all who were subjected to the affliction of listening to such discussions as these, whether it was just or wise, or even prudent, to sanction the notion that the peace of Ireland was to depend upon an Irish petition being printed or not. If excitement and agitation prevailed in Ireland to so great an extent as to produce the effects which were described as likely to flow from not printing this petition, let those who were so well acquainted with that excitement and with that agitation, explain to their mistaken fellow-countrymen, that it was not out of disrespect or disregard to them, but merely in conformity with the usages of the House, that the petition, though brought up and read, and ordered to lie on the Table, was not allowed to be printed; or, if the Gentlemen did not choose to give this explanation to their fellow-countrymen, let them, at least, abstain from language which was an encouragement of agitation, and a premium for discontent. He greatly regretted that the hon. and learned member for Louth (Mr. Sheil) should have put this question to the Government in the manner in which he had put it. Let him tell the hon. and learned Member, that the Government could not with propriety have any other feeling on such a question, than to preserve a composed course; and that to say to a Government, "This side votes for you generally, and that side never gives you a vote," was not the tone in which any Government ought to be addressed, any more than such language contained principles on which any honest Ministers could permit themselves to act. He could not persuade himself, that that House could be brought to commit an act of injustice, through apprehension of the consequences which might result from the performance of their duty—consequences, which those who denounced them, had the best means of preventing.

thought it was monstrous to assert, that, because the House received the petition, they adopted the terms in which it was couched. He had to tell the House, that seventeen fellow-subjects of his had been put to death without the forms of the law. Whatever language others might use upon the subject, he would call the act an act of massacre; aye, an act of murder. After the unfortunate and unavailable appeal to the authorities of Ireland, where the proceedings could not have been fair, since those who committed this atrocious outrage escaped punishment, what had the people to do, but to appeal to that House? He called upon the House not to refuse the petition because of a few unmeasured expressions. He objected to the adoption of any conduct towards Ireland calculated to wound the feelings of the people; and he hoped the House would not say to Ireland, "We reject your petition, because you have not addressed us in language to which we are accustomed." It was justice, mere justice, that Ireland required; and the petition before the House asked for nothing else, and should certainly not want his support.

repeated the statement which Mr. Stanley had made, with regard to the legal proceedings standing over till the next assizes, and, on that ground, he should vote against the petition being printed. If the petition were printed, it would be considered that the House adopted its contents; and this would be finding parties guilty before they were tried. And on what evidence would the House do this? Why, upon the evidence of the petitioners, who, residing in Waterford, could have no personal knowledge of the facts of an affair which had taken place in Wexford. He had no doubt, that the printing or the not printing of this petition would be equally made a ground for exciting discontent in Ireland; but he was sure, that the printing of the petition would be an act of injustice.

I wish to know, whether the hon. Baronet, whose motion with regard to Belgium stands for this evening, would have any objection to postpone it, after I shall state the circumstances which I am about to state to the House. Accounts have been received this day, that orders have been sent from the Hague to the Dutch troops, to retire from the Belgic territory; and as negotiations are about to be recommenced, I do hope that the hon. Baronet will see, that the bringing forward of his motion, under such circumstances, could not in any way conduce to the public advantage, while the discussion to which it would lead, might produce serious mischief. I trust that the hon. Baronet, after hearing this statement, will perceive the propriety of his not pressing his motion, which stands for this evening.

Before I consent to postpone my motion, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord. I beg to ask him, whether he understands, that, in the event of the Dutch troops retiring from Belgium, the French troops are also to retire from the Belgic territory?

In reply to the question of the hon. Baronet, I beg to state that which I have already stated on a former occasion—namely, that such an assurance has been given by the French government.

Though I gave notice of this motion several days ago, and though, having already once postponed it at the request of the noble Lord, I am rather reluctant to defer bringing it forward on this occasion, yet, after the statement which has been made by the noble Lord, that the negotiations are about to be recommenced, and after his assurance that accounts have been received, that the king of the Netherlands has withdrawn his troops from Belgium, so that there is no chance of our being engaged in conflict with him at present, I am not unwilling to postpone my motion which stands for this evening. I shall postpone it until we know, whether the French government will act up to the assurance to which my noble friend has alluded, and whether it will redeem the pledge which has been given to my noble friend, as well as to the ministers at Paris, namely, that in the event of the Dutch troops retiring from Belgium, the troops which had been ordered to advance by the French government, would be at once withdrawn from that territory. Aware of the feelings which at present exist in France, I am ready to admit, that it might be inexpedient to discuss this motion just now. I am anxious, however, to bring it on within a week, as we shall then know whether the French troops have been withdrawn or not. I therefore consent to postpone my motion for a given period, namely to this day week, as we have a right to expect to hear, within that time, that, the French troops have been withdrawn from Belgium.

I cannot say that, postponing this motion altogether meets my approbation. I had given a previous notice on the subject to which the motion of my hon. friend, that was to come on this evening, referred; but I at once gave way to my hon. friend, when he gave notice of his motion on the subject, feeling that the affair to which I was desirous to draw the attention of the House could be fully gone into in the discussion on that motion. As, however, my hon. friend has now postponed his motion for another week, and as I think that this is a matter of too great urgency to be delayed so long, I beg leave to give notice, that I shall, to-morrow, move for the production of certain papers relating to Belgium.

If it had not been for the notice of motion which had been given by the hon. Baronet in the first instance, I should have felt it my duty to have given notice of a motion in reference to a question of urgent and pressing necessity. I thought that, in the discussion to-night on the motion of the hon. Baronet, that question could be brought before the House. As, however, the hon. Baronet has postponed his motion, on the ground of public convenience, and in consideration of the existing state of things, I beg to give notice, that I shall bring forward a part of the subject of Belgium before the House. Indeed, so urgent and so pressing do I consider the necessity for bringing this matter under the notice of the House, that it is with great reluctance that I postpone it even for a single day. Before I bring it forward, I wish to ask my noble friend, at what time he or the Conference became acquainted with the letter from the minister of foreign affairs in Holland, dated the 2nd of August?

That letter was addressed to the ministers of the five Powers. It was placed in my hands on Wednesday week, at twelve o'clock, by the Plenipotentiary just arrived from the Hague, and I delivered it to the Conference on Thursday, at the earliest possible period.

I apprehend that my noble friend has fallen into a mistake with regard to the letter to which my question refers—I apprehend, that he speaks of the letter dated the 1st of August, but my question relates to the letter of the 2nd of August, which specially refers to that of the 1st.

What is the nature of the letter to which my right hon. friend wishes to draw my attention?

The letter to which I allude is to be found in the ordinary channels of public information. It appears to be a circular letter from the minister of foreign affairs for Holland, to all the ambassadors of all the Powers; and it begins by referring to the letter of the 1st of August, to which the noble Lord has alluded. The letter of which I speak has appeared in a public journal of great authority and extensive circulation. It has been published in The Times of this morning, and that journal, in one of its leading articles, has made observations upon it. I have been obliged to enter into this explanation, to show that, in the question which I have put to the noble Lord, I do not allude to the letter of the 1st, but to the letter of the 2nd of August.

I cannot answer my hon. friend's question at this moment positively as to the time that that letter was communicated to me. It was read to me and one of my noble friends in a very hurried manner by the minister of the Netherlands, subsequent to the meeting of the Conference, either on Friday or Saturday last, as well as I recollect.

I hope the noble Lord will be able to state to-morrow, when I shall bring forward my motion, whether it was on Friday or Saturday that that letter was for the first time communicated to him. I shall certainly bring forward my motion then, as the matter, I repeat, is one of urgent necessity.

My noble friend, the member for Woodstock, has said, that he gave way to me on this subject, and he has now announced his intention to bring forward a motion on the subject to-morrow night. I have postponed my Motion in consequence of the existing state of things, and I would beg of my noble friend to wait until Thursday next. I shall be ready to resign the Motion then into the hands of my noble friend: but I do hope that he will not bring the question forward until that day.

In my opinion, this is a case which does not admit of delay, and I must, therefore, persevere in my intention of bringing it forward to-morrow night.

I wish to ask the noble Lord, whether his Majesty's Government has not obtained information that the French troops have crossed the Belgic frontier, and have taken possession of Mons?

I have reason to know, that the French troops have crossed the Belgic Frontier, and that they have arrived at Mons.

I beg to ask the noble Lord, whether the French troops have taken military possession of the citadel or the town of Mons?

Surely the House must perceive the very great inconvenience which would result from my being obliged to answer questions of this description. Any information which the House of Commons has a right to expect, I shall be always ready to communicate on the fitting occasion; but though it is in the power of any hon. Member to call for that information, I must say that it is too much for an hon. Member to come down here, and to ask me for the news of the day. Whatever information the House of Commons may require, in order to enable it to form an opinion of the policy of his Majesty's Government, I shall be always ready to give; but if Gentlemen expect, that his Majesty's Ministers are here to serve no purposes but those of a newspaper, I can assure them that they will find themselves greatly disappointed.

I am sorry the noble Lord has thought it consistent with his duty to refuse to answer the question which I put to him. I felt it my duty to put that question to a Minister of the Crown; I only exercised a right which I possess, as a Member of this House, in putting that question, and I must say, that I have found, on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, a disposition to withhold from this House, and from the country, that information which they have a right to expect.

I rise to order. I cannot allow the noble Marquis to cast such unmerited imputations on his Majesty's Ministers.

—There being no motion before the House, and as the noble Marquis has not stated that it is his intention to conclude with a motion, there is no doubt that he is out of order in the observations which he has been making.

—There shall be no misunderstanding on the point to which the noble Marquis has referred. In answer to his Conner question, I stated that the French troops had crossed the frontiers, and had arrived at Mons. That is the only information in my possession on the subject.

—I wish to ask the noble Lord whether, subsequent to a communication which the king of Belgium received from this country, that Monarch did not send a communication to the French government, requesting that the advance of the French troops into Belgium should not take place, and that the answer of the French government was, that the resolution having been taken, his request could not be complied with, and that the troops must advance?

—Surely this question furnishes another instance of the inconvenience of which I have already complained, with regard to putting questions of this description. It appears that I am not merely expected to give the House accurate and detailed information as to every thing which his Majesty's Government has done, but that I am also expected to furnish the House with information as to what has been done by all the other governments in Europe. That does not, I conceive, form any part of the duty which I feel called upon to discharge.

—The question which I asked of the noble Lord, I put to him because the subject appears to me to be one of urgent necessity, and because it will put him in possession of the object of the motion which, according to my notice, I shall bring forward to-morrow night. That motion I could, in the exercise of an undoubted right, as a Member of this House, bring on to-night, without any notice whatever, but I think it will be more courteous towards the noble Lord to fix it for to-morrow night.

wished to know, whether any information had been received at the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, relative to an affray which had lately taken place at Bolton between the military and the people. Ho understood, on an investigation into the business before the Magistrates, it appeared to have originated in a fight between two persons. The respectable inhabitants felt great anxiety from the ill-blood which existed between the people and the military. He had understood that an application had been made for the removal of the troops; he wished to ascertain this, and whether any information had been received on the subject?

said, that accounts of this transaction had been received at the Home Office, and that a full investigation would be made into the subject by the Magistrates, who had been absent when it occurred, at the assizes, but who on their return would be able to inquire into the whole matter. He believed, however, the facts of the case were nearly as they had been represented by the hon. member for Preston, but it had not been thought expedient to remove the troops. They were, however, confined to their barracks, and care had been taken to prevent any further collision between them and the townspeople.

rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the case of Samuel Steon, a prisoner confined in Hertford gaol. He was willing, however, if the House desired, to give way to the Committee on the Reform Bill. He regretted, indeed, being obliged to bring forward his Motion at all, for if the statements made to him were true, the transaction reflected no credit on the way the Shrievalty business was conducted in the county of Hertford. The facts of the case were briefly these: he had received communications that considerable excitement and indignation prevailed at Hertford, in consequence of a reprieve, which had been transmitted to that place by a learned Judge, not having been communicated to a man of the name of Samuel Steon for several days. It had been kept back by the Under Sheriff, and the feelings of an innocent man were much lacerated by the suspense. From the respectable sources whence he had derived his information, he felt it his duty to lay the case before the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, who, with the greatest zeal and promptitude, immediately commenced an inquiry. In answer to his application the substance of the High Sheriff's letter had been communicated to him, which stated, that the respite was received by the Under Sheriff on Wednesday the 20th, and was very properly communicated to the prisoner by the Chaplain of the gaol on the following morning, after the chapel service was over. This explanation, if true, would be extremely satisfactory, but he had the authority of the chaplain to say he had not made his communication until Saturday instead of Thursday, so that instead of the High Sheriff's letter allaying the irritation, it had had the contrary effect; and he had been again called upon to require that the case should be more closely investigated. The Reverend Mr. Lloyd (the Chaplain) who was a most honourable and amiable man, proverbial for his kind attentions to unhappy persons in the situation of this condemned man, Samuel Steon, had stated in a communication to him—

Samuel Steon was condemned on Saturday, the 16th of July, and on Wednesday the 20th, in the afternoon, a young man in a gig, on his way from Chelmsford, stopped for a moment, seeing the turnkey of the gaol in the road near the gaol, and said, "I have a respite for Steon, but you will receive it in a few minutes from the office." On the following morning, Thursday, what had passed the previous evening was communicated to me; and immediately after chapel I told Steon, but begged of him not to be too sanguine about it, because, till it was officially announced, I could not be certain of the truth of it. Mr. Wilson was at the time very ill in bed; I however saw him, and inquired whether it was not usual for the Under Sheriff to communicate to the gaoler the receipt of a respite or reprieve immediately. His answer was, yes; and expressed great surprise that no communication had been made of the circumstance on the previous evening or the morning. Thursday and Friday passed off without any further notice (than that of the man in the gig) being given to the gaoler or turnkey from the Sheriff's-office. On Saturday morning, finding things in the same state, I told Steon after chapel, that as nothing favourable had transpired respecting the respite, he must consider himself as liable to suffer death, and that I should administer the sacrament to him on the Tuesday, the day previous to that on which he was to be executed, adding, that I still hoped the information given to the turnkey might be true. After chapel this morning (Saturday) I again saw the gaoler, and told him what I had done, when he acquainted me that Mr. Longmore, the Under Sheriff's partner, had been there, and complained of a paragraph, alluding to the respite, in the Herts Mercury, implying it was untrue. Upon which Mr. Wilson answered, "You know, Sir, it is true, for we have not at this moment received any official notice of it."

After this interview had taken place, Mr. Lloyd communicated to the prisoner, that his reprieve was certain, but this was not until Saturday. This, therefore, was a direct contradiction, the truth of which Mr. Lloyd was ready to verify on oath, to the Sheriff's statement. Was it to be endured that a man accidentally passing in a gig, was to be the means of communicating to the authorities of the gaol the information on which a man's life depended? Had the circumstances not been alluded to in a provincial paper, this man must have remained in all the agonies of suspense up to the hour of execution. He submitted, that he had made out a case for inquiry. In his opinion, the High Sheriff should have made an example of the Under Sheriff, for his criminal negligence; and both the High and the Under Sheriff should be taught that the feelings of guilty persons, and much less of innocent men in confinement, should not be trifled with. He was bound to add, that Mr. Lloyd's statements were contradicted flatly by the affidavits of the Under Sheriff. The hon. Member concluded by moving for "copies of all correspondence that has taken place between the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the High Sheriff of the county of Hertford, the Chaplain of the county gaol, or any other person, relative to the cause of the delay of the respite or general reprieve of Samuel Steon, who was ordered for execution on the 26th of July last."

seconded the Motion, but with views very contrary to those of the hon. member for Hertford. He was convinced, that the papers moved for—viz. the correspondence of the Sheriff with the Home Department, and the depositions of the Under Sheriff and gaoler—would clear up any doubts as to the propriety of the conduct of the Under Sheriff. The circumstances of the case were these:—Steon had been convicted upon what appeared to be very conclusive evidence; but, in consequence of representations which were made by the presiding Judge to the High Sheriff, that officer immediately resolved to investigate the matter more closely; and, with the assistance of the Under Sheriff, he instituted an inquiry, by which circumstances favourable to the convict were brought to light; and, having had depositions taken, the Under Sheriff forwarded them, at his own expense, by his confidential clerk, to Mr. Justice Gaselee, who was then at Chelmsford, presiding at the Assizes. Having laid the depositions before the Judge, Mr. Nicholson's clerk obtained a respite, with which he immediately hastened back. But, instead of going at once to the house of his master (the Under Sheriff), he stopped at the gaol upon his way, from feelings of humanity, in order to make known to the unfortunate prisoner what had occurred in his favour. The gaoler, Mr. Wilson, was, at the time, confined to bed by illness, and could not be seen, but the clerk requested the under-gaoler to acquaint Mr. Wilson, as soon as possible, that the respite had been obtained. In calling at the gaol, on his way home, to give that information, the clerk had certainly taken what would appear to be the best means of speedily relieving the anxiety of the unfortunate convict. He could not leave the respite for the inspection of the gaoler. He was obliged to take it to the Under Sheriff, to whom, and not to the gaoler, it was necessary, as his authority for staying the execution. Now, in all that, the clerk had acted humanely, and efficiently, as was proved by the depositions upon oath, which he desired, as much as the hon. member for Hertford, should be laid before the House. So far from having shown any want of humanity, the Sheriff and his clerk had both evinced very great humanity, and had undertaken, at much trouble and expense, to procure the respite in behalf of the convict. It was on the morning of Wednesday, that Mr. Nicholson's clerk left word at the gaol, that the respite had arrived, and the turnkey having informed the gaoler of it on the next morning, the latter immediately communicated the intelligence to Steon. He had read over all the depositions, and there seemed to be the clearest proof, that Steon had been relieved from anxiety on Thursday morning. If there was any doubt in Steon's mind, it had been raised by Mr. Lloyd, the Chaplain. It had been stated, that the turnkey said, the Under-Sheriff's clerk did not know him, and that the only authority for the arrival of the respite was the word of a stranger passing by the gaol in a gig. Now, if Mr. Lloyd had any doubt of the correctness of the information, that very charitable and benevolent person might have taken the trouble to send to the Under Sheriff to ascertain the fact, instead of harassing the mind of the unfortunate man, whom he, urged to take the Sacrament, that he might be prepared to die, on account of the uncertainty of the respite.

said, he regretted exceedingly that his hon. friend had thought it necessary to bring forward the present Motion. He did not see what parliamentary proceeding could be founded upon the papers for which he had moved. He (Mr. Lamb) had a great respect for the Chaplain of Hertford gaol, on whose representation the charge against the Under Sheriff and the gaoler had been founded. He was a most benevolent man, and exceedingly zealous in his attentions to the prisoners under his care. He admitted, that the Under Sheriff had not communicated to the gaoler with sufficient care, or with an attention to the formality which, in such an important part of his official duty, he ought to have observed, the important intelligence which he had to communicate. But still there were many circumstances which told strongly in his favour. He had taken great pains to examine the case of the convict, and to forward the, result of his inquiry to the Judge. The clerk, too, had shown a wish to relieve the anxiety of the prisoner, by calling at the gaol, instead of going directly to Mr. Nicholson's office, as he might have done if he felt no concern for the man's feelings. But all that, it must, be admitted, was not enough. The Under Sheriff' himself ought to have gone to the gaol, and, in the formal manner which so serious a duty required, have shown the respite to the gaoler; or, at least, he ought, to have sent to the gaol an official copy of the respite. He believed, however, that the most important part, of the charge was unfounded. He meant that which applied to the anxiety of the prisoner. The respite arrived on Wednesday; it was communicated to him on Thursday; and, according to his own affidavit, which he then held in his hand, he never had the least doubt of the fact until the Saturday morning, when the speedy arrival of the Under Sheriff relieved him from his fears. He was sorry, that the Motion had been made; but, as his hon. friend had introduced the subject, and as there had been conflicting statements, he should not oppose the Motion. From the affidavits which he had read, it appeared, that Steon had received very speedy information that the respite had arrived in Hertford.

had spoken to Mr. Wilson, the gaoler, and he thought that there was great discrepancy between the statements made to him by that person, and those which were said to have been made in the depositions. There could be no doubt that the Under Sheriff had not given notice, with due regularity, of the arrival of the respite. The Under Sheriff had great influence over the gaoler.

hoped, that the hon. member for Hertford would persevere in his Motion. It ought to be ascertained whether or not the Under Sheriff had, by his negligence, kept an unfortunate man, under sentence of death, in suspense as to his fate for several days. He had before now had occasion to, make complaints against: Gaolers and Under Sheriffs; and he knew; how such persons supported each other by depositions and affidavits. On one occasion, when he preferred to that House a complaint against an Under Sheriff and a gaoler, and when the former had notice of it, he came over to the gaol, from his residence at thirty miles' distance, to consult with the gaoler. They then made affidavits in support of each other. But those affidavits were, upon investigation, found to be wholly false. He should, therefore, not be willing to take the testimony of the gaoler and Under Sheriff of Hertford, in opposition to that of the rev. Chaplain, who seemed to have taken a humane view of the convict's case.

said, the documents proved, that the turnkey received the information from the Under Sheriff's clerk, and then told the gaoler, who was in bed, that a respite had arrived. The gaoler admits this took place on the Wednesday evening; this important, fact was placed beyond doubt, by his having communicated it to Mr. Lloyd, who apprised the prisoner of the fact on Thursday morning. It might be a point of official etiquette to send a copy of the respite to the gaoler, but it was the duty of the Under Sheriff to keep the original in his own office. He was confident no blame could be attributed to that officer, although, if he had understood the hon. member for Hertford (Mr. Currie) correctly, Mr. Wilson had made a communication to him opposed to his declaration on oath.

said, he had made no such statement.

protested against prolonging the debate, after his hon. friend (Mr. Lamb) had said, that he would not oppose the Motion.

thought, that when serious allegations had been made against the Under Sheriff, the observations of his right hon. and gallant friend were called for and necessary.

said, that the gaoler, Wilson, was so far from thinking that he had received on Wednesday an official or certain notice of the arrival of the respite, that, having heard nothing more on the subject than what had been said to the turnkey by the gentleman in the gig, he sent on Monday (five days afterwards) to the Under Sheriff, for instructions respecting the building of the scaffold, preparatory to the execution of Steon, which had been ordered to take place on the next morning (Tuesday). He had brought forward the question at the suggestion of several respectable gentlemen of the county of Hertford, with the view of preventing the recurrence of a like irregularity, and trusting that what had taken place would ensure that object, he had no objection to withdraw the Motion, if his hon. friend desired it.

would consent to the withdrawing of the Motion which he had seconded, if it was understood that the conduct of Mr. Nicholson, the Under Sheriff, had been cleared from the imputations which had been cast upon it.

gave notice, that he would, on Friday, move, that the House sit on Saturday to discuss the Reform Bill.

protested against such a step. He did not see why they should be called upon to sit on Saturday on the Reform Bill, to the neglect of other business; but his chief objection was, that it was the only day in the week which Members could properly set apart for private business. He considered it would be better to discuss the Reform Bill on the Mondays, than to oblige the House to meet on Saturdays.

said, that Monday was set apart for other business. His proposition was, that the House should sit on Saturday till six, and commence at noon.

thought, that after the forbearance of the House on many topics, the noble Lord ought not to press his motion for sitting on Saturdays. He had intended to make a motion relating to the Court of Chancery, but had delayed it, because he would not interfere with the Reform measure.

admitted the forbearance of many Members of the opposite side of the House, but he did not think his proposal too much, as probably they would not have occasion to sit often on Saturdays.

thought it would be better to continue the Reform debate on Monday, than set apart Saturday for it.

said, his right hon. friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had a Motion relative to the affairs of Ireland on Monday next.

asked the noble Lord opposite. (Lord John Russell), in what manner he intended to proceed with the discussion upon the places named in the Schedule, should the Committee agree to the principle of the Clause; and in what manner it was intended to discuss the rule by which the proceedings of the Commissioners were to be guided?

replied, that the Commissioners, in making a division, would have to take into account both the amount of population and the number of square miles in one part and the other of the county, so as to render the two divisions as nearly equal as possible in extent and in population. But the Committee must be aware, that in many parts of the country there already existed by custom recognized boundaries, separating one part of a county from another, with which it would not be expedient to interfere; and, therefore, it would not be advisable to bind the Commissioners by any strict and invariable rule. However, it was intended to introduce into the Bill a Clause instructing the Commissioners to take carefully into consideration both the population and the extent of the two divisions.

said, if the noble Lord had such a Clause prepared, it would be a great, convenience to the Committee to hear it read.

said, his noble friend had stated the principle, of the Clause, but if it was read now, they would, in fact, discuss that Clause out of its proper place.

said, the noble Lord had stated it was proposed to divide counties according to their extent and population; but that would be found difficult to accomplish. For instance, in the case of a county with a considerable town situated in one part of it, and having in the other part no town, the population would necessarily be condensed in a limited space, and the whole arrangement would therefore be upset.

repeated, that the Commissioners should take into account both the extent and the population of counties. For instance, there were, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in some counties a very large population in one part, and a very small one in another of the same size. Now if the Commissioners were to look only to the forming of two districts of equal population, there would be in one of the divisions only a very small part of the county. It should, on the, contrary, be their object to make the divisions as nearly equal as possible, both in extent and numbers, as in the case of the union with Scotland, where the number of Members allotted to that country was in proportion to its taxation and population as compared to those of England.

observed, that in the most populous parts of the counties, the principal part of the population would be abstracted from the county constituency in consequence of having votes for the Representatives of the great towns; as in Warwickshire, where a great part of the present county constituency would be cut off in consequence of a Member having been given to Birmingham. He looked upon that circumstance as raising a great difficulty in the way of the division which the noble Lord proposed.

said, it would be utterly impossible properly to divide the manufacturing counties without trespassing upon the limits the noble Lord said were not to be passed over.

thought, that the Committee could not possibly form a deliberate opinion respecting the expediency of dividing any one county in the Schedule, unless some rule for the division was first laid down. No opinion could be formed of the propriety of dividing a county, until the borough population were first taken out of it. For instance, Merthyr Tydvil was added to Cardiff, from which it was twenty-five miles distant. How, therefore, could the county of Glamorgan be divided until it was ascertained what number of voters would be abstracted from the whole county. How could the noble Lord call on the Committee to deal with twenty-five counties in the gross, when he was unable to explain in what way he should deal with any one particular county? It might be very well to say, that it should be left to the Commissioners. But would the county Members be satisfied to leave the division to these gentlemen? The noble Lord seemed to be particularly anxious not to tie down the Commissioners by any strict or inflexible rule. To be sure he said, that their award was to be submitted to the King, and not to be valid until it received his approbation. If the King should in any case not approve of the proceeding of the Commissioners, what was then to be done? Was there to be no division? The Committee ought to be in possession of the facts of every case in this Schedule, as well as of every case in the former Schedules. The Bill had been so long in Committee, that his Majesty's Ministers ought certainly to have put themselves in possession of all the facts respecting each county to be divided. If the collection of those facts would have been attended with expense, that certainly ought to be in- curred, to enable them to state at once to the Committee the divisions which they proposed to make of each county. The noble Lord ought to be aware that there were counties in which—the voters in the towns having been taken away—there was scarcely anything left for a constituency, even without dividing them. He would mention as an instance the county of Durham, if he might do so without being supposed to mean anything uncivil. In making distinctions between those parts of counties which had large towns in them, a new difficulty would be occasioned by the circumstance that some large towns were to have Representatives, the voters in them being abstracted from the county constituency; whilst some other towns, being unrepresented themselves, must continue to be reckoned part of the county population, and would have so much influence as to be enabled to domineer over the whole division which may have been shorn of a great part of its constituency to supply the old or new boroughs. This clause was full of evil. As the Ministers had gone so far into popular Representation, he thought that they ought to pause before they entirely destroyed the influence of the aristocracy over the elections for counties, which this clause would most probably effect. At present, except occasionally, and by some accident, no man but one that had some property and standing in a county, was elected as a Representative for it; but if the counties were divided, and most of their constituency taken to add to that of boroughs, the counties would be reduced to mere districts for which any stranger might be returned. Here would be a new class of representatives entering into competition with the aristocracy, who, on the other hand, were not likely to be returned for any of the newly-created boroughs, which would, in all human probability, select men of a lower class to represent them. He would maintain, that the proposed division of counties would give them a reduced constituency, for in most of those counties affected by the division, towns had been enfranchised in such a manner as to include a large portion of the old county electors. He should most decidedly object to the powers of the proposed Commissioners being final, and without any revision on the part of Parliament. He would put it to the House, whether such a division, so much under the direction of Commissioners, was not imparting to the Executive Government a power which no Administration ought to possess? It might be very well if the Commissioners were directed to obtain information, and turn their attention to the most eligible mode of division, and having done that, to make a report, leaving the House to decide ultimately upon each individual case proposed. He should not object to men of integrity examining these matters, and making a report on them; but he, for one, never would consent to allow any authority, short of that of Parliament, being final on such an important point. In fact, the House could never form a correct judgment respecting any of the counties divided, unless the whole matter were entered into in detail by those appointed to examine the counties, and it was to him, he confessed, a matter of the greatest surprise, that the noble Lord who introduced the present measure did not regulate all these matters in detail, so as to bring them at once before the House, and explain to it what would be the operation of every clause in the Bill.

said, he rose to propose the amendment of which he had given notice. He should leave it to hon. Members to state the details, as regarded those counties in which each was interested. By merely looking at a map, it was clear that some counties might be so divided as to render the division merely nominal, and to create a close or proprietary division of counties. This would be as bad as nomination boroughs; and for his part, he should much prefer retaining twenty-five of the places in schedule A, to giving two more Members each to twenty-five counties, upon the condition of dividing them. The consequence and rank of county Representatives must be thus greatly reduced; and as to a division by Commissioners, he objected to it as unconstitutional. The clause provided, that after the report of the Commissioners, it should be lawful for his Majesty—not imperative on him—to issue his proclamation accordingly, so that the Government would be free to act upon the Commissioners' report or not, as they pleased. One reason assigned for this division was, that where there were four Members returned by the whole county, a compromise usually took place. This was answered by what happened at the last election in the city of London, in Yorkshire, and in Weymouth. Was there any compromise in these cases? No. Each of these three places sent four Members, all of the same principles. He did not see, that the division was more necessary in these twenty-five counties, than it was in the seven counties which were to have three Members each, and which were not to be divided. It was not clear to him, how the expense of county elections could be reduced by it, for, according to the Bill, there might be fifteen polling-places, which must add greatly to the expense. What inconvenience could there be, in each elector voting for four Members in place of two? The booths should be erected at the expense of the county. He greatly feared, that to prevent the evils of a division of counties, it would eventually become necessary to have recourse to the Ballot. The hon. Member concluded, by proposing an amendment on the clause, the effect of which would be, to give the right of returning four Members to the electors of the county at large, without any division of it. He gave notice, that he certainly meant to take the sense of the Committee on his amendment.

would offer to the amendment of the hon. Member every opposition in his power, because he conceived that it would, if adopted, effect a very important alteration in the general operaation of the whole Bill. The objections of the hon. Member to the clause as it stood, seemed to him of very little weight. He could not see how that clause could bestow such an undue influence upon the great landed proprietor in the division, as would render the Ballot necessary as a protection to the less wealthy electors, nor could he apprehend, on what ground the hon. Member conceived that these divisions would be practically so many close boroughs, in the hands of the rich landed proprietors. No doubt the influence of property would tell in the proposed divisions, particularly so far as it was in the hands of some one or two large landholders—that is, these individuals would have a much greater chance, indeed certainty, of being returned for the divisions in which their property lay, than they could have of being returned for the whole county at large; but he was sure, that that influence could not be so preponderating, as to warrant the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman. How the hon. Gentleman could suppose the clause now under discussion would lead to a similar mode of nomination in the county Representation, to that which existed in the borough nomination, he was at a loss to conceive. The patron of the borough could elect at his bidding whomsoever he pleased. Just, however influential a person might be in a county, he could not have that power. Without doubt, there would always be an influence exercised by a person possessing property, and this was neither to be wondered at nor objected to, but that influence would depend upon his popularity in some degree. The arrangement, besides, he was pretty certain, would preclude those partial compromises which took place between the large proprietors, and the independent interest, in the larger counties. At present, it was too much the case, that one Member was returned by the individual holding the largest property in the county, and the other by the independent interest. But the objection of the hon. Member, that the clause would tend to increase the aristocratic influence in the Representation of counties, was, in the eyes of the framers of the Bill, no objection at all. On the contrary, they felt the necessity, while they were adding to the democratic share of the Representation, by extending the franchise generally, and adding to the Members of the large towns, of preserving the balance of the aristocratic share, by increasing the influence of the great landed proprietors in the counties. In saying this, he did not mean that it was an object with Ministers, that the great landed proprietors' influence should entirely prevail in the proposed divisions, for he was convinced, that some degree of popular influence would be necessary to the candidate. All he meant was, that it was expedient that the aristocracy should preserve their due influence in the Representation of that House. The clause would effect this by, in a great degree, confining the Representation of the county divisions to the gentlemen of property resident in them, and, therefore, best acquainted with their wants and interests. He considered it an evil of the present system, that mere popularity should be the means of returning Members for counties, oftentimes, even, of returning strangers, to the exclusion of gentlemen of retiring habits, holding large property in the county, and well qualified to repre- sent its interests; and he knew not how that evil could be entirely got rid of, so long as the freeholders of a wide surface of country were distracted in their choice of the candidates proposed by the districts best acquainted with their respective merits—a distraction that almost inevitably ends in their choosing some popular individual, whose chief merit is, that his name is best known to all. The hon. Member had stated as an objection, that the expenses of the elections would not be diminished by the mode proposed. Did the hon. Member forget, the expense of appointing agents, of canvassing, which each candidate had to incur, and which must, of necessity, be considerably enhanced, when the whole of a county was to be canvassed, instead of a part? He was fully persuaded, that the expenses of elections would be so much smaller, that many men of great respectability, of good family, and proper qualifications, would be elected, but who did not possess the money necessary to procure their return under the old system. The objection of the hon. Gentleman, as to the power which the clause gave the Government, appeared to him to be totally without foundation. It was not intended, that the King's sanction should be optional, but imperative, and the clause, as he read it, made it imperative on the King to sanction the report. If the hon. Member's proposition should be acted on, the result would be, in counties returning, say four Members, that at least three of them would be persons of this popular description, while the fourth would only come in on a kind of compromise. For these reasons, he would otter to the hon. Member's amendment all the opposition in his power— not that he was prepared to say, that if it should be carried, that, therefore, the Bill should be abandoned, but that it involved a principle which would materially affect the Bill, which, as a whole, had been adopted by that House, and approved of by the country. He was aware that there existed a difference of opinion among the friends of the Bill, as to the merits of this county-division clause; but he still thought, that the Reform majority would not be acting up to their duty to the public, if, by way of compromise between hostile premises, they should, in the present case, vote for the amendment. Ministers owed it to the public to carry the Clause as it stood, if possible.

would oppose the amendment to the utmost of his power.

said, that at the commencement of his life, no one had ever been more hostile than he was to Parliamentary Reform. His opinions had, however, somewhat changed; and, although he did not go the whole way with Ministers in the present measure, yet he did agree with them to a certain extent. To certain clauses of the Bill he was most friendly. No one felt more than he did, the necessity of additional county Members, to counteract democratic influence. The augmentation of county Members, was essential for that purpose; and, if that were to be the case, the counties must be divided, and two Members given to each division. It was absurd to suppose, that this division would create an effect similar to that of nomination boroughs; for he asked, whether these divisions would not all be equal to, and many larger than, several of the smaller counties? He was favourable to the principles, that county Representation should be in the hands of country gentlemen, and that seven or eight gentlemen of large property, should have all the influence in the division of a county, that was to be derived from popularity and property. Again, the expense of contests would be diminished; for, if there were any one person out of four candidates for a whole county, objectionable, the whole four would be involved in the expense of the contest, and the effect would be similar to that which was known by having what was called a third man in a borough. There was only one alteration which he wished to see made, as to the county elections, and that respected the 40s. freeholders, whom he wished to see in some degree assimilated to the freeholders of Ireland. A. 40s. freehold of inheritance he would not disturb; but a freehold for life, or, what was more absurd, for the life of another, or an annuitant of 40s., he should wish to see put an end to, at least put on the same footing, and subject to the same qualifications, as copyholders in counties were to be put by this Bill.

thought this was one of the most important parts of the Bill, and, if it could be so arranged as to avoid influence and partiality, would be unquestionably beneficial. He understood there was a difference of opinion among the supporters of the Bill, on this clause. The noble Lord had hinted, that the rejection of this clause would destroy the effect of the Bill; he thought these fears were not altogether groundless. There were difficulties, no doubt; to overcome, in the division but, looking at the whole of the proposed alterations, there would be less than to leave the counties as they were. He could not conceal from himself, that to divide them was to bring them nearer to a level with boroughs, but he must deny there was any fear whatever of their becoming like close boroughs. If they looked to the other side of the question, it must be admitted, that the agricultural, as well as the mercantile interest, ought to be attended to. He would ask the hon. members for Yorkshire, were not the four Members at present who represented that county, influenced chiefly by the commercial interest? and as that had principally returned four Members, it would most likely have weight enough to return the two additional ones to be granted. The danger, he considered, would be greater to the agricultural interest, to have Members elected for the whole county, I than for each of the Ridings to return two separately. The great towns being enfranchised, also, would lessen their influence in the county elections. If the division, then, could be properly arranged, he thought they would be advantageous to the agricultural interest, and the counties might be justly and fairly represented under them. Although there might be impediments in the way, yet he considered these could be surmounted. It must also be remembered, that the expense of elections would be materially decreased, by the number of agents and voters required being much less. This, of course, could not apply to those counties where there were to be three Members, further than a greater number would have to bear the necessary expenses among them. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, he was in favour of the clause as it stood, and should support it.

said, as he had hitherto cautiously abstained from interfering in the debates upon this Bill, already too much protracted, he trusted the House would pardon him if, on this occasion, when the interests of those whom he had the honour to represent were more immediately concerned, he endeavoured to explain, as briefly as possible, his reasons for the vote which he was about to give. He was the more anxious to do so, because he was aware that many of the most strenuous reformers, many of the most zealous supporters of this Bill, and not a few, he was sorry to say, even among his own constituents, were decidedly averse from the division of counties. He would not enter into all the objections which had been urged against that measure, he would content himself with saying, that he did not participate in the fears of those who thought that undue influence would thereby be created, nor did he see any thing in it which militated against the great principles upon which the Bill had been framed. If to the Bill in its former stages he had been able to give his most uncompromising, yet he must be allowed to add, his most conscientious support—if he was prepared to continue to give it the same support in its progress through the Committee—he must confess, that he did not see any thing in this clause which should induce him to deviate from that course in this instance. He was aware that the noble Earl now at the head of his Majesty's Government, in the Reform Bill which he introduced into this House in the year 1798, proposed to divide the counties without increasing the number of their Representatives. To that proposition he could not have agreed; but now that all the counties enumerated in schedule G were to have four Members, he did think it better, on many accounts, that those counties should be divided, and he did so for these reasons—first, because, although he concurred with the hon. member for Leicestershire (Mr. Paget), in approving of large constituent bodies, he did think, that that principle might be carried too far—so far indeed as to defeat its own object. He also thought, that an elector would be likely to give his two votes much more independently, much more conscientiously, and much more from principle, than he would do if he had the privilege of voting for four Members. Secondly, he approved of the division of counties, because it would allow of a more frequent intercourse between a Member and his constituents; it would allow them to become acquainted with his opinions, and, by enabling them to place confidence in his political integrity, do away in a great measure with the necessity of pledges, which had been so much complained of lately, which he admitted in a general way to be undesirable, but which he believed to have been indispensable at the last election. Another reason was, that the expense of canvassing counties would, by the proposed clause, be very much diminished. Under the present system, the electors were frequently compelled to choose, not the best nor the wisest—not the most efficient—not the person whom they thought the most fitting to represent them—but him who had the longest purse. He begged to thank the House for the indulgent manner in which they had listened to him. He had endeavoured to state some of the reasons for the vote which he should give on this question; and he assured them, that he should not give that vote with the less satisfaction, when he thought that this clause would tend to allay the fears of many who had opposed the Bill from conscientious, though, as he conceived, from mistaken motives.

said, that were he to consider this proposition abstractedly, and without reference to the Bill, he should have the greatest objection to it. He should be sorry to see the immunities of the ancient divisions of England come to an end. When he heard the noble Lord, the member for Yorkshire, on a former occasion congratulate himself with respect to the county of York, and say, "we are in this proud situation—we are separate from every county in England, for true it is, we are to have six Members, but we are to have two Members for each of our old Ridings, and we are to preserve those divisions that have existed since the days of Alfred; and, therefore, I object to the proposition of giving York ten Members." When he (Sir Robert Peel) heard that from the noble Lord, he thought it a just and natural feeling. It was one he did not wish to destroy, nor could he be surprised that any honourable man should feel an objection to a division of the limits and the loss of the unity of his county. It was quite consistent that men should maintain those local feelings with a general feeling. God forbid they should be ever destroyed, and, therefore, abstractedly from this Bill, which he looked upon but as a precedent for a departmental division of the country, this proposition should have had his decided opposition. He thought it unjust to that display of public spirit, which every man wished to see. And let it not be said, because there were now two nominal divisions in Sussex, that this would have no effect; for, after counties were divided into separate portions, their common feeling would be extinguished—they would be like Holland and Belgium, no longer the same. This might be derided as prejudice, but he, with the member for Yorkshire, must feel it was more. Let them look at the consequences. Let them take the county of Stafford for instance. When this division took place, he who belonged to No.1 Stafford, would have a different interest from him who belonged to No.2 Stafford; they would no longer have the same identity of feelings, as natives of the same county, which had before existed among them. It was true, that all this might be denounced as so much prejudice; so it was, perhaps; but, at the same time, those feelings existed, and it was a part of those feelings which had always made Englishmen so ready to defend the Constitution of the country. Another provision of the Bill, which he most seriously lamented was, that the division of the counties was to be effected by Commissioners, and not by the House of Commons itself. He saw no reason why the House should not undertake the task of dividing the counties. They had details enough before them. Why could not a Committee of the House consider and report the facts, and the House make the final decision? He saw no reason why the House was not perfectly competent to decide on this point; and if it were so, on what constitutional grounds was the important function devolved on another authority, without appeal to that House, of deciding what should be the future Representation of England? It was a monstrous dereliction of duty, that that House—the Representatives of the people—should devolve to other and extrinsic hand the office of deciding what should be the Representation of twenty-five populous counties. The noble Lord had said, there would not be an appeal even to the Crown itself, which would be barred from reviewing the decisions of these Commissioners however unjust. If the Bill was to pass into a law, they were bound to use their best endeavours to make it perfect as far as it went; and he, therefore, thought that they ought to make the most strenuous opposition to the appointment of Commissioners for the performance of a duty which really belonged to the House and if it was said, that the House was too numerous a body to take this matter into consideration, his answer was, that in that case a Committee of the House light be appointed, whose capacity to perform the task would be unexceptionable, and whose decision, as emanating from an authorised portion of the House, could not be called in question by the House itself. Another great objection which he had to this part of the Bill was, that the House was called upon to give it once its consent to an indefinite division of all the principal counties of England, without so much as knowing whether the division was to run from north to south, or from east to west; so that, in rating for the additional Members to counties, they would be, in fact, voting for something, the effect of which they could not by any possibility foresee. As he had already said, to the division of the counties, taking it abstractedly, he had the greatest objection; but when he viewed the subject with reference to this Bill, at the same time taking into consideration the disfranchisement that had been inflicted on the borough system, by means of schedules A and B, he thought, that the adoption of the division of the counties was a judicious step. He had to consider in what manner he could best give that countervailing influence which should be consistent with such a measure; and he was bound to say, that he thought there were solid arguments for the division of the counties, as the means of maintaining the wrecks of aristocratical influence. He was glad to hear from the noble Lord, that it was not intended entirely to destroy aristocratical representation; and he thought, that the small remains of that representation might be better maintained by dividing the counties, than by continuing them as they were at present. Those who thought the Bill did not go far enough, might very consistently be hostile to such a plan; but he avowed that his reason for supporting it was, because he agreed with the noble Lord, that the popular influence was greatly increased by this Bill, and he thought that the division of the counties would give a kind of counterpoise. He repeated, that he never would vote for the introduction of clauses, which would render the Bill inefficient, with a view of defeating it. Still he thought great improvements might be made. It was a great object with him to dispense with the necessity of employing Commissioners, and to leave their duties to Par- liament itself. It would be a great advantage, under this point of view, if there could be an arrangement, after constituting the electoral districts of a town, to prevent any proprietor living in the town from exercising an influence in the county elections. He did not see the reason for excluding a 40s. freeholder from the right of voting for a town, and giving him a right of voting for the county. Why not, after determining the boundaries of a new town, say that all 40s. freeholders in the town, and 10l. freeholders, should exercise the right of voting in the district, and not in the county, instead of telling them "You cannot vote for the district, though you may for the county." If the 40s. freeholders were allowed to exercise their elective franchise only within the new electoral districts, the necessity of riding Commissioners might be dispensed with, and it would be scarcely necessary to look for 10l. freeholders within the limits of a town. There was one other clause to which he had an objection. The Bill gave to freeholders in counties of cities, for the first time, the right of voting for counties. In these counties of cities, the splitting of freeholds, and other practices, had led to the greatest abuses. He would call the noble Lord's attention to the county of the city of Lichfield, where freeholders had a right to vote, and the noble Lord knew how many annuitants had been created in violation of the spirit of the law. The Bill would give to these annuitants of Lichfield, amounting to 400 or 500, a new right of voting for the county. It would be better to confine them within the county of the city, than to let them into the county. Much difficulty arose from the mode in which England was to be divided, which would throw considerable discretion into the hands of the Commissioners; and it was extraordinary, that after this House had struggled so hard against the interference of another branch of the Legislature with their elections, they should devolve so great a power of interference on gentlemen of whom the House could know nothing. Seeing the destruction of aristocratic influence which was to take place, from the mode in which the franchise was extended in towns, he thought that the safest course to take would be, to adopt that division of counties by which gentlemen of landed property would have their fair share of influence in the Representation of counties. He owned that he had not seen any practical good effect from allowing Yorkshire to send four Members for the whole county, rather than for its separate divisions; and he thought, that that county would have consulted its fair influence just as much, or more in returning one of its own landed gentry, rather than the highly respectable individual who had since become High Chancellor of England. Under these circumstances, he would vote in favour of the proposition of Ministers, for the division of counties.

was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against the proposed elective qualification for boroughs. He was himself one of the Lichfield annuitants, and he would only ask, what would the effect be of allowing these 40s. freeholders to vote in boroughs? Simply this, that any Gentleman who had 100l. a year in a borough could make fifty annuitants for 40s., and so secure an influence, whereas, by their being thrown into the county, their power would be merged in the mass.

said, they should be as much on their guard against fictitious votes in counties as in counties of towns. But on what principle were the counties to be inundated with these voters from towns? The spirit of the law was decidedly evaded by the creation of annuitants in this way. He had no objection whatever to the bona fide 40s. freeholders being left as they were, but he would certainly confine the new voters, and the annuitants, to the counties of towns in which they happened to be placed.

said, that if the annuitants of Lichfield were confined to the county of the city, the freedom of the election would be completely curtailed, and a person of large property, by dividing it into annuities, might acquire such influence as to convert the place into a close borough. The spirit of the law might be against the practice of creating annuities, but the letter was in its favour, and if the votes so created were to be limited to the counties of towns, these places must become in a short time little better than nomination boroughs. A man who might create 400 or 500 votes, by such a process in a county, would not possess material influence among a body of 8,000 or 10,000 electors; but in a town, where the number was comparatively small, the temptation to create them, would be so great as most likely to lead to the practice being largely adopted.

was anxious to bring the Committee back to the real question before it. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, assigned an inconsistent reason for his vote, for, after having declaimed against the appointment of Commissioners, he said he would vote for the clause which constituted them, concluding, to be sure, with a hope that the Government would alter its intentions. Another reason for his vote was, that this division of counties would be against democratic influence, which, he said, was unduly exercised, because there were forty or fifty additional Members given to great towns. But did he forget, that for the sixty-three additional county Members, Gentlemen of ancient lineage, and all as much aristocrats as the first Peer of the realm, would be the persons most likely to be returned? Influence of property would no doubt prevail, but in only one instance that he was aware of, had it returned both Members for one county. He should vote for the motion of the hon. Member behind him; and he would, when they came to the eighteenth clause, acting upon the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, move that the freeholders of boroughs should vote for boroughs, and not for counties.

said, that the part of the Bill which he approved of least was the division of the counties; but the feeling in favour of the whole Bill was so unanimous through the country, that he had been induced to alter his opinion. He was not so much afraid of aristocratic influence as some other persons seemed to be; and although he believed he should offend many of his constituents, yet, as the country demanded the whole Bill, he was bound to preserve the consistency of the measure, and to vote for the division of counties. He hoped, however, that in the future clauses some provision would be made for the further extension of voting in counties, and he should therefore vote for the clause as it stood.

said, he would support the proposition for a division of counties. He had formerly, upon the question of giving four Members to York, intimated his opinion, that the Members should be given to the East and West Ridings, and he was convinced that the principle would be equally beneficial in the other great counties of England. All ex- perience told them that candidates for whole counties had found the expense immense whether they were popular or unpopular. Nothing could prevent this, for if a man depended on his popularity alone, and neglected canvassing, he would most probably lose his election. Now, this very necessity prevented gentlemen of moderate fortunes from offering themselves, for even if they were returned in the first instance without much expense, yet, on a subsequent election, a principle of honour, and a wish to stand by their friends, might involve them in a contest which could not be carried on but at the ruin of their fortunes: for these reasons he supported the division, and approved of distributing the franchise which was to be taken away from the small boroughs, to increasing the county Members. But although he might approve the division abstractedly, he objected to the method of arranging the divisions through the means of Commissioners, whose report was to be approved by the King in Council, and not to be laid before Parliament. He had no doubt, that the Commissioners to be appointed would be the best qualified persons that could be found, but in a matter requiring such extensive and minute local knowledge of all the principal counties of England, no small number of gentlemen could be expected to have, or be able to obtain, a sufficient knowledge. Serious errors, therefore, would be committed, which might be corrected if the returns were laid before the House, by which the local knowledge of each individual member might be used to perfect the whole. If this were not done they might expect petitions without number, and endless discussions, he therefore hoped the Government would abandon this system of delegation, and leave the boundaries to be arranged by Parliament, who would, he was convinced, pass a bill for that purpose much sooner than the Commissioners could agree on their plan of division. Another point he would beg to suggest to the noble Lord's consideration was, whether it would not be advisable to restrict the power to create franchises by the means of annuities. His right hon. friend seemed to think this practice would be guarded against, by voters being obliged to swear to their qualifications, but this in very many cases of creation, would only give rise to perjury.

saw so much of a democratic principle in the Bill, that he should be happy to give all the Members in his power to the counties, to counteract it. He objected to the division of the counties, because he wished to avoid taking any step towards recognizing the employment of Commissioners, and because it might lead afterwards to a departmental division of the kingdom; which he thought highly objectionable in any case, and which, in other hands than those of the present Government, might ultimately prove dangerous, and be made still further to operate to an increase of democratic influence. He feared this influence would be further augmented by the additional Representation given to the Metropolitan districts; and, unless some expedient were adopted to counterbalance the influence exercised by a coercive body on the spot where the Representatives of the people meet, over the views and sentiments of their Representatives, he conceived this access to the democratic influence would prove fatal to the Constitution. With these views he agreed to the suggestion, and if he had been present at the time it was discussed it should have had his support, that Yorkshire should have ten Members, among whom there would most likely prevail such a thorough identity of interests and sentiments, as would be sufficient to counteract the proposed increase of Metropolitan Members.

could by no means believe the division of counties would lead to the adoption of departmental districts. If he had any suspicion of the kind, he would oppose the clause, but he could not imagine it would lead to any such result. He had, therefore, heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, with great satisfaction, in which he in a great measure withdrew his opposition to this clause, and he must give the same credit to other hon. Gentlemen who took the same views. He believed their opposition to the Bill in general was sincere, and he should be ready to listen to any arguments they could urge against such parts of it as they could not approve. With respect to the clause at present before them, he was the last man to consent to any undue preponderance being given to either the aristocracy or the democracy; but of this he was convinced, that unless the counties were divided, the contests for a seat would be so frequent and expensive, and there would be such a truckling of interests, that no Member would be able to retain his place unless he made mean and unworthy sacrifices to the sentiments and prejudices of his constituents. No man of honour and character would stand a contested election on such terms. He believed there was no danger, by assenting to the clause now before them, that the progress towards departmental divisions would be facilitated. He was well aware there were many hon. Members who entertained such strong feelings against the Bill, that they would not give their support to any part of it, but as the measure was now, beyond doubt, destined to pass through the House, he would appeal to them whether they should not concede some portion of their opposition, and apply themselves to the improvement of a measure, the success of which was now inevitable. He had no wish to embarrass Government, but as he believed a great source of complaint would be removed, and by its being known who were to be the Commissioners, he recommended an immediate explanation with respect to the persons who, under the provisions of this Bill, were to be appointed to carry this clause into effect. For his own part he was perfectly indifferent as to who were to be appointed to determine the boundaries. He was quite convinced that, whether done by Commissioners or by Parliament, the effect would be the same. He had no doubt the Commissioners would be men of honesty and integrity, and as an individual Member he should be quite content to abide by their decision.

that he felt himself bound to support the Amendment, as he supported every part of the Bill which had come under their consideration; because he thought the original proposition had a tendency to subvert and neutralize much of the advantage conferred by the Bill. How, he would ask, could those who favoured popular Representation vote for a measure which would deprive the middle classes, and men of moderate property, of all their just influence in their counties? This clause would undoubtedly have that effect, by giving to large properties such a preponderating influence in each district, as would tend to convert the divided counties into nomination boroughs. It was calculated to restore and increase those nests of corruption which it was the professed object of the Bill to destroy, and it would go far to put an end to the hope of a full, fair, and free Representation of the people. They would have tinder its operation less enjoyment of the elective franchise than they had at present. For these reasons he opposed it, and was determined to vote for the Amendment.

said, that if he regarded the present clause as an integral part of the Bill, he should perhaps be disposed to follow the example of the hon. member for Kent, and for the sake of the safety of the whole measure, vote for this particular part of it. He, however, believed, that the proposed division of counties would be a most unpopular act, and would be attended with other mischievous effects. The general object of the Bill was, to extend the franchise so as to prevent by numbers, those corrupt practices which could only be brought fully to bear on a small body of electors. The division of counties was an exception to this principle, and by lessening the number of constituents, the separate parts of each county would be likely to be influenced by the corrupt practices said to prevail in certain boroughs. The half of some counties would be very little better than nomination boroughs, and the other half would be swamped and overborne by the influence of some large manufacturing town. He thought the Bill would stand on as firm a footing, whether it did or did not contain this clause. The division of counties would destroy the perfect freedom of election, while it was calculated to increase the expenses of elections. He saw no difficulty in giving to every elector four votes. It would ensure the election to the most popular candidate, by this rule, that an individual might ensure one vote, and take one elector to the poll for that purpose; yet the other three votes would be free. He felt quite convinced, that the freedom of election would be better maintained, the influence of powerful individuals be less available, and the respectability of county Representation be better preserved, by maintaining the counties entire. For these reasons he should vote for the amendment.

said, that he felt no necessity to make any apology for opposing this clause as other Members had just done. He had, from the beginning, opposed every clause of this Bill, and he saw no object to be answered by making any apologetical excuses for the observations which he was about, to make. The Bill altogether, as it was first propounded, was too glaring, too enormous, even for a Whig Government, but his Majesty's Ministers, in the Bill before the House, their second plan of Reform, had committed the authority of cutting up all the counties in the country to a Commission of their own appointment, whose acts were to be irresponsible and without appeal. He objected to this arrangement, because he did not know but that the Commissioners would be guilty of gross partiality, corruption, and all sorts of blunders and mistakes. The power which, by the first plan of Reform, it was proposed to confer upon the Privy Council, in the division of counties, was not half so wild, so dangerous, so irresponsible and jacobinical as the plan now proposed, of confiding that same power to irresponsible, unknown riding Commissioners. There was to be no appeal, no matter what blunders, what partiality, or what corruption might take place. And was this a system under which Englishmen should be compelled to live? Twenty-five counties were proposed to be carved into districts by Commissioners, from whose will and pleasure there was to be no appeal. He agreed with much that had fallen from his right hon. friend, but he could not agree with him as to the propriety of dividing the counties into departmental districts, as this clause proposed to do. It might, perhaps, confer some advantage upon the Aristocracy; but he would not take that advantage at the expense of principle. He would not invade the constitution of Parliament, and the rights of the subject, from a supposition that he might strengthen the power of the Aristocracy. He considered the clause to be injurious, degrading, and improper. In short, he would not take any little bonus at the expense of an irresponsible, an impeccable power upon the part of Commissioners of whom he knew nothing. The Government all through had been deficient in giving any thing like explanation upon any one clause; and as to that now under consideration, it was so utterly at variance with every constitutional principle, that he hoped the House would not entertain it. The division of counties went upon no principle, either as to property, as to space, or as to the payment of taxes; there was nothing in the clause to compel the Commissioners to act by any rule; no standard was fixed for their guidance, nor was there any tribunal to correct their errors or their corruption. Only let the House see what a deviation they were about to make from their own Standing Orders which had been devised for the protection of property. In cases of bills for canals, docks, or roads, notice was to be previously served upon all the parties interested before their property could be interfered with. A common turnpike-road could not be cut through any county, without notice being given to the inhabitants of the intended undertaking, and maps and plans of its direction being lodged in the Speaker's chamber. Yet it was now proposed to commit to certain persons the power to cut up all the counties, without hearing evidence, and without appeal. What a mockery, what an insult was this to the county constituency of this country. This, indeed, was not an incipient step to reform or revolution, for revolution had already advanced with giant strides. For his own part he felt no necessity to disguise his opinions; he need not muffle his speech any more than many others of his hon. friends; he and they could equally speak out; and he would say again, that this Bill was a decidedly Jacobinical Bill. They had already abolished the rights and privileges of boroughs, only, as it would appear, to be the precursors of the abolition of those for counties. But it all tended to forward the progress of revolution. It all tended to a direct jacobinical division of the country. It was a sequel to the measure proposed by the Lord Privy Seal in 1821, for the purpose of apportioning England into departmental divisions. What would be the consequence of adopting the proposition under consideration? There were many hon. Members who now fancied themselves county Members. Would they be so by-and-by? For instance, there would be no hon. member for Wiltshire. He would be split into a member for the north of Wiltshire, and a member for the south of Wiltshire. The noble Lord opposite would not be the member for Northamptonshire. He must be described by a circumlocution, travelling through the names of several little districts. There would be the member for the north of Surrey and the member for the south of Surrey,—the member for the Maidstone division of Kent, and the member for the Canterbury division of Kent. Fifty per cent would be deducted from the present importance and dignity of a county Member. At present the Member for a county thought himself greatly superior to the Member for a borough. But when a present county Member became only a half-county Member, he, the humble member for Borough-bridge, might stand erect by his side. The proposition was to bring down the independent and dignified county Member to the level of the poor corrupt Member for a borough. This was a change which, in his opinion, was exceedingly unwholesome. And who were the Commissioners to be? Addison had said "that it was impossible to dislike those whom we had never seen, and whom we did not know." He could not be supposed, therefore, to speak from prejudice. But he felt it impossible to consent to intrust these incogniti Commissioners with the power of destroying or diminishing, at their pleasure, the influence of the landed interest of the whole country. It was an anomaly in the practice of the Constitution, to which he would oppose all the resistance of which he was capable.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman would persuade the House, that nothing but plunder and corruption could come from the Commissioners. Now, he would ask, what would have been the consequence, if they had proceeded in a Committee of that House to make the divisions which were proposed to be made by Commissioners? They would have had all the same reproaches to undergo; for, with the hon. and learned Gentleman's disposition to trace every thing to a desire of plunder and corruption, he would, in all probability, have said, that the Committee was formed of the friends of Government, and they would have been involved in a labyrinth of details of which in the progress of the Bill, the House had already had an example. It was in anticipation of this difficulty, that his Majesty's Government had, in the first instance, placed the matter in the hands of a Committee of the Privy Council, which was now changed to Commissioners. The objections which had been urged were partly to the proposition itself of dividing the counties, and partly to the mode of doing it. As to the mode, although the counties were to be divided by the Commissioners, and although it was intended that they should remain as divided by them, yet there was nothing to prevent Parliament from revising their decision, and to alter the division if it should not appear the best adapted to the circumstances of any particular county. Now with regard to the proposition itself, he thought that with respect to the influence of the aristocracy, there would be no very great difference between the effects of this proposition and the plan of each county undivided sending four Representatives. Where there was a large property in a county, it was sure to have a share in the Representation, whether there were; two Members or four; and although the division might in some places give a greater command to property, yet it would bring a greater variety of interests into the Representation, and small properties would acquire a greater weight than they could possess if the whole county sent four Members. From his experience, his opinion of the freeholders of this country was, that they were very competent to select two suitable candidates, out of three or four, to represent them; but, when the Representatives were to be four, it would be a matter of chance rather than of choice. He considered it a great advantage to the Constitution of that House that its county Members were, for the most part, as it were, permanent Members, because that circumstance imparted a consistency to their measures; but the election of tour Members would be much more liable to vacillation and vicissitude than of two. He considered, too, that the division of counties would be a great means of limiting the expense of elections, which was, he thought, most desirable. As to the proposition of the hon. member for Worcester, for admitting freeholders to vote for towns, he thought it would produce an opposite effect to that intended by the hon. Gentleman, and would make nomination boroughs in a very short time.

objected to the nomination of Commissioners by his Majesty's Government, for what appeal could be made against their decision by Members at the opposite side of the House? Why not name the Commissioners if any thing like fair play was intended? He had no delicacy in stating his objections to every clause of the Bill. He objected to the line of argument taken by the hon. member for Stafford, for he thought the old system was the best safeguard to the purity of election. The further this Bill went on, the less, he was sure, would it give satisfaction to the people.

said, the people of Eng- land had shown great good sense in being enamoured of this Bill, inasmuch as it took the nomination of boroughs from aristocrats, who provided for their friends, as Generals, Admirals, and Bishops, at the expense of the public. But while he admitted the consistency of the right hon. member for Tamworth, who had voted against the disfranchisement of rotten boroughs, and now intended to vote for rotten nomination districts, or divisions of counties, he could not follow his example. It would be vain to talk of a popular Representation, if this clause were to stand part of the Bill. They were only labouring night after night in vain if, with one vote, they disfranchised nomination boroughs, and the next vote established nomination districts. This Bill would be but a mockery, and the. Government would only "keep the word of promise to the ear," and not to the good sense of the people, if they persevered in this course. This division clause was a complete contradiction to those that preceded it; and of what avail could, it be to destroy Boroughbridge if they gave to a large proprietor the Representation of one-half or the quarter of a county? The Tories acted consistently in denying the democratic principle, but he could not say the same of those Members who cherished Reform, and who wished to see the democratic principle in more extensive operation. Every man who was acquainted with history must know, that the most flourishing States were always those in which the democratic principle most prevailed, and the oligarchical aristocracy had the least predominance. It was by the recognition of the democratic principle, that England had become the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. The old oligarchical principle should be put down, or nothing would be done. He did not think that there could be any free election without the Vote by Ballot, although he would not now contend for that; but certainly, in the absence of the Ballot, nothing could ensure a free election but a numerous constituency and the influence of public opinion. In deference to other Reformers, he felt reluctant in stating these opinions; but as he was a thorough and sincere Reformer, he must oppose every species of nomination.

would support the proposition for the division of the counties. He was not insensible to the arguments which had been adduced against the proposition; but he thought that the hon. member for Kerry had exaggerated the effects which would be produced by this clause; which could only be attributed to his want of sufficient knowledge of the nature of property in this country. The divisions of counties would, in several instances, give a constituency of 100,000 persons, and even in Cumberland, no less than 78,000. So far, then, what became of the charge of nomination? The effect of the clause would be the same in this House, whether counties were divided or not. He denied that the divisions of counties would throw the nomination of Members into the hands of the aristocracy. And whatever the power of any knot of individuals might be in cases of public excitement, the aristocracy could do no mischief.

would not detain the Committee, for it was obvious there was at once a defection in the ranks of Ministers, and a split in the enemy's camp. He concurred with the noble Lord in approving of the division, as the best mode of proceeding under all the circumstances. He thought Government ought not to be left in the lurch on the present occasion, and expressed his belief that to defeat this clause, was to defeat the whole Bill. He could not, however, avoid saying a word upon the inconsistency of the hon. member for Kerry, and others, who knew this clause was in the Bill of last year, which they so strenuously supported, and for which they had so recently declared, shouting aloud for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill; and who now, nevertheless, deserted Ministers, and rushed forward to oppose it. He must observe, too, that he had been denounced by the hon. member for Kerry, when he had said this Bill was, in essence, an aristocratic measure; and yet now the hon. Gentleman asserted the same thing. Touching the appointment of the Commissioners, he had a scheme to propose. It was to call a county meeting, and let the freeholders appoint three honourable men belonging to the county, who knew the localities, and on whom they could depend, to divide the county. In conclusion he stated, that all true Reformers—all who wished to see the Bill carried—ought to support Government on the present occasion, because they had been deserted by many who ought to have adhered to them.

said, that the great diffi- culty in which they were placed arose from the Government having left them in ignorance of the mode in which these divisions were to be effected. Dealing with this proposition in the abstract, and in reference to a measure which the House adopted, he took a balance of the evils, and preferred voting for the division, as being the best calculated to sustain the just influence of property.

said, that he had taken the greatest pains to ascertain the feeling of the county which he had the honour to represent, and he had found but one individual who wished to see that county divided. Under these circumstances, he should make no apology for voting against, this part of the Bill.

said, that knowing this to be the most unpopular part of the Bill throughout the country, he must persist in pressing his Motion.

said, that if this was the last vote he should give, he would say "no" to the proposition for dividing the counties.

said, that he knew, from his knowledge of the different interests of the county of Cumberland, that that county would be rendered much less independent by being divided as the Bill proposed. Though that county had a small population, it had a large constituency, amounting to above 9,000; and he believed that the division would have a most injurious effect upon the freedom of election in that county.