I have received for presentation to this House, a Petition from the important county of York, in favour of Parliamentary Reform, and I feel very much honoured by the confidence which that great county has reposed in me, by placing in my hands the petition which I have now the honour to present. Those Gentlemen who were in the House when the petition was brought in must be aware of its magnitude, and of the difficulty which I should have in presenting it in the ordinary mode. The petition is signed by nearly 50,000 inhabitants of Yorkshire, and it prays that, in the measure to be brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers on the subject of Reform, there should be no departure from the main principles of the Bill which passed this House during the last Session. The petition also prays us to apply ourselves to the measure with every despatch consistent with a due consideration of the subject. In presenting this petition, I beg leave to state, that I most entirely and cordially concur in the prayer which it contains. I certainly should be sorry to see any measure relating to Reform presented or proposed which did depart from the principles of the Bill under our consideration during last Session; and, when the day comes for my noble friend to propose the Bill, of which he has given notice, the House will find that, whatever improvements may have been made in the details of the measure, his Majesty's Ministers have redeemed their pledge of abiding by the principles contained in the last Reform Bill. It is not, of course, desirable for me at the present moment to enter at large into this question; and I shall, therefore, conclude, by expressing the satisfaction and gratification which have been afforded me by being intrusted with a petition conveying the sentiments of the inhabitants of the county of York on the question of Reform.

said, that the present petition was the answer which the county of York gave to the imputation that a re-action had taken place, and it appeared to him, that the argument was a very weighty one. In addition to the very satisfactory remarks which had fallen from his noble friend, he begged leave to state, that he was present at the meeting when the present petition was adopted. It was afterwards circulated throughout the county, and received, in five or six days, upwards of 40,000 signatures. No person was allowed to affix his name to the petition, who was either under age, or who could not write his name with his own hand; the present petition, therefore, besides being an evidence of the feelings of the people of Yorkshire on the subject of Reform, was a convincing proof, that the schoolmaster possessed extensive sway in that county. The meeting at which the present petition was adopted, was held immediately upon the arrival of the intelligence of the rejection of the late Reform Bill; and he confessed, that he had attended that meeting with much anxiety, because he knew that deep disappointment did not usually express itself in moderate language, and because he had heard, that scenes of disgraceful outrage had occurred in other places. He was, however, happy to inform the House, that no assemblage of men could have exhibited a more peaceable and orderly behaviour than the freeholders of York did on that occasion. There was one passage in the petition with which he entirely agreed, although it was far from being complimentary to the ingenious criticisms and long harangues which had been heard in that House, during the last Session, on the subject of the Reform Bill. The petitioners prayed the House to pass the Reform Bill with all possible despatch; and he trusted, that their prayer would be attended to, for he believed, that to the delay which had been opposed to the settlement of the question, was to be attributed much of the stagnation in business and public distress which at present prevailed.

would tell the noble Lord, notwithstanding all he could say of long speeches and harangues, and ingenious criticisms having been passed upon the Bill of last Session, that he was entirely mistaken as to his facts, and the deductions which he made from them. The delay complained of had not arisen from those who conscientiously opposed the Bill; for they had acted from the most honourable motives, and their object was, to prevent injury being inflicted upon the vested interests of the country. The delay originated in the conduct of the various classes of Reformers, few of whom could be found to agree with each other; and the consequence was, they had altered and amended the Bill at their good pleasure. Those Gentlemen who opposed the Reform Bill on principle, complained, that great injustice would be done by it to such places as Salt-ash, for example; and, while the daily Press was exhausting complaints against delay, the noble Lord himself had fully concurerd in the justice of those opinions for a revision of the question relating to that place, which he (Mr. Croker) had called attention to in the last Session. It was very easy to complain of long speeches and ingenious criticisms, but the noble Lord ought not to be the person to make such remarks, for, on the last night of the last Session of Parliament, he had detained the House for a considerable time by a very long speech. With respect to the difficulties which had arisen in the country, and with respect to the stagnation in trade, which the noble Lord deplored, he could only repeat what he said last evening, and which had been much more ably said by the right hon. member for Tamworth, and attribute it, as it was justly due, to the very unnecessary agitation caused by the Reform Bill which had been introduced by his Majesty's Ministers. The Ministers had shaken the whole frame of the social edifice, and it was no wonder that its several parts should be dislocated. The Ministers might talk loudly and boldly, but this he would venture to prophesy, that the agitation, the very unnecessary agitation, of the former Reform Bill, would, upon reflection, be found to have caused the present stagnation in trade, and he feared it might yet further lead to some more terrible convulsion, which might destroy the best interests of the State. He did not believe the Government contemplated any such results, but he was satisfied that their Reform Bill would produce them.

thought, that the petition now presented was not only a triumphant answer to the assertion of a re-action, but that it was a proof of the perseverance of the people of Yorkshire in the pursuit of that great object of Parliamentary Reform, in which, he was proud to say, they had first led the way, under the auspices of Sir George Saville, many years since, as the records of that House could testify. He thought it most essential that, upon this subject, the House should come, not only to a satisfactory, but to a speedy conclusion. Instead of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman in the prophecy they had just heard, he was convinced, that the adoption of the measure would produce a most beneficial effect on the prosperity and happiness of the country. He took that opportunity to bear his testimony to the great respectability of the meeting at which this petition was agreed to, and the orderly and proper manner in which the whole business of the day was conducted.

thought himself challenged to say a few words, in consequence of the frequent allusions to re-action by hon. Members. He had been the first man in that House to speak of re-action; but, when he spoke of it, he did not say, that there had been a re-action against the cause of Reform, but against the plan of Reform brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers. He should like to ask the noble Lord opposite, how many of the names signed to the petition which had been presented were from the towns of Leeds and Huddersfield?

There were 22,000 from Leeds.

was desirous to be informed of the number, because he had visited those places since that petition was agreed to, and he had attended a larger meeting at Leeds than the meeting at York, where this petition had been adopted. At the meeting at Leeds, which he attended, there had been 10,000 persons present, and they all differed from those who had signed the petition which had just been presented to the House. He did not mean to say, that those who had attended the meeting at Leeds were not reformers—they were, every man of them—but then they were radical reformers, and wanted more than this petition prayed for. He had attendee also a meeting at Huddersfield, where a large body of persons had assembled, and, with two exceptions, they had disapproved of the Ministerial measure of Reform; but then they also were radical reformers. They did not approve of the "bit-by-bit" Reform proposed by Ministers; they wanted something for themselves; and, it was his opinion, that those who pretended they did not, were arrant hypocrites. He did not mean to join those hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, many of whom, he was sorry to say, he now found to be no Reformers at all. From the tone of some of them he had expected that a more extensive measure would have met their approval than the late Bill. He remembered, that the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, had said, he would more readily adopt the plan proposed by him (Mr. Hunt) to establish the household franchise of Preston, than the 10l. franchise proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. The people wanted more than this measure would give them—they looked for something beyond it; but the Ministers had honestly stated, that this was to be a final measure, and it was for that reason that he was opposed to it. He believed that nineteen out of twenty of those who had signed this petition imagined, that it was a petition for Reform, but did not understand that it was meant in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform. They had been imposed on, he was sure. When the measure was first brought in, ninety-nine out of one hundred were in favour of it; but, he believed, that that was not the case now. As to the number of persons who had signed this petition, he would only tell the noble Lord, that if he was allowed the same money that had been expended in getting up this petition, he would undertake to get one up in Yorkshire, with double the number of signatures, for Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot.

said, that he had some more "re-action" in the county of York to show the hon. member for Preston. He had now to present a petition from Wakefield in favour of Reform.

How many signatures from Wakefield are attached to the county petition?

Twenty-seven hundred.

said, that the House had been told, that the county petition had received 22,000 signatures from Leeds, and 2,700 from Wakefield. If the other large towns of Yorkshire had contributed in the same proportion, very few of the rural population of the, county could have signed the petition.

said, the petition lay for signatures in the great towns, but it had also been signed by the inhabitants of the adjacent villages.

remarked, that the Yorkshire petition contained 1,794 signatures from Northallerton.

said, that the provision of the late Reform Bill, with respect to the town of Northallerton, was what he might venture to call a job. The newly constituted town of Northallerton was to be seventeen miles in length, and yet it had only produced 1,794 signatures to the petition just presented to the House.

begged to observe to the right hon. Gentleman, that if he recollected the situation and circumstances of Northallerton, he must admit, that it was very unlikely a job should be concocted in that place by his Majesty's Ministers, or those who supported them.

begged to remind the noble Lord, that jobs could be created for obtaining interest as well as to keep up what was already in existence.

presented a Petition from the North West Metropolitan Union, praying for the diminution of the taxes upon all kinds of publications which had for their object to communicate knowledge and information to the community. He was of opinion, that to the ignorance unhappily prevalent among some of the lower classes were to be attributed many of the offences against the peace and property of society which had lately been perpetrated. To remove this cause of evil, he thought that Parliament ought to repeal all taxes upon newspapers, pamphlets—aye, and he would go further, all taxes upon paper and on all articles used in printing. They should do this in order to carry into effect the objects of this petition. By the laws now existing, parishes were obliged to find food for pauper children, and he thought it quite as important that they should provide them also with knowledge. He trusted, that Ministers would take the necessary measures to remove the duties upon publications during the present Session.

wholly disagreed with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just addressed them. He should like to see these taxes on publications increased, instead of being abolished, for he was convinced, that much of the evils now existing in the country arose from the doctrines that were disseminated in the daily journals. The poorer classes, by reading these despicable, these diabolical papers, imbibed many of their present errors. He knew that to be a fact, and he thought it a fact of a most serious kind. Among what class of persons did these papers circulate, but among those who had just sufficient education to be pleased with the matter contained in such obnoxious publications? By reading these, they acquired a smattering of political knowledge, by which they were misled, and he was convinced, that so far from improving, it had deteriorated their condition.

observed, that the salvation of the country was wound up in the diffusion of correct political information. It was, therefore, clearly the duty of Government to encourage its extension by the removal of all existing impediments to the acquirement of sound knowledge. The more ignorant men were, the more likely were they to be misled, particularly when they were under excitement, as at present. The most effectual way to turn that excitement in a right direction was, by allowing every facility for the general diffusion of practical political information. Knowledge was power, but the people had only half knowledge, which was half power; give them full knowledge, and they would know that they had an interest in exercising their power in a proper manner in defence of the rights of property, instead of attempting to shake those rights and undermine its influence.

in moving that the Petition be laid on the Table, observed, that he was surprised, that at this time there should be persons opposed to the general diffusion of knowledge. He wished to ask the hon. member for Durham, whether he considered the interests of society were promoted by the propagation of mischievous doctrines—such, for instance, as regarded the rights of property. This was done by people in desperate circumstances, for the sake of a living, while respectable persons were deterred from answering them in cheap publications from fear of fines imposed by the Stamp Office. Thus were the most dangerous doctrines circulated through the country. It was on these grounds that he urged the prayer of the petition on the attention of the House. He would avail himself of this opportunity to ask the noble Lord opposite, whether it was his intention to repeal the taxes affecting publications?

protested against a question as to what he intended to do with respect to a particular tax. The hon. Member called on him to make a pledge, when he was quite unable to do so.

said, he was glad to hear the hon. member for Middlesex now admitted, that evil was likely to ensue from the publication of such doctrines as he had described, though last Session the hon. Member had deprecated the punishment of persons engaged in such pursuits. If the proprietors of newspapers were desirous to reply to such opinions, they could as well do so now as when the tax was repealed.

agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex. There were many most objectionable publications circulated in a cheap form, in defiance of the law. These publications contained sometimes the most dangerous doctrines. There were men who would gladly devote their talents to answer them, and to diffuse better opinions among the people, but they did not like to incur the penalties of offending the Stamp Laws, and, therefore, these publications remained unanswered. It was the Stamp-laws and the attempt to put down cheap publications, that brought the mischievous ones into notice. Give others an opportunity to obtain a hearing by repealing the Stamp Acts, and these mischievous publications would be fully answered. If fair play was given on all sides, the Press itself would rectify all the evils which it was supposed to have occasioned.

said, that before the report was agreed to, he felt himself compelled to make a few observations on the Speech from the Throne—observations which he thought were called for, not only by what the Speech contained, but also by what it had omitted. He entirely concurred in the first part of the Speech. Ministers deserved well, and were entitled to the thanks of, the country for bringing Parliament together at so early a period, and he indulged the hope, that a speedy and satisfactory adjustment of the great question of Parliamentary Reform would be the result. Without dwelling any longer on this part of his Majesty's Speech, he should proceed at once to state, that he could not concur in that part of the Address which related to the interference of this country with the affairs of Belgium. Nothing so objectionable had taken place since Mr. Canning's famous expedition to Portugal. He regretted to see, that the members of Government, who had always declared themselves hostile to the principles of the Holy Alliance, should now turn round and act in accordance with those principles, by an interference with Belgium, which neither of the parties affected by that interference thanked them for. Holland or Belgium, or any of the continental Powers, had as much right to dictate the terms upon which a separation should take place between England and Ireland, as this country had to interfere in the dispute between Belgium and Holland. The two countries ought to have been left to settle their own affairs, and by adopting a contrary course, and interfering between them, he (Mr. Hume) could not help thinking that Ministers had acted unwisely, both as regarded the country, and as regarded their own characters. In the speech from the Throne no mention was made of any intended reduction of the public burthens. Nothing was said of a reduction of the public establishments. It would be in the recollection of the House, that an increase took place in the military force of this country during the last year, avowedly on account of the unsettled state of affairs in Belgium. For his part, he could not think that this country had properly anything to do with the affairs of Belgium. Why should a British fleet be lying in the Downs at this period of the winter, merely because the king of Holland refused to assent to the treaty framed by the London Conference? The Belgians protested, and the Dutch protested, against the interference of this country, and, by that interference, he contended that this country had, in fact, become a member of the Holy Alliance, and was supporting its principles. The King's Speech admitted, that distress existed in the country, and that the distress arose from the want of employment; but not a word was said as to the remedy for this distress. Could any man doubt, he asked, that excessive taxation was the cause of the present distress? and, if this was admitted, were not Ministers bound to come forward with some proposal for a reduction of taxation? Perhaps at the proper period, reductions would be proposed, and, if such reductions were not then propounded to the House, he did hope that a more satisfactory cause for the continuance of such large establishments would be given, than our injudicious interference between Belgium and Holland. At present, however, no such explanation was offered, and he could not satisfy himself that he was doing right if he did not take this opportunity of protesting against the continuance of the present extensive public establishments.

did not mean to enter at length into the topics adverted to by the hon. member for Middlesex, but he felt himself called upon to reply to one or two of his observations. The hon. Member had expressed his disapprobation of the course pursued by his Majesty's Government in interfering in the dispute between Belgium and Holland, and had contended, that by this interference Ministers abandoned the principles they had advocated when out of office, and had imposed upon the people of Belgium a government adverse to their wishes. The king of Holland not having assented to the treaty, it must be obvious that the period had not yet arrived when this subject could be fully entered upon. When that period should arrive, however, he should be prepared to show, that the interference of his Majesty's Government in the affairs of Belgium rested upon principles acted upon by the Government of England in the best times, and that, if the present Ministers had not been prepared to act upon those principles, they would have abandoned the interests of England itself. He must altogether deny, that the Government of this country had been instrumental in imposing upon Belgium a Government inconsistent with the wishes of the people of that country. On the contrary, the people of Belgium had chosen their own form of government, and had elected their own sovereign. The circumstances under which the Government of this country had interfered were simply these:—Both Holland and Belgium were anxious to be separated, but it was impossible for them to agree upon the terms of such separation, and the inevitable consequence of being left to themselves would have been, that Europe must have been involved in war. By the interference which had taken place, peace was preserved, and Europe saved from the horrors of war. It would have been a war of principle too, into which it was probable England would soon have been brought. By the interference which had taken place this consequence was averted; Holland was placed in a better situation than she had ever been in at any former period, and Belgium had secured to itself the form of Government and the sovereign which its people had chosen.

said, he could not permit the Address to be agreed to without making a few observations. He regarded the Speech as a meagre and unmeaning production generally. It deserved no praise, but it had provoked contempt. Some matters, most pregnant with evils to the people, had been entirely overlooked. Two points alone were touched intelligibly—the Reform Question, and the Irish Church establishment, so far as tithes were concerned. With respect to the first question, he should say nothing more, than that he was far from being convinced there was any prospect of a speedy and satisfactory settlement being arrived at, when he recollected what fell from the noble Lord (Althorp) last night on this subject. The other was a dangerous and difficult question, and, he much feared, beyond the powers of the present Government. Upon all other matters the Speech was most unsatisfactory and most confused; for it agitated several most important subjects without giving the slightest intimation of what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to them. Upon the state of the country nothing at all reasonable was to be found in the Speech. The dreadful scenes in Bristol, in Derby, in Nottingham—the nightly conflagrations, the sad destruction of life, and the immense spoliation of property—were disposed of in one obscure sentence. This was unpardonable, and calculated to have any effect rather than that of putting a stop to the infamous proceedings which had, under the present Government, disfigured, and disgraced several parts of the country. He had a right to ask what were the intentions of Government upon these subjects? The Speech was also most unsatisfactory as to the Unions which had recently started into a baneful existence. What was to be done with those dangerous and irresponsible bodies? There had been a milk-and-water proclamation respecting them, by which the Government appeared to ask them not to go too far, but no fitting and proper measure had yet been adopted, and it was impossible to say, from the tenour of his Majesty's Speech, that any thing of the sort was contemplated. That Speech did not say either that the law, as it existed, was sufficient for the dispersion of those Unions, and that it would be enforced for that purpose, or that it was not sufficient, and that his Majesty would find it necessary in consequence to apply to Parliament for new powers. The Attorney General had slumbered at his post ever since he had been in office, and if he had been consulted, he certainly had not roused himself to meet the occasion; on the contrary, he had managed to put as many words together with as little meaning as possible. The state of the country required something more specific from Ministers. It was impossible for a person opposed to the Government on the subject of Reform to travel without personal danger, in consequence of his opinions. Were not the castles and the houses of the great proprietors who were opposed to the revolutionary Bill in a state of siege? Most of them were barricaded for safety, and the owners with their friends were compelled to be armed for their protection. This was a frightful state of things, and its continuance ought not to be permitted. The Unions—those monstrous and dangerous combinations—were said to be for the purpose of carrying the Reform Bill. They were for no such purpose. Their object was destruction. They aimed not at Reform, but at plunder—and at the annihilation of the institutions of the country. In this situation they were placed—in point of fact they were on the brink of the precipice; and he did not ask too much when he desired the Government would state what was the nature of the measures they intended to pursue or to propose. If he was told the Government proposed to do nothing, that things were to be permitted to go on after their present fashion, he knew what he had to expect. In common with those who concurred with him in opinion, he should be prepared for the worst; and he should take good care to provide himself with that protection and defence which it appeared the Government was not willing to afford. In England a proclamation respecting combinations had been issued, and the people had, with great good sense, followed much of the advice contained in that document; but what was the case in Ireland? Why was an Association permitted to exist that could not lead to any thing but mischief? That Association threatened and controlled the Government. It was formed of the very dregs of the Catholic Association, and it defied the Government. Why, then, he asked the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, why was some measure not adopted and enforced for the suppression of that dangerous body? The King's Speech appeared to imply, that all the discontent in Ireland originated in the state of the law respecting tithes. That was a great error. The discontent did not arise from any such source, but from the speeches made in the Association, and disseminated throughout the country. It was not tithes, nor any other particular question, that kept Ireland in a ferment, and rendered it a scene of discord and of strife, but it was that eternal agitation that the Government seemed to cherish, using the firebrand which had been snatched from the ashes of the late Catholic Association. If irresponsible combinations and associations were dangerous in England, were they not equally so in Ireland? A proclamation had been issued in England against them; why, at least, had not a similar document been promulgated in Ireland? He would tell the Government this, that if the present Association in Ireland was to be permitted to go on, they must expect associations of all descriptions. All interests would struggle for their own protection. That very day, he believed, a meeting was to take place in Dublin for the purpose of considering the propriety of the Protestants of Ireland forming an association for their own protection. Did the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, imagine, that the intention of the Government to take up the question of tithes would satisfy that unhappy country? It would do, he would venture to tell him, no such thing. The discontented and the turbulent would treat the discussion on that question as a victory which they had gained over the Government; and the friends of the Constitution and of good order would naturally suspect it to be a first stab at the institutions of the country. The state of Ireland was alarming in the extreme. There was nominally a legal government, but in fact the country was swayed by the dictates of the mob and of the Press. That was his sincere opinion, and he had not formed it rashly or inconsiderately. He had been brought to this opinion by seeing, what he lamented to see—namely, the extraordinary patience with which his Majesty's Ministers submitted to the rebukes and intrusion of persons who were connected with the mob and with the Press in their very ante-chambers. He alluded to an interview which had taken place between certain radicals, headed by a tailor and an apothecary, and Lord Grey, in his official capacity, and in his ante-chamber; and also an interview between certain persons belonging to political unions, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from whose magnanimity he should not have expected, that he would thus enter into familiar communication with persons whom he had actually denounced as guilty of treacherous, if not positively seditious, proceedings. He was, therefore, compelled to say, that we were now living under the dominion of the mob and the Press! Looking at the state of Ireland, then, he contended, that it was not asking too much to desire to know from the Noble Lord (Althorp), more specifically than had yet been stated, what were the intentions of Government with respect to that country.

could not see, that so much personal danger existed as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, for those who were opposed to Reform, when he recollected a recent meeting of the county of Sussex, at which that right hon. Gentleman himself attended, and although he expressed sentiments in opposition to those of the whole meeting, he was received with the utmost good humour and politeness; and no attempt at violence or personal disrespect was had recourse to. With regard to a subject in which his hon. and learned friend opposite (Sir Charles Wetherell) was personally interested, he felt bound to say, that the attacks made upon him were of a most disgraceful and infamous character: his hon. and learned friend, however, appeared to have completely justified himself from the aspersions which had been cast upon him, from the misrepresentations which had been made of his conduct, and from the attempt to fasten upon him the utmost obloquy that could attach to a man, by the imputation that he had been the means of wantonly provoking the riots at Bristol, by having gone there to administer the functions of his office, when he might have avoided the mischief by appointing a deputy to perform his duties for him, whereas, in fact, he had no power to appoint a deputy. It appeared to him, that his hon. and learned friend had acted with perfect propriety, and would have been guilty of a dereliction of his duty if he had not acted as he had done. He went to Bristol under the express sanction of the Secretary of State, and was absolved from all blame in the transaction. He could not, however, agree with his hon. and learned friend, that it was incumbent upon the Government to put his name in the commission. He did not think Government were bound, or that it would have been right for them to put upon the commission one who had been the object of such violent animosity, and whose life, he believed, was sought for, and would have been sacrificed without compunction or remorse on that occasion. He approved of much that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said with respect to the political associations—but he thought, that no new law was necessary to suppress them if they were illegal; and that they were illegal, no man acquainted with the law could doubt. He thought it quite necessary, that the attention of his Majesty's Government should be directed to that subject, and more particularly to the Leeds union, which stated its object (among others) to be, to forward addresses to the Crown and to the Legislature, to protect the interests of the country, and to prevent all public wrong or encroachment upon the rights of the people. If such a body were to take the redress of grievances into its own hands, no Government could exist in the country. The Leeds Union, and one of the Unions in the metropolis, had declared, that all hereditary distinctions ought to be abolished. He did not object to theoretical speculations upon Government, but if associations were framed with the express object to inculcate and enforce those principles amongst the people, no monarchical government could be safe, for the two institutions were totally inconsistent with each other. He hoped, that no act had been done by those meetings which brought them within the reach of the law; but he expected and believed, that, if any such act should be committed, the law would be enforced to put them down, and it was sufficient for that purpose. With regard to the measure of Reform, he retained the same opinion which he had formerly avowed, and should give his cordial and sincere support to his Majesty's Ministers, in carrying through a measure consistent with the principles of the Bill which had been formerly before the House; but he did not feel, that that support necessarily drew along with it an adherence to all the details of the measure. He had never been an advocate for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill;" and he trusted, that while some alterations would not be objected to, that among other improvements, the measure now to be brought before the House, would not contain that most objectionable clause by which weekly tenants paying a rent of 3s. l0d. for that term, were to have the franchise extended to them. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had said, that if the principles of this Bill would satisfy the country, such a belief would go far to make him agree to the measure. He sincerely believed, that the great body of the people would require nothing more, and would strenuously oppose any attempt to get more. Some would be discontented with the Bill, like the hon. member for Preston, whose conduct certainly appeared to him most extraordinary, supporting the Bill by his vote in that House, and opposing it elsewhere, but the mass of the people, he believed would be satisfied. As to the interference of this country in the affairs of Belgium, it happened that, for want of information, the House were unable to give any opinion whether it was in all respects right and just, or whether it was contrary to principle. From what he knew, he believed it to be consistent with principle. Both parties had acquiesced in that interference, and he conscientiously believed, that to it we were indebted for the present peace of Europe. He was glad of the conciliatory course which had been pursued by the Government towards France, and hoped that it would ripen into that firm amity between the two nations, which was so necessary, particularly at the present time, when civilized Europe was menaced by some of the other great military Powers. There was one topic which he did not know whether it could have been introduced in the Speech, which was comprised in one word—Poland. That subject had been introduced in the Speech of last Session, and he feared, that the present silence upon it was the silence of death. He feared, that Poland, submerged in the blood of her citizens, had fallen, to rise no more. He had seen a paper, published in Paris, which said, that Poland had not been conquered by the arms of Russia, but through the promises of France and England. This he did not believe, and he trusted that England at least was free from so foul a stain.

said, he rose principally for the purpose of expressing his entire concurrence in the views of his hon. friend; like him, to repeat the expression of his continued adherence to the principles of the Bill which he had the honour of supporting in the last Parliament; like him, to accompany it with the declaration, that he was no bigot to its details, and that he earnestly hoped, provided its leading principles were maintained, that it might be now brought before them in a shape more likely to secure the acquiescence of the other House of Parliament than it proved before. To the leading principles of that measure, to the abolition of the nomination boroughs, the enfranchisement of unrepresented great communities, and to a liberal extension of the franchise, he would give his cordial support; and he believed they might so shape their measure for the attainment of these objects as to secure the acquiescence of the House of Lords. He had, in the long intercourse which he had had this year with every class of the numerous and important body of constituents which he had the honour to represent, not found them so bigotted and wedded to the details of that measure as to call upon him for that parrot cry of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," which had been to so many Gentlemen the passport to public favour on the hustings; on the contrary, in mixing with every shade and colour of opinion, from the Tory even to the Radical, he might say, he had found considerable difference of opinion on many important points, and, even amongst the most reforming, great doubts as to the soundness and safety of the reconstructing parts of the measure. He found not exactly what many opponents of the Bill had called a reaction, but an inclination to pause and reconsider the extensiveness and wisdom of the changes which had been proposed in the constitution of the House of Commons. He believed, that if other Gentlemen had had the advantage he had, of mixing daily and hourly with great masses of the community of every class for ten weeks, and of sifting their opinions individually, not taking them in the gross, as they floated upon the surface in public meetings, and addresses, and declarations, they would have found a prevalence of the same feeling among their own constituents, together with an earnest desire rather to attain the main objects of the measure by some compromise, some approximation to the opinions of the other House, than to risk the destruction of the whole fabric of the Constitution, by a stiff-necked bigoted adherence to the late measure, as it passed out of their hands. If Gentlemen, in the House and out of the House, would have the courage and spirit to declare openly and publicly their sentiments on this point, which they made no hesitation to profess in private, he had little doubt of its being possible to arrive at a speedy arrangement with the other House of Parliament; and it was the duty of every true patriot, of every man who really loved the Constitution of the country, to do everything in his power to facilitate this object—and, if the Lords had acted, as he thought, very unwisely, in the absolute rejection of the former Bill, not to attempt to overbear this, though unwise, yet constitutional resistance, by forcing upon them the same measure in the shape in which it so much excited their apprehensions, but rather to look out for means of approximation, by which the two Houses might be brought together, and a fearful collision avoided, which could only end in destroying all the weight and importance of one branch of the Legislature. And what would have been gained, if, in attempting to win back for one branch of the Legislature the attachment and respect of the people of this country, the influence and value of the other branch, equally important as it was to the framework of our mixed and balanced Constitution, had been totally destroyed? In this good work of conciliation, he could not doubt but that the House would be met full half way by the other House of Parliament—he saw it in the explicit declarations of some peers, and he had read it in the tone of others. He could not doubt but that a large proportion of those peers even who opposed the Bill, would see at length, that the sacrifice of the nomination boroughs was a necessary offering to the intensity of the public feeling; that, although in many respects a very useful and convenient ingredient in our Constitution—the loss of which it would be very difficult to supply—they were liable to many abuses and corruptions, which had at length made them intolerable in the public eye, and that they had thus become rather a source of weakness than of strength to the very interests which they were supposed to protect. He had no doubt that, if that object were effectually accomplished, together with the enfranchisement of the great towns, and the remedy of abuses in the franchise (as he was confident it might be with the acquiescence of the House of Lords), the country would be content to see the details of reconstruction arranged in such a manner as would allay the fears and apprehensions the Bill had excited in the wealthy and educated, as well of the commercial and manufacturing, as of the agricultural classes. He hoped, that in this spirit the House would undertake the work before it; for melancholy, indeed, would it be, if meaning, as many Members of both Houses meant, to accomplish the same object, the two Houses should act as if they were at variance, for want of a little understanding between the parties, and of an open avowal of those sentiments to each other which they had in common, but which neither party was willing to be the first to express. He was anxious, also, to join his hon. friend in expressing approbation of the general conduct of his Majesty's Ministers as to their foreign policy between Holland and Belgium. As far as the House yet knew, our interference between those Powers seemed to have been limited by the soundest views of national interest; and he could not, therefore, join the hon. member for Middlesex in deprecating that course as inconsistent with those general principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations which this country had always professed. Non-interference in the affairs of a nation, when they only concern their own internal welfare, alone was meant when it was spoken of as the principle of conduct. Not to interfere, when those affairs concerned not only those nations themselves, but the peace and welfare of all neighbouring nations, would be a want of common prudence and foresight, highly culpable in any Government, and which no one could think of requiring in a similar case, even of a simple individual in his intercourse with his neighbour. With these sentiments, he begged leave to express his hearty concurrence in the Address.

said, that the hon. member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) had read the Ministers a severe lesson; for he denounced the Political Unions, when he knew in his heart that the Ministers had been kept in their seats by means of those Unions. He knew that they had corresponded with, and encouraged those Unions, and that all their supporters encouraged them. The hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, had been at the head of one of them, under the sanction of his Majesty's Ministers, and for the support, as it was said, of the King—for the King's name was also used by them. He had been taunted for his popularity on that (the Opposition) side of the House; but he was popular only because he spoke the truth. He had never approved of the late Reform Bill further than as it encouraged a hope, that it might be made a steppingstone to a more extended plan, which was most desirable, and would be found ultimately necessary, if the permanent peace and welfare of the country was the object of those who were advocates of Reform.

denied, that Ministers existed, or were supported, by means of the Political Unions. Nor could he admit, as seemed to be insinuated by the hon. Member, that the letters written by the two noble Lords were an encouragement of them. Indeed, he believed, that many of those Unions were opposed to the Ministry in most of the leading points of their policy.

concurred in most of the opinions which had been expressed by his hon. and learned friend (the member for Kirkcudbright) respecting the foreign policy of the present Administration. He objected to the course pursued by the hon. member for Preston, for he found that hon. Member regularly supporting the Bill within, and opposing it without the House, upon all occasions. He contended, that the Political Unions had never infringed the law; nor could he believe, that the persons composing them had any intention of doing so. How any man could bring himself to state, that Ministers derived not only their support, but also their existence, from Political Unions, was a matter far beyond his comprehension. He believed, and admitted, that the chief aim, the main object, of these associations was, to support the honest measure which the Ministry had introduced for the purpose of reforming the Commons' House of Parliament, and that it was their fixed and settled purpose not to do any thing which could impede the views, or thwart the designs, of the present Administration. Belonging, as he did, to these Unions, he defied any man to prove the charge which had been so frequently brought against them, of being contrary to law. Their operations might be contrary to the opinion which his hon. and learned friend had just promulgated, but he defied his hon. and learned friend, with all his ingenuity, to prove that they were in any, the slightest respect, illegal. Some of these Unions, it appeared, had stated, that the distinction of ranks in society was unnatural. That was merely a theoretical assertion; and, so far as any practical deduction could be drawn from such a theory, he by no means concurred in it. But who could pretend to say, that the distinction of ranks was natural? But, supposing that such a statement had been made, and he allowed that it had, was it sufficient to show, that peril either had, or would, arise out of such societies? Surely it was not necessary for that House to take up and discuss every theory that was broached at public meetings. Surely they ought not to cry out "sedition!" when any thing foolish or extravagant was said on such occasions. He believed, that his hon. and learned friend had himself, in early life, belonged to such societies. [Mr. Cutlar Fergusson: Never.] Well, he had given his hon. and learned friend credit for belonging to such societies—a credit which it now turned out that his hon. and learned friend did not deserve. But he believed his hon. friend would not contradict him when he asserted, that his hon. and learned friend had taken a part in the proceedings of certain societies, one object of which was to obtain Parliamentary Reform. The fact, however, was immaterial, for all that he contended for was, to deny that there was any illegality in the formation of these Unions, or that there was any bad spirit pervading them. He really believed, that the wish of his Majesty would be sufficient to dissolve them; for, independently of his authority as sovereign, such was the influence which he had derived from his wise and patriotic conduct since his accession to the Throne, that he (Sir Francis Burdett) was convinced, that a mere breath of his would go further to dissolve them than all the arbitrary mandates of any Ministry. Be that, however, as it might, all these Unions would be dissolved, as certainly as the fogs of night were dissolved by the sun of the morning, whenever the people of England should receive that just and constitutional Reform to which they were entitled. Then they would be satisfied; but, if they did not obtain such a measure of Reform, nothing else would satisfy them, or dissolve the Unions. What they would do, were the Reform Bill again refused, he would not venture to predict. Long-forbearing, as the people of England were, they were not forbearing from want of courage. If, therefore, there should still be any men who persisted in maintaining, that the people had not as good a right to be represented in that House, as the peers had to sit in their House, or as his Majesty had to sit upon the Throne, they were maintaining that which would lead to civil war as obviously as language could effect it. The hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge, whose talents and integrity he justly admired, had last night praised him for having withdrawn his name from the Metropolitan Political Union. He would enter into a very brief statement, to give that hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of judging whether the praise bestowed upon him was deserved or not. He had read in the public papers, that the council of that society had come to certain resolutions, to which, at its first formation, he had objected, and objected successfully. One of the resolutions to which he had objected, was a resolution by which they voted themselves a permanent body. On seeing the resolution, he had struck the word "permanent" out with his own hand. From the public prints he saw that this society was going on as if it intended to make itself permanent. He also saw it stated, that it had passed a resolution, thanking the king of France for the late creation of peers in that country. This resolution appeared to him so irrational, so inconsistent with the usual prudent character of Englishmen, that he thought the society not dangerous, but ridiculous. He, therefore, made a communication to the council, desiring that his name, for the reasons which he had just stated, should be withdrawn from the society. He received in reply a communication, stating that no such resolutions had been proposed, much less passed, by the society. Such being the case, he was asked whether he still persisted in his determination to withdraw his name. His answer to this question was conditional: he told the council, that it was incumbent upon them to relieve the public mind from the impression which the statement of these resolutions having been passed by them had created in it; and so the matter stood for the present. From the confidence which he reposed in the Government, in the King, and in the People, he wished that the measure of Reform should be left altogether in the hands of the Ministers. The hon. member for Preston said, that he could not agree with him in that wish, for he had, he said, no confidence in the Government. Whether there were others, who, like that hon. Member, would not grant their confidence to Ministers on this point, he did not know; perhaps there might be such persons, for he had heard it whispered, even in that House, that Ministers pushed their principles too far on the side of liberty. This was the great fault of this Administration—this was its glorious distinction. The faults attributed to it arose, not from any intention to widen the prerogatives of Government, and to extend its dominion over the people, but from the anxiety which the Ministers displayed to keep open the communication and intercourse which existed at present between the King and his subjects. It had been stated, that it was disgraceful for a Minister of the Crown to give any answer to the communications which he received from such assemblies as Political Unions. Truly, they were placed in a strange position. The time had been, when members of an Administration were censured for their haughty bearing to the industrious classes, for their inaccessibility, for neglecting the people's interests, and for slighting their applications for redress. But now one Minister was taken to task for having condescended to give a civil answer to an application from a large body of his fellow-subjects; and another Minister was reprobated for having permitted a deputation of respectable men to pass the threshold of his ante-chamber. The assertion, that a Secretary of State was degraded by giving an interview to tailors and apothecaries, struck him as the most extraordinary sound he ever heard within those walls. He could scarcely believe that he was in the House of Commons—in the House of the people—when such sounds assailed his ears. The Speech from the Throne had been described as feeble and delusive in speeches delivered by hon. and right hon. Members, which far better deserved those epithets. What were the objections taken to it? The right hon. Baronet opposite had objected to the circumstance of only fourteen days' notice having been given of the intended meeting of Parliament, and, in an argument more distinguished for its prolixity than for its strength, had said, that the notice ought to have been twenty-three days, and not merely fourteen. This was a cavil really not worth notice. Whoever looked at the agitated state of the public mind must see, that every day's delay in calling Parliament together was injurious, not only to the character of the Government, but also to the peace of the country. He did not mean to say, that all the evils which now afflicted the various interests of society were attributable to this source, or that even a quarter of them arose from the non-assembling of Parliament. He was certain, however, that there was no person connected with the manufacturing or agricultural classes of the country, who did not attribute all the pressure which they now felt to the delay which had taken place in the passing of the Reform Bill. To say that the passing of that Bill would remove all the ills to which they were exposed at present, was an assertion upon which he would not venture; but this he would say, that to tranquillize the mind, and to pacify the anxiety of the empire, it was absolutely necessary that the House should meet. It might have been remarked, in answer to the objections of the right hon. Baronet, that with all the improvements which had taken place since 1797, in the making of roads, and in the conveyance of passengers from one place to another, fourteen days' notice now, was equal to twenty-three days' notice in 1797. The right hon. Baronet had likewise said, that the Speech was not distinct enough—that it was vague and general—and that it descended to no particulars. It omitted, forsooth, all notice of the renewal of the Charters of the Bank and of the East-India Company; but was not the one subject of Reform quite sufficient for a King's Speech at the present moment? Nay, he thought that this business ought to be permanently settled before the attention of Parliament was called to any other; and the introduction of any other subjects into the Speech, was a mistake of Ministers. All the errors, he believed, of the present Administration, arose from their honest intentions, and from their mistake in supposing that they could effect desirable objects in a Parliament such as it was now constituted. He was of opinion, that even if the Speech had alluded to nothing but Reform, and the improvement of the Tithe system in Ireland, it would not have deserved the character of a meagre and feeble Speech. The improvement of the Irish Tithe system was a measure of first-rate necessity and importance. He recollected well, that when the subject of Catholic Emancipation was most warmly debated in that House, he had heard it said by a most competent authority, "This is all well enough, but you are all mad about Catholic Emancipation—the real evil of Ireland is the arrangement of the Tithes." The remodelling of that arrangement is in itself "a pretty considerable subject." The next point in the Speech on which he wished to say a word, was the Convention made with the French government for the abolition of that infamous traffic, the dealing in slaves, to put an end to which we had made such sacrifices. That was a point on which he thought that his Majesty had a just right to congratulate his subjects. Indeed, if ever there was a speech which deserved the praise of being a plain straightforward speech, it was this Speech, which was the most plain straightforward Speech that had been delivered from the Throne of England of late days. He would not enter further into its topics, indeed he should not have addressed the House at all upon this occasion, had it not been for the allusion which had been made in the course of the Debate to his connexion with the Political Unions. He hoped that Ministers would speedily bring forward a measure of Reform, in which all parties could agree; by so doing, they would establish peace and tranquillity in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and would enable Parliament to deliberate with calmness on the other important subjects which must soon be brought under its consideration.

I never said, that all the Political Unions were illegal. In the observations which I made use of, I was alluding to the Unions denounced in the Proclamations as illegal. I never belonged myself to any such societies—never, at any time; but I have always attended, and I am ready again to attend, at all meetings which may be convened in my neighbourhood, to consider the propriety of a Reform in Parliament.

said, he had listened with great surprise to the very extraordinary speech which the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, had just made. As the hon. Baronet had been in his place last night, he had then an opportunity of replying to the speech he had now replied to, and it would have been better if the hon. Baronet had taken that opportunity of making the animadversions which he had reserved till the present occasion. Notwithstanding the hon. Baronet's censures, he would repeat that which he had yesterday said—for it was a remark in which the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) opposite had concurred—that Parliament ought to have had a longer notice than fourteen days of the period on which it was to assemble. The noble Lord had only vindicated the shortness of the notice on the ground of necessity; and so far was the noble Lord from having stated that his objection was merely a cavil, as the hon. Baronet had called it—

I said no such thing. I said that nothing but the circumstances of the case justified the shortness of the notice.

thought, that the hon. Baronet had said, that his objection was only a cavil, and that nothing could justify it. The hon. Baronet had now stated the reverse, and was prepared to condemn a meeting of Parliament, without the usual notice, except under very special circumstances; but why, then, did the hon. Baronet speak of fourteen days now being equal to twenty-three days in 1797? The increased rapidity of conveyance, if this argument was good for anything, went to justify a short notice as a practice that might properly be observed, not only now, but at all future times, whatever might be the circumstances, if the Minister of the day fancied he could gain any advantage by acting on the precedent. He had never blamed Ministers for calling the Parliament together at this season: all that he had said was, that Reform being the only alleged cause for its meeting, Ministers had an opportunity, more than fourteen days before, of giving notice that it was to meet now. He should not have objected to their meeting at present, after only fourteen days' notice, if any sudden disturbance had sprung up in the country; but his objection was, that the necessity of settling the question of Reform was as obvious on the 1st as it was on the 22nd of November. He had said yesterday that he was afraid, that the Reform Bill was proposed and supported upon principles which precluded any thing like a final settlement of the question; and he was confirmed in that impression by the Speech of the hon. Baronet, who contended that the people had as much right to equal Representation in that House as the King had to his crown, or as the Peers had to their seats in the other House of Parliament. Now, if such were the case, he should like to know what right the hon. Baronet had to draw the arbitrary distinction which he had drawn between such of the people of England as were 10l. householders, and such as were not. If equal Representation was the right of all—what could be said of this Reform Bill—which divided the people into classes, and limited the right of being directly represented to the occupation of a 10l. house? He denied the existence of the right, either on one side or the other of the line of demarcation. But how the hon. member for Westminster, who claimed the elective franchise as the prescriptive right of the people of England, could tell him, that this Bill, which confined the elective franchise to 10l. householders, would be a final settlement of the question, he could not for his life understand. He would beg leave to say one word about the Unions. The hon. Baronet had complained of the tone in which he had spoken regarding them. Why it was the very tone taken in that Speech from the Throne, which the hon. Baronet so much admired. What were the words used by his Majesty on this subject:—"Sincerely attached to our free Constitution, I never can sanction any interference with the legitimate exercise of those rights which secure to my people the privileges of discussing and making known their grievances; but in respecting these rights, it is also my duty to prevent combinations, under whatever pretence, which in their form and character are incompatible with all regular government, and are equally opposed to the spirit and to the provisions of the law; and I know that I shall not appeal in vain to my faithful subjects, to second my determined resolution to repress all illegal proceedings, by which the peace and security of my dominions may be endangered." The hon. Baronet had said, that he defied any person to prove, that the Unions were incompatible with regular government, and were opposed either to the spirit or the provisions of the law. He would only say, in reply to the hon. Baronet, that the King, for whom the hon. Baronet professed such sincere respect, asserted, that he knew of the existence of Unions confederating in England to oppose both the spirit and the provisions of the law. He did not mean to say, that the particular Political Union of which the hon. member for Westminster was a member, was opposed to the law, but he took it for granted that the King would never have declared his determination to suppress certain combinations, unless such combinations existed, and unless their continued existence was fraught with danger. The attack on them did not originate with him—they were denounced, no doubt for some good reason, by his Majesty, in his Speech to Parliament. As he did not wish to revive the discussion which ought to have closed last night, he would not enter further into these subjects at present. As he was, however, on his legs he would state to the noble Lord opposite (Palmerston), that there were two points connected with our foreign policy, on which he required some information. The first was, whether the government of the United States had acquiesced in the adjudication made by the king of the Netherlands, on the question submitted to his arbitration respecting the north-eastern boundary of the United States? If the negotiations on that subject were not yet concluded, he would not insist upon an answer. The second point, on which he was going to propound a question, was one on which he was surprised that no observation had been made in the King's Speech. It related to the condition of Greece. He was surprised, that after the repeated mention which had been made of the condition of Greece, in the Speeches from the Throne, and after the singular events which had recently taken place there, no notice of Greece should be found in the Speech. He asked, whether the circumstances of the country were such as would enable the noble Lord to give him an answer upon these points?

As to the first question put to me by the right hon. Baronet, I can only say, that the decision made by the king of the Netherlands is to be submitted to the Congress on the first Monday of next month; and that I cannot make any communication upon that subject until after that time. As to the question which he has put to me respecting Greece, the reason why no mention was made of that country in the Speech is, that the matters connected with it, under the consideration of the Conference, are not at present in such a state as would justify the Government in giving any final answer on that point. My right hon. friend must know, that the most important matter is the selection of the Sovereign for that country, which has not yet been made. I can assure my right hon. friend, that when the progress of our measures shall allow us to make a communication to Parliament, we shall be most happy to make it, and to accompany it with the fullest disclosures.

said, he conceived the communication which had taken place during the last Session of Parliament, between the Chairman of the Birmingham Union, and the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, were most improper and unusual. He did not think the Unions were of so harmless a nature as the hon. member for Westminster had represented them. Was is it a matter of indifference that a public meeting should be called on to declare all hereditary distinctions of rank unnatural, and that they ought to be abolished? He regretted to hear some hon. Members express much sympathy for the fate of Portugal, while none seemed to be felt for Holland, now engaged in an unequal struggle against a powerful combination.

would not have troubled the House on the present occasion, had it not been for the very extraordinary speech which his noble Colleague, for whom he professed the greatest respect, had just delivered. He understood his noble Colleague to assert, in effect, that if hon. Members were to examine the opinions of their constituents individually, and to strike a balance between the conflicting opinions of individuals in private, and of the same individuals in public meetings, they would find, that a very different opinion as to the merits of the Reform Bill pervaded the country at the present moment, in comparison with that which prevailed in the last Session. He was now speaking before the public, and he stated fearlessly, that the majority of his constituents were decidedly in favour, not only of the principles, but also of the details, of the late Reform Bill. There might be one or two provisions in that Bill which they did not think liberal enough, but that was the only objection which he had heard them make to the Bill. It was due to himself and to his constituents to make this statement, and he was sorry that his noble colleague should have given so erroneous a description as he had done, of the sentiments entertained by their joint constituents at Liverpool.

said, that he had lately been amongst his constituents in Yorkshire, who had universally expressed a wish to him to be exempted from the operation of this Bill; and he therefore begged to express a hope, that the hon. and learned Member would have the goodness to propose the exemption of the county of York himself, when he brought forward the measure.

said, it was impossible for him to consent to the suggestion of the noble Lord, for he had himself received repeated and numerous requests from people residing in Yorkshire, wishing that county to be included in his Bill.

should feel it his duty, when the proper stage should arrive, to offer his sentiments on the subject of the Bill which his hon. and learned friend had moved for leave to bring in; but he would take the present opportunity to assure his hon. and learned friend, that he intended to give it the most earnest and strenuous opposition in his power. There were a variety of provisions in the Bill to which he felt insuperable objections.

pledged himself to a similar course of opposition, he also felt it his duty to apprize the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he had attended several public meetings since the termination of the last Session, and he had found his constituents in general wholly averse from the Bill, and if Yorkshire was to be included in it, the Table of the House would be covered with petitions deprecating the measure.

added his testimony as to the general dissatisfaction that prevailed in and near Hull with the proposed change in the law of registration.

hoped his hon. and learned friend would, by a prudent concession, exonerate him from the necessity of moving that the county of York should be exempted from the operation of the Bill.

assured the hon. and learned Member, that he had read the Bill, and believed no person but a professed lawyer could comprehend it. There were many circumstances which would make the operation of the Bill inconvenient. A main one was, that it would go to throw great obstacles in the way of honest and enterprising people, who were occasionally in the habit of raising money on the deeds of property they possessed in land by depositing such deeds as securities with their bankers.

in explanation, observed, that it was not intended to render it necessary, that the original, but only a duplicate, of the deeds should be registered under the Act; and he was of opinion, that the measure would facilitate the transactions to which the hon. Member had alluded, instead of rendering them more difficult.

said, considerable inconvenience often resulted to hon. Members who had notices of Motions before the House, which they were obliged to postpone from time to time, in consequence of the business of Government being allowed to have precedence of that originating with Members not forming part of the Administration. An attempt had been made last Session to establish an improved classification of business; the expermient had, however, failed, or rather, had not been put to the test of operation, owing to the intense interest felt upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform, in which all minor considerations and matters of form merged. It was his intention to submit a proposition now to the House, with a view to afford opportunities to hon. Members not connected with the Government to bring on, positively, business in which they felt interested, without running the risk of being disappointed, as was now the case. He intended to propose, that a day should be set apart when these notices should not be superseded by Government business which happened to be also on the paper.

believed it to be highly necessary that a different arrangement from that now in force should take place before hon. Members could feel satisfied with the chance they had of executing business confided to their care. He had always thought it would be a far better plan, that instead of taking, as they did now, arbitrarily, the first or thirty-first topic on the list, they should be each taken up and debated in the exact order in which they were placed on the list.

observed, that he could not accede to a proposition which he felt would be productive of great inconvenience to Government, He hoped the arrangement he proposed, would prove that he really was anxious to afford greater facilities to individual Members, though at an expense to the officers of Government. He should, therefore, move a resolution that Orders of the Day should take precedence of notices on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and that on Wednesdays those of Government should not be entitled to precedence.