in moving for a return of the number of warrants for the Commission of the Peace which had been issued in Ireland since the 1st of January, 1831, up to the latest period that the said return could be made out, and for a return of the fees payable upon the same, said, that though he did not see the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland in his place, he would take the liberty of asking an hon. and learned Gentleman connected with the Government of that country (the Solicitor General) one or two questions on the subject. A general order, it seemed, had been issued for making out new Commissions of the Peace for every Magistrate in Ireland. He, therefore, wished to know, first, upon what authority that order had been issued; and secondly, what was the intention of his Majesty's Government with respect to the fees payable to the Lord Chancellor's Secretary upon the renewal of those Commissions? He saw that, by an Act of George 2nd., the Secretary was entitled to a fee of 2l. 6s. upon each warrant for a new Commission, but he did not see why he should receive that fee for 1,500 or 1,600 Commissions, where there was a general remodelling of them. If that were the case, the Lord Chancellor's Secretary would put 3,000l. or 4,000l. in his pocket by this lucky windfall. He was sure that this was not intended by the law; or, if such was the effect of the existing law, it ought to be remedied by a short Act. If it became necessary to renew these Commissions, in consequence of the Act appointing Lord-lieutenants of counties in Ireland, this charge ought not to fall upon individuals. The exaction of this fee had occasioned a great outery in that country, and he wished to ascertain what measures the Government were disposed to take to remove the evil complained of.

said, that if he had been aware of the right hon. Gentleman's intention, he should have taken care to provide himself with full information on the subject. He could answer one of the right hon. Gentleman's questions; namely, upon what authority of law the order was issued—the authority was that of the Crown, growing out of the necessity of the case, and the Common-Law of the country. By the demise of the King, all commissions were entirely at an end at the expiration of six months after such an event, and it was only under the sanction of an Act of Parliament that Magistrates were continued in office. It had therefore, now become necessary to issue new Commissions. The right hon. Gentleman said, he believed correctly, that there was a cry in Ireland against the Government on account of the fees charged upon the new Commissions. He could only state, that the fees, whatever their amount, were payable by law, and not according to the pleasure of the Lord Chancellor, or of any other officer in Ireland. They were payable under a law, which was made the law of the land, not by the present Administration, but by those who preceded them; and these fees had in fact been reduced from about 10l. to less than 3l.—so that there never was a more unjust or unfounded cry against a Government than this one. As to what might be the intention of his Majesty's Government relating to a short Bill, he was unable to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question on that point.

said, his hon. and learned friend had accurately described the necessity that had arisen for the issue of the new Commissions. As to the amountof fees charged upon them, he begged to inform the House, that a correspondence had taken place between the Treasury and the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, which had led to those fees being very much reduced in amount. Their legality having been once admitted, the parties claiming them had a right to compensation.

complained of the partial and oppressive, operation of the regulations made by the late Government with respect to fees. The intention of the Bill to which allusion had been made, the intention of his motion, and the understanding of the House were, that no fee ought to be charged beyond what would pay for the parchment and the expense of transcription; but the late Government had, notwithstanding, sanctioned the exaction of heavy fees. If one person more than another was to blame for that, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson), who had been a member of that Government, was the person. As a proof of what he had asserted, he must refer to a statement made during the last session, by which it appeared that the Yeomanry of the Guard were compelled to pay 3l. 15s. for the transcript of a Commission of the size of a common sheet of paper. However, that did not warrant the present charge; and he hoped that the Ministers would not follow a particular course because it had been adopted by their predecessors. The gentlemen who were compelled to take out these Commissions ought to resist the payment of such fees: the Act of Parliament would give them ample protection. They should meet together, and combine and resist the payment, and let the question be decided in a Court of Law.

was astonished at the at- tempt to charge the present Government with having encouraged the exaction of these fees, when their endeavours had really been directed to allay the disgust which had been caused by their previous exaction. That this was the real state of the question, was fully made out by a resolution published by the Magistrates of the county of Cork which declared them to be an unreasonable imposition.

said, that he was told by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was necessary these fees should be paid, as they were sanctioned by Act of Parliament, but he thought they were abolished by the Act alluded to. All he asked was, that the Magistrates in Ireland should be placed on the same footing with the English Magistrates. He was informed that the latter paid a fee only of 5s. He would take an opportunity of bringing the question regularly forward.

said, that he had qualified himself as a Magistrate in the county in which he resided in the country, and also at Westminster. He had paid no more than 5s. in the one place, and 7s. 6d. in the other.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down, stated that he was a Magistrate for two counties in this country, and that for the renewal of his commissions he had to pay but 5s. each. Now, I take leave to state, on the other hand, that I am a Magistrate for two counties in Ireland, and that for the renewal of my two commissions I am required to pay between 5l. and 6l., though I paid originally 17l. for them, in the reign of George 4th.

said, the hon. member for Middlesex had forgotten the words of his own Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman said, the meaning of the Act was, only to allow the expense of writing and transcribing the document, but in fact, the Act really stated, that other charges incident to the preparation, examination, and signature of the commissions were to be charged. He must further assert, that the late Administration did not deserve the reproaches which the hon. Member had directed against it. If the hon. Member thought proper to bring forward any charges in a regular manner, he (Mr. Goulburn) should be fully prepared to meet them.

said, that a Petition had been presented against his return for the county of Dorset, which he felt that it would be impossible for him to resist, without entailing upon himself expenses which he might find it inconvenient to discharge. In retiring from the Representation of that county he felt it necessary to observe, that he did it, not from any fear of the result of an examination before an election Committee, but from a fear of the pecuniary inconveniences to which that examination might render him liable. He was not afraid of any attacks that could be made, either upon him or upon his return. He would declare, upon his word of honour as a gentleman, that he believed his return to be as good a return as ever had been made to that House; and he was convinced, that if he were to resist the petition presented against him, he could make that point clearly out to the satisfaction of all who heard him. But as that would involve him in expenses which he could not conveniently discharge, he felt that the best thing which he could do was, to yield to necessity, for it was necessity, and nothing else, that drove him, on this occasion, from the field. He had been informed that the county intended to intercede for him, but of that he knew nothing. With the permission of the Speaker he would move that the paper, which he then handed in should be read to the House. The paper read as follows:—

"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled:

"I, the Honourable Anthony Ashley Cooper, commonly called Lord Ashley, the sitting Member, elected and returned a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Dorset, do hereby declare and notify to your Honourable House, that it is not my intention to defend my election or return against the petition of John Fisher, Thomas Brown, William Daniel Champ, William Mortlock, Thomas Stevens, and James Loveridge, which was presented to your Honourable House on the 7th day of December last; and I do hereby acknowledge this to be my declaration, subscribed by me, and delivered at the Table of your Honourable House, pursuant to the provisions of an Act passed in the ninth year of the reign of his late Majesty, King George IV, intituled 'An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the trial of controverted elections or returns of Members to serve in Parliament.'

"As witness my hand, this 17th day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty two.

said, that never since he had been in Parliament had he heard any statement which more clearly and forcibly proved the necessity of a Reform in Parliament than the statement which had just come from the lips of the noble Lord. The county of Dorset was divided in opinion. The noble Lord had stated upon his word of honour, that if he had the means he could prove the justness of his return, and defend himself from the petition to which his declaration referred, but that he dared not encounter the enormous expense of doing so. If ever there was an unanswerable argument for Reform, this was one. He called on the opponents of all Reform to say, whether the statement just now made by their noble colleague did not imperiously call for some Reform to be made, lessening the expense of contested elections, and by enabling counties to continue in their seats the men whom they deemed best fitted to act as their Representatives. If the present Reform Bill did not embrace this point, he hoped that Ministers would see from this transaction, that it was necessary for them to prepare forthwith a bill which would enable them to accomplish that object.

observed, that the memory of the hon. member for Middlesex served him as treacherously upon this subject as it had done a few minutes ago upon the Act which he had introduced to abolish the payment of fees upon Commissions from the Crown. If the hon. Member would take the trouble of looking into the Bill, he would find that it did contain provisions on the subject. As it was so soon to come before the Committee, he did not see the necessity of alluding to the Reform Bill on a question relative to the Dorsetshire election. He had been convinced, long before the Reform Bill was introduced, of the necessity of some measures for diminishing the expenses of elections. On that point he was nearly as strong a Reformer as the hon. member for Middlesex himself. But, because there was one principle which the most decided Anti-reformers never opposed, the hon. Member's logic would infer that the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, must be a good Bill, because there was an agreement between all parties as to the necessity of diminishing the expense of county elections. Upon another point the hon. Member's recollection was not so accurate as it generally was. He did not seem to recollect, that under the Reform Bill there would be no counties left; there would be only parts and divisions of counties.

said, the hon. Member ought to point out where the Reform Bill would lessen the expense of elections. He hoped the Government would introduce a clause for that purpose, for in his honest opinion, unless that was done there would be more contested elections and greater expense under the Reform Bill than by the existing system.

presented several Petitions from Yorkshire against the Registry Bill, which he would take that opportunity to assure the House were only a prelude to many others likely to be sent up with the same prayer.

said, although these petitions were against the Registry Bill particularly, he did not understand the petitioners were opposed to the principle: they only desired that Yorkshire should be excluded from its operation, as they had a local register for that county.

assured his, hon. and learned friend, that there was a very strong feeling against his Bill. He daily received communications from all parts of the country, enclosing petitions against it, and requesting him to offer every opposition to the measure. It was regarded with very general alarm, and he, therefore, hoped his hon. and learned friend would withdraw the Act altogether.

said, he was fully convinced that the general feeling of the country was very different from the representations made by his hon. and learned friend. He was sure that, at the proper time, he should satisfy the House of the expediency of the Bill, and therefore he was determined to proceed with it.

said, he must confirm the statement of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge. He had received several communications, urging him to resist the measure, from several parts of the country. It was generally looked upon as a most obnoxious Bill, and had created much alarm.

on presenting a Petition from the Corporation of Helstone, praying that that borough might be struck out of schedule B in the Reform Bill, thought it his duty to call the attention of the House to the state of its information on the subject. The allegations contained in the petition had reference to the probable effects of the present Reform Bill, both with respect to that and to other boroughs. He would take on himself to say, that the results at which the petitioners had arrived, appeared to him to be in all respects correct. They complained of the absurd mode in which Lieutenant Drummond had proceeded in his calculations. He would not enter on that subject at present, but would defer his remarks until the motion was put for the Speaker's leaving the Chair. He must, however, now be permitted to say, that the scale on which his Majesty's Ministers were about to proceed, was the most complicated and absurd that could be imagined, and they were pursuing their course in the absence of all authentic information. On the last night of their sitting, when the noble Lord moved the adjournment of the House, he (Mr. Croker), feeling no desire for any considerable delay, had expressed his conviction, that it would be impossible for the necessary information to be laid before the House in sufficient time to enable them to meet on the present day, in a condition to enter on the consideration of the details of this measure. The noble Lord had immediately said, that he saw his way clearly through that objection, and that there would be no difficulty whatever in producing the necessary information in time; and both the noble Lords were good enough to state to him, privately, that there would be no want of information, as 400 sets of the explanatory documents would be ready for delivery on the ensuing Thursday, and the remainder on the Monday following: in other words, that the first delivery would take place on Thursday, the 22nd, and the second on Monday, the 26th, of December last. Satisfied with these assurances, he had made no objection to that course; but he certainly had reason to complain that, up to the present hour, the information thus promised had not been produced; indeed, so far from the promises made by the noble Lords having been fulfilled, the papers which might have been produced three weeks ago, were not all yet before the House; and although they were now coming to the discussion of one of the most complicated schemes that ever was devised, they were still without the information which the noble Lords had assured him should be placed in their hands without delay. Since that time two papers had been produced, marked Nos. 5 and 8; the one marked No. 5 was delivered in a few days after the House met, in the beginning of the Session. Now, he was sure that the noble Lords would not willingly mystify or insult the House, by withholding information which it was in their power to produce. He was sure that they would be as much surprised as he was, when he informed them of what seemed like a most studious concealment of the information sought for. In this paper marked No. 5, which is the appendix to Lieutenant Drummond's scale, and which was delivered to Members on the 16th December, 1831, he found an observation to the effect, that there was an error in another return respecting the borough of Malton, which was therein stated to pay taxes to the amount of 1,300l., whereas the figures ought to be 1,030l., and that, therefore, the borough was placed in a wrong position on the list. He (Mr. Croker) was struck by this extrordinary error, and, on examining both the papers closely he found, that the one, No. 8, which was referred to as containing the error, was not produced until the 17th of January, whereas it must have been actually in print on the 16th of December; or rather, it must have been in print some days before that date, as the typographical error which it contains was mentioned and corrected in the paper No. 5, which was produced on that day; therefore, some person or other must have withheld from the House for a whole month, information which had been ordered, and which was actually in print, and ought to have been produced, on the 16th of December. If only one error had been committed—if only one document had been kept back—he should attribute the mistake, or the delay, to haste, to accident, and the novelty and difficulty of the calculations; but, when he saw all the information so withheld, he was forced to suspect, that there was some one connected with the preparation of the papers, who desired to keep back from the House, as much as possible, the information which had been called for. But that was not all. One of the clauses of the Bill provided that certain counties, containing more than 150,000 inhabitants, should be divided into two parts, and return four Members; and his Majesty's Ministers had very properly undertaken to furnish the House with correct information as to the population of those counties; but what would the House think when he showed, that the accounts respecting them were made up so artfully, that no man could ascertain from them the amount of the population of those counties, without making arithmetical calculations, of which surely the Home might have been spared the trouble? The total population of no one county was given; indeed, there was no total whatever given. The various divisions of the several counties had been taken, and the population of each local division, such as hundreds, wapentakes, &c., given, and all still in separate items, although assuredly the professed purpose of the Returns was, to show the total amount of the population in each county, and the total amounts which were to be allotted to each division. What had been laid before the House looked like information, but was in fact the very reverse. He, therefore, submitted to the House the necessity of not going into Committee upon the Bill, until sufficient time should have been allowed for the examination of the accounts, which had not yet been completed, and which were indispensable for a full understanding of the Bill. He thought that a week or two, at least, would be necessary for that purpose; particularly as it had been previously promised by the noble Lords, that the documents should be distributed full three weeks before the committal of the Bill; but he had heard that it was still intended to go into Committee on Friday night. He hoped, however, that that intention would not be persevered in. He had spent many anxious hours in the consideration of the papers which had been already furnished, and he was desirous of a little further time to elucidate them, for, from what he could observe, he was convinced that the details of the new Bill were extremely complicated, and the principle involved in them was of greater importance than it appeared at the first glance. In the meantime, he trusted the noble Lords opposite would hasten the production of the remaining papers. He concluded by presenting a petition from the inhabitants of Helstone, Cornwall, praying that that borough might be taken out of the schedule in which it stands in the new Reform Bill.

said, he had observed, when the former Bill was under consideration, that though something might be gained by proceeding on the new population Returns, they would nevertheless lead to long and difficult calculations. He was not, therefore, surprised, when they came to specify parishes and boroughs, and the towns belonging to them, that the inquiry should be attended with considerable difficulty, and that some of the calculations should be erroneous. But though that difficulty or inconvenience was foreseen, still it was deemed better for Parliament to assemble before Christmas, than to delay the measure entirely, while the necessary corrections were in progress. If Gentlemen would look to Lieutenant Drummond's reports, they would find in that list, that there were certain places yet under consideration, and that there was some incorrectness in the papers already given. He had, however, hoped that a number of correct copies of the Returns, relative to the boroughs inserted in the schedules, would have been ready in the week after Parliament had adjourned. He had unfortunately been disappointed; and he was sure that all those who were concerned in the production of those documents, regretted that they could not be got ready so soon as had been expected. Some of the tables were then under consideration, and others had been laid before Parliament previous to the recess. It was, however, considered useless to produce a number of papers, some of which, it appeared on examination, would have to be corrected by others. Therefore, when Lieutenant Drummond told him that it would be necessary to make corrections in some of the papers, he at once said, that it would be better to keep back the documents, in order that the corrections should be properly made. The papers were now ready, and would, in the course of the week, be placed in the hands of Members. As to the Returns which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, respecting the population of certain counties, they were not prepared for the purpose of showing the population of the counties at large, because that had been already ascertained in other Returns before the House, but with a view to the division of the counties. The object was, that the House, by having the population of the hundreds severally before it, might be better able to make an equal division. There had been no unnecessary delay in producing the information required by the House; and, as he had already said, sufficient time would be given for the examination of the documents. He could not consider that any reasons had been advanced for the postponement of the Committee; but he thought that, as the papers were voluminous, and required attention to particular places, it was desirable they should be some time in the hands of the Members; and if it were deemed advisable, those parts of the Bill, respecting boroughs to which the papers particularly referred, might be postponed, whilst other portions of the Bill were proceeded with. By adopting this course, sufficient time would be afforded to Gentlemen for the examination of those documents. He and his noble friend were perfectly ready to make any arrangement for that purpose which might accommodate hon. Members opposite. He might take that opportunity of reminding the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) that he had pledged himself to prove the ignorance of Lieutenant Drummond, and to show that the same results as to the relative value of the boroughs set down in the schedules, could be obtained by the simple addition of the population and the taxes, as had been arrived at by Mr. Drummond's more elaborate calculation. Now he (Lord J. Russell) thought, that if the right hon. Gentleman would not incur the imputation of ignorance which he cast upon Mr. Drummond—an imputation which might be thought not a little presumptuous, especially as that gentleman was known only for his great learning in that particular department of science—if the right hon. Gentleman could not make good his charges he would certainly seem liable himself to his own imputation of ignorance.

said, that the reason assigned by Lieutenant Drummond for omiting those boroughs out of the list upon which his calculations had been founded, was, that they were so insignificant and so exceedingly various—some having few houses and paying a considerable portion of assessed taxes, while others had a great many houses and paid but a small proportion of taxes—that their omission from that list would make no material alteration in the calculations founded upon it. He was sorry that he was not at present able to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the information as to those ten boroughs which he asked for. He had spoken to Lieutenant Drummond on the subject; but he had been so engaged that he was not able to produce it. However, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that he should have it forthwith. With regard to one of those boroughs—namely, Old Sarum—there had been no answer returned; but if the right hon. Gentleman thought that there were any houses in that borough, or that it had paid any taxes, it was open to him to move for a return on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had laboured to show that the addition of those ten boroughs would alter the principle on which the calculations of Lieutenant Drummond were founded, and in doing so the right hon. Gentleman had reminded him of those Turkish mathematicians who, when asked how many right angles there were in a triangle, replied, that that would depent upon the size of the triangle. The fact was, as he understood it from Lieutenanl Drummond, that the including those smaller boroughs in the list would make little or no difference in the calculations which he had made out.

said, the rule on which the right hon. Gentleman made his calculations was erroneous, inasmuch as he considered that the numerators of portions might be added together, although the denominators were different: thus the right hon. Gentleman added the numerators of two fractions, one of which had a denominator of 432, and the other a denominator of 545. Nothing could be more simple than the arithmetic of Lieutenant Drummond, and nothing could be more complicated than that of the right hon. Gentleman. They had both to add a number of fractions having different denominators, and the right hon. Gentleman was content with adding the numerators only, leaving the denominators as he found them; whilst Mr. Drummond took the much more simple and rational method—reducing all his fractions to others having a common denominator. He believed, that if the right hon. Gentleman would only refresh his memory a little, by looking into "Cocker," or any other of the vulgar Treatises on Arithmetic for the use of children, he would find the method which Lieutenant Drummond had followed, was there set forth and exemplified, but no mention was made of the process which the right hon. Gentleman preferred.

had thought that the question was complicated, but certainly not so much so as he now suspected that it must be, as the ingenious Gentleman who had just sat down clearly showed that he did not understand it. In his (Mr. Croker's) proposition, there was no question about numerators or denominators, nor was it a question of fractions, vulgar or decimal: he asserted, that the simple addition of the original numbers would, in the five instances given by Lieutenant Drummond as examples, produce the same result as his complicated calculation; that was what he said, and that was undeniably true; so true that the hon. Gentleman himself had, in private conversation after the former debate, admitted to him, that as far as regarded Lieutenant Drummond's letter, and Lieutenant Drummond's examples, he (Mr. Croker) was clearly in the right. He would now further observe, that if instead of 100 boroughs, the Ministers had taken either eighty-six, the whole number in both schedules, or sixty, the number which were placed in peril of schedule A, the last eleven of those sixty would quite alter their position in relation to the others. And he need not remind the House, that the numbers from fifty to sixty contained the critical part of the list—that part through which the line of disfranchisement was to pass; and what he complained of was, that the calculation was so planned, that the fatal line might fall just where the calculator, by the arbitrary addition or exclusion of boroughs, might choose. But then the noble Lord said, that the first ten boroughs on the list were comparatively unimportant, as regarded both the number of houses, and the amount of assessed taxes. The same objection might apply to the twenty boroughs that occurred afterwards in the list. It was not, however, for the noble Lord or Lieutenant Drummond to determine whether they were unimportant places or not, but the greatest attention ought to have been paid to have the whole calculations made with the utmost fairness and accuracy. He, therefore, thought the figures which applied to these boroughs ought to be furnished without delay, for he was at a loss to discover on what principle they had been omitted in the calculation.

would not say whether, in the case supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the list would be so affected or not. But he had already explained, that Mr. Drummond was of opinion, that if those boroughs had been added, the list would not be so fair as it was by leaving them out.

observed, that the great difference between the calculations of Lieutenant Drummond and those of the right hon. Gentleman were, that the right hon. Gentleman founded an universal rule upon five boroughs, while Lieutenant Drummond founded his upon the whole, or at least a great majority of the boroughs. He would admit, that in the case put by the right hon. Gentleman, the result would be the same as regarded the order in which the boroughs in question were placed. His objection to the assumption of the right hon. Gentleman was, that his calculation only applied to a particular case, and could not be regarded as a general rule.

said, that his right hon. friend was fully justified in applying the language he had used on a previous occasion, in reference to the cases of the five boroughs as given by Lieutenant Drummond. At that time the whole of the list had not been seen by his right hon. friend, and the natural inference was, that the whole would have shared the same result that a portion did, if a fair specimen of the rule had been given; but, leaving these minor details for the present, the great question to be considered was, whether the House was to go into the Committee on the Bill on Friday next, without having the necessary information to proceed upon. It was impossible for them to go into Committee on the Bill until they had laid before them information as to the limits of the several boroughs upon which the amount of their houses and taxes had been calculated. He trusted that the noble Lord would feel no difficulty in postponing the Committee on the Bill for a few days, in order to give them an opportunity of having that information in their possession.

remarked, that on going into Committee, it would not be necessary to take the discussion on either of the schedules in the commencement, and therefore, that there would be no reason for postponing the Committee on the Bill altogether until the information with regard to the boroughs was before them. He need not remind the right hon. Gentleman of the length of time which the other parts of the Bill took in Committee on a former occasion; and as it appeared to him that all the enacting parts of the Bill would be as well discussed in Committee without the information in question, he could not consent to a postponement of the Committee on the Bill from Friday next.

begged to remind the noble Lord, that the noble Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a communication to Lieutenant Drummond, stated to him, that his Majesty's Government were determined to found the Reform Bill "upon a new basis." Were they, he would ask, to go into Committee on the Bill without having that basis before them?

maintained, that they could not be properly guided as to the propriety of going into Committee on the Bill, without having the basis upon which it was founded before them.

said, he rose to protest against expending 75,000l. towards completing this palace. He entertained very serious doubts whether that sum would be sufficient for the purpose, after the experience they had had of the excess of the sums required beyond the estimates furnished, and the equivocal statement that a further sum would be wanted for the providing state apartments. It was, therefore, upon general principles, as well as from local knowledge, that he objected to this proposed outlay, as a wasteful expenditure of the public money, upon a building, the extent and taste of which he might afterwards have reason to condemn. He thought it would be more satisfactory to leave this building as it was, until some ulterior measure might be adopted, by which the whole case would be fully before them.

wished to know, whether the sum of 75,00l., which the House was now called upon to vote for this building, would be sufficient for its final completion, and if not, whether the Commissioners would be at liberty to advance a further sum, as the vote had expressly stated this sum was for the completion of Buckingham Palace. If, therefore, it was not sufficient for that purpose, not one shilling ought to be expended, until the House had been supplied with full information, that no deception, might be practised as to the amount that would finally complete the building.

said, that, according to the estimate which had been laid before the House, this sum would be sufficient to complete the palace, independent of the state apartments. The present estimate had been formed in compliance with the plan which had been submitted to the Committee, and the greatest care had been taken to have as accurate a calculation as the subject would admit of. He was fully persuaded the sum would be found sufficient for the purpose intended.

would like to know upon what authority the pledge of the noble Lord was given. They had, on a former occasion, a pledge given to them on this subject by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, which turned out to be worth nothing. There was scarcely any part of the plan for the repair of the building which had not been repeatedly altered. The expenditure for building and repairing palaces had much occupied public attention, and great indignation had been manifested at the apparently wasteful expenditure. Before this sum was voted, and the bill was passed, he hoped, therefore, that the public would be satisfied.

said, that he could only answer the question according to the estimate which had been prepared. According to the plan which had been laid before the Committee, he could assure the House that no further sum would be demanded from the public for this purpose.

wished to know, whether the completion of the building had been contracted for, so that the public might rest satisfied that this sum would be sufficient?

replied that it had been contracted for as far as it was possible to do so.

said, he had serious doubts whether the sum of 75,000l. would be sufficient to complete this building. He, however, was glad to find this sum was not to come directly out of the pocket of the public, but out of the produce of the sale of Crown lands. He wished to have the whole sum stated specifically which it would take to render the palace habitable as a residence, because the architect, Mr. Blore, had stated in his report last summer, that if this object were to be accomplished, it would require some houses to be bought up in the neighbourhood, "of unascertained extent and value." This alarmed him, particularly when he recollected that the first estimate for the repair of the palace was 252,000l. In the following year it was stated that 331,000l. would be required for that purpose, the third estimate amounted to 432,000l., and the fourth to 496,000l. and he believed, if the case was fully investigated, that the actual sum already expended on this building exceeded 600,000l. He was aware that the proposed outlay was to be made, in conformity with the report of a Select Committee, to save any further expense in respect of St. James's Palace, but as Buckingham Palace had no state apartments connected with it, a large additional sum would be required for the erection of such rooms and a still further and larger sum would be wanted for fixtures, decorations, and furniture. He wished, therefore, to have a full statement of the whole amount that would be ne- cessary to complete all these objects before they proceeded further. The public had a right to know all the probable cost for such matters, or they might be led gradually to an interminable and endless expense.

remarked, that Mr. Blore had made two reports—the first, as to the estimate necessary to complete this building, and to fit it up as a royal residence: and he had distinctly stated, that 75,000l. would be a sufficient sum for that purpose. The second report referred to the probable cost of state apartments, and that gentleman had therein stated that his attention had not been particularly directed to that subject, but that, if such a plan was in contemplation, it would be necessary to purchase a number of houses in the vicinity of the Palace, the value of which he had no means of ascertaining. With reference to furniture, he begged leave to observe, that there was a large quantity in store, which it was proposed to place in the new Palace.

saw little reason for the hon. member for Surrey to congratulate himself and the country on the saving to the public, by the mode Government proposed to raise the money to finish this building. Was it not the same if the property of the public in Crown lands was sold, and the public revenue thereby diminished, as if it were taken away by direct taxation? By taxation, of course, they must supply the deficiency in the usual annual receipt of Crown land revenue.

said, that this was the estimate of the architect for the building: Mr. Blore was that architect; and from what he knew of him, he believed that the building would be completed for the amount given in the estimate: undoubtedly, the fixtures and furniture were not included, but as his noble friend had already explained, he hoped there would not be a very heavy charge on those accounts, from the quantity of furniture now in hand. It was quite true that the Crown lands were under the control of Parliament, and no difference could be made between them and other public property, but it was considered the present was the most convenient way of meeting the expense.

objected to the principle of taking the Crown lands to defray the expense, and he hoped the Committee would not sanction the adoption of such a measure.

thought, the right hon. Gentleman was the last person who ought to have made such an objection, as the building of the Palace had been carried on by the late Government, and a certain portion of the expense had been provided for by the sale of Crown lands, during the time he had been in office.

observed, that it might not be convenient to defray this cost out of the taxes, but certainly the Crown lands ought not to be alienated for the purpose. It would be better, in his opinion, to make them chargeable for the amount for a certain number of years.

regretted to hear the hon. member for Surrey promulgate a doctrine which was, in effect, saying, that the property of the Crown was the property of the public, whereas that property was as much the individual property of the Sovereign on his coming to the Throne, as was the estate of any gentleman on his duly arriving at the possession of it. It was, however, a matter of arrangement between the Sovereign and the two Houses of Parliament, whether he would change it for another species of revenue of adequate value. Another observation of the hon. Member was still more important—he seemed to look to the Crown lands as the source from which the Palace was to be completed, not considering that every alienation of them must be made up to the Sovereign from some other fund on a future occasion.

said, the Bill could not pass into a law without the consent of the Crown itself, and that was, of course, an answer to the hon. Baronet's objection.

said, the public knew full well that the charges for the Civil List came out of the produce of the taxes, and therefore they would have no objection to see these Crown lands alienated, instead of the produce of them given to the favourite Minister of the day.

begged to remark, in reply to the hon. member for the University of Oxford, that he was fully aware that the Crown lands could only be considered as belonging to the public during the life of the Sovereign with whom the bargain had been made for the exchange of Such lands against the grant of the Civil List.

said, the objection to the Bill was, that it would be found a wasteful means of providing for the expense. A total alienation of the lands ought not to be tolerated, although it might be advisable to charge them with the expense for a term of years.

in moving the Second Reading of the Bill for regulating Schools of Anatomy, said, that he should not feel it necessary to detain the House at this stage upon a Bill, the principle of which had been recognized and acted upon by a former House of Commons.

thought, that something more was due to the House than the brief announcement of the hon. Gentleman, that a Bill of a similar character had been already before them, as there were several objections to the principle of this Bill, which required to be obviated before it could have his assent. On a former occasion he had endeavoured to introduce a clause into that Bill without success—which, however, he was glad to observe, was a distinct enactment in the present Bill, and separated dissection from the crime of murder. He considered it inexpedient that such a penalty should remain on the Statute Books, while they were endeavouring to procure subjects to facilitate the study of anatomy, from poor-houses and hospitals. This was undoubtedly an improvement—but there were also omissions. One was, that no provision was made for the decent interment of the remains of those persons who had been the subjects of anatomical investigation. But the great principle to which the hon. Member ought to have directed the attention of the House was, the paramount necessity of procuring the means to facilitate the study of surgery. He believed the science of anatomy could not at present be legally followed. He was satisfied that the study of that science was necessary for the successful practice of medicine, and that, therefore, some means must be taken to remedy the present state of the law. He had ascertained, that during last year there were only eleven bodies which could be legally disposed of as subjects, and these were to supply 800 students of medicine, who ought to have obtained, at least, for the necessary completion of their education, one or more subjects, each. He did not mean to say that this Bill would not remedy that deficiency, but what he complained of was, that the operation of the clause which went to provide subjects would chiefly fall upon the poorer classes. The Bill provided, that any person "having the lawful custody of a body" might permit it to be anatomized. These words would include the keeper of a workhouse, or the head of an hospital. In the former Bill a provision had been introduced, allowing persons to dispose of their bodies after death; perhaps that provision might be improved upon by a registry of such sales being kept, which should state the sum paid, and all other particulars. A party should also have the power of rescinding such a contract by repaying double the amount. This would prevent frauds upon the purchasers. But the great point he desired to establish was, that poverty should not necessarily subject its unhappy victim to the knife of the anatomist. Prisoners, also, who died in gaol, ought not to be exposed to dissection without the consent of their relatives. These were points he wished to see amended in the Bill, and he was fully satisfied that some measure of the kind was necessary.

felt satisfied that while men, from sordid motives, could be induced to commit such crimes as those which had lately excited so much horror in the metropolis, none but the strongest measures could be effectual to prevent a repetition of them. He did not take the present Bill to be one of that kind; and, therefore, if upon that ground only, he should be disposed to object to it. Perhaps it might be necessary to inflict some punishment upon the receivers of bodies as well as those who obtained them unlawfully. He was not so impressed with the indispensable necessity of procuring subjects as some other hon. Gentlemen appeared to be. In time of war the field of battle furnished enough of subjects, and there surgeons might obtain a competent knowledge of anatomy. He considered the Bill to be surrounded by serious difficulties. On the one hand it could not be overlooked, that the present high price of subjects operated as a bounty on unlawful means of obtaining them; and on the other, by confining the operation of the Bill, in a great degree, to the poorer classes, it must tend to perpetuate existing prejudices against a practice, which the usage of devoting the bodies of murderers only for the purpose of dissection had invested with the most ignominious associations. He did not conceive dissection to be so absolutely necessary to the advancement of science, as that the feelings of individuals, indeed of the country at large, should be shocked by the means necessarily resorted to to procure a sufficient supply of subjects. But, at all events, considering that the present Bill would give a legal encouragement to the traffic in human blood, he would decidedly oppose it.

said, the hon Member could not have attended to the evidence given by the highest medical authority, that only about ten or twelve bodies could be legally had during the year, while 1100 or 1200 were wanted, and of which 900 were actually obtained. The inducement to murder for the sale of the body of the victim resulted from the high price which could be obtained for subjects for anatomy. The effect of the present Bill would be to reduce that price, and consequently to lessen the premium, if not entirely to remove the inducement to murder. The hon. Member who spoke last must have forgotten, when he alluded to the facilities which were afforded to the study of anatomy in time of war, that those to whom those facilities were afforded were men who must previously have completed their surgical education. The object of the measure now proposed was, to give some facility to the study of anatomy to those who had yet to learn. Thirty years ago, subjects could be procured for 2l. or 3l., but now they could not be had for less than 10l.: was not the Legislature, therefore, bound to guard against the repetition of such atrocious crimes as had been lately committed, by reducing the temptation to commit them? There might be some difference of opinion with regard to the details of the Bill, but he trusted, that in the Committee these might be so improved as to give general satisfaction. He had been informed by a medical gentleman, that he had found it necessary to prohibit wholly any subjects being brought to his dissecting rooms, for fear of giving any encouragement to the horrid practices of assassination which had recently prevailed. The study of surgery must necessarily suffer from such impediments and difficulties. No person could be more anxious than he was to prevent individual feelings from being lacerated, and he hoped that that was guarded against, by the provision introduced into the Bill, that the body of no person should be dissected without his consent being previously obtained, or that of his nearest relative. He should, therefore, vote for its being read a second time.

thought, that after the crimes which had lately been perpetrated, some measure should be introduced which would effectually prevent a recurrence of them. To this end, he thought it would be wise to bring in a temporary measure, which should make the possession of a body obtained for the purposes of anatomy, an offence liable to the same penalties as those inflicted for felony. A bill of that kind, operating for a particular period—for instance, for two years—would he conceived, be the best check to the horrible and revolting crime which had taken its name from Burke. The absolute necessity of dissection for the space of two years could not be argued, because every one must feel convinced that there were at the present moment in this country enough of medical men, perfectly skilled in the science of anatomy, to meet any emergency that might occur within that period. Those who were anxious to gain experience and expertness in the use of the knife (and it was to that that the attention of many young men was materially directed) might find in the dissection of animals nearly all the advantage which could result from the mere mutilation of human bodies. Looking upon the present Bill as one which would lead to the violation of one of the feelings most strongly implanted in our nature, without, at the same time, offering a strong and decided check to the crime to which he had alluded, he should certainly feel himself bound to oppose it.

differed from the hon. Member who had just sat down. As every surgeon had frequent occasion to perform on the living subject operations necessary for the preservation of life, cessation in the practice of qualifying himself for such operations for two years would materially impair his efficiency. He, therefore, approved of the principle of the Bill, although he conceived some of its provisions to be unnecessary, as only going to legalize that against which there was no law. It was provided, for example, that it should be lawful with his own consent, or the consent of his nearest known relative, to permit the body of any person to undergo anatomical examination. That power already belonged to executors. Another clause made it lawful for a medical man to examine a body after death, provided he had the consent of the party in whose lawful custody it was. This would appear to throw a doubt upon the present ability of medical persons legally to examine the body after death. The Bill also assumed, that no medical student had a right to be in possession of any part of a dead body, although it was very doubtful if such a law was in existence. Every one, he thought, must feel the necessity of some provision being made for the supply of subjects for anatomy, since it was a manifest absurdity that surgeons who were considered civilly—nay, often even criminally—guilty of crime, if they committed a mistake in their practice, should be debarred, from the only means of attaining a competent knowledge of their profession. He admitted, that if public horror was excited, by the manner in which the study of anatomy was practised, it ought to be put down, but where it was conducted in privacy, he did not see why it should be unlawful for a medical practitioner to be in possession of a subject. Bodies were frequently imported from foreign countries, and this Bill presumed, that it was already unlawful to be in possession of such bodies, or even of mummies. At the same time, he wished that every care should be taken to prevent the bodies of even the humblest classes from being disposed of without the full consent of their relatives, as a feeling of affection for the remains of their friends was very prevalent among such persons, and he was the last man to think of trifling with their feelings in that respect.

said, he was most anxious that the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill, should have given his reasons for bringing forward such a measure, as it was evident from the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that it would be found perfectly inoperative, seeing that the only two clauses authorizing parties to possess and dispose of bodies, gave no more power for such purposes than already existed. This Bill gave a power to persons to dispose of bodies, but they were persons who ought not to have that power; for not only, as had been said by the hon. member for the University of Oxford,might work-house-keepers disposeof dead bodies under its enactments, but gaolers, also, who had the custody of persons who died in debt, and undertakers, likewise, for both of these might have lawful possession of bodies. But whatever might be the nature of a Bill to be passed for such purposes, its operation would principally fall upon the poor. He was not such a Goth or Vandal as to wish to impede the study of surgery and anatomy, but he held it as a matter of great regret that some bill had not been brought forward to prevent the practice of "Burking;" a practice which had been carried on of late to such an extent, that he was surprised it had not come under the special notice of Ministers. The legal price to be given for dead bodies would, under this Bill, act as a premium to needy people to neglect their relatives. What would be much more beneficial than anything contained in this Bill, would be to throw open the hospitals throughout England, instead of suffering them to be monopolized as they now were. He himself knew, some years ago, and he had been recently again informed upon the best authority, that the conduct of the young students in the dissecting-room was too often perfectly disgusting—too disgusting to be described even in an assembly like that, composed as it was entirely of men. He regretted, that the Mover of this Bill had not been able to devise a better plan to accomplish his object, for there were many clauses in the Bill which he should feel bound to oppose. They ought not to be satisfied with saying that the relative of a party might give his body up for dissection if the party himself had not forbidden it, but they ought to insist upon the party's mark or signature, made in the presence of two witnesses, to prove such assent; for there could be no doubt that the poverty-stricken wretch, who would wish to dispose of the dead body of a relative, would take care not to let his expressed desire to the contrary be known.

thought, that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that his hon. and learned friend opposite could have meant to say that this Bill did not give executors greater powers than they now possessed. He recollected a case in which a party was convicted and brought up before the Judges of the King's Bench, and punished for having part of a dead body in his possession. The hon. member for Preston appeared to require some new law to be passed to prevent the practice of "Burking;'' but what kind of law would he have? "Burking" was murder, the punishment for which was as great as possible. The difficulty with respect to "Burking" was its detection; it was generally found, that the more severe was the punishment for an offence, in the same degree was the difficulty in detecting it. The obvious and only mode of preventing this crime was, to take away the motive or inducement to it; and that could only be done by diminishing the price of subjects. At present, medical men must pay for the murder as well as for the corpse; but by making the corpse, in future, easily procurable, all temptation to murder would be removed. At any rate, whatever might be the mischief likely to arise from the legalized sale of dead bodies, the prejudice against it must be removed by reflecting on the still greater mischief of not endeavouring, at least, to put a stop to the frightful practices which had lately prevailed in London.

said, he should very shortly reply to some of the observations which had been made on the present occasion, without going into any detail with respect to the principle of the measure. He had heard it remarked that he had brought forward this Bill in this Houses, but hon. Members must know how difficult it was, except upon matters of great public or political interest, for any individual, bringing forward a measure, to obtain a large assembly of Members; and when those matters of public interest were brought forward, they engrossed and absorbed the whole time of the House; so that, unless advantage were taken of such evenings as the present, it was vain for any private individual to attempt to originate a legislative enactment. The hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis) had said, that he had made no introductory statement with respect to the Bill; but this had been done when it was first introduced, and he had then fully explained the principal clause—which allowed permission to be given for the anatomical examination of a body, except where the party himself desired that such an examination should not take place, or the nearest known relative of the deceased should refuse his consent to such dissection. He did not think that he could go further towards consulting the wishes and feelings of individuals; and these clauses, it must be remembered, applied to the rich as well as to the poor; although, no doubt, the bodies of the poor would be more numerous than those of the rich, because the poor were in greater numbers than the rich; but the principle of the Bill applied equally to both. Although he had not been successful in founding a Bill upon the Report of a Committee of 1829, he was happy to observe that the labours of that Committee had not been entirely useless; for the Representatives of the free Republican States of Massachusetts having appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject, that Committee had quoted largely from their report, in that which they themselves had made; and, ultimately, a bill was founded upon their report, without its being considered that injury was done to the feelings of any part of the community by provision being made for this want of subjects. People talked of science as a matter of curiosity—for the mere gratification of those who had leisure, rather than as one of the noblest and most beneficial acquirements of man; they talked as if surgery were like astronomy, or mathematics, and as if it were not a matter of absolute necessity that means should be provided for curing the wounds and injuries to which the bodies of the poor were liable as well as the rich. The latter would always be able to pay for the very best treatment; and if it were necessary that a medical student should go to France or Germany to complete his anatomical education, they could defray the expense consequent upon his so doing; but if the wounds and injuries of the poor were to be cured, the means by which those who are to attend them are to acquire their knowledge must be rendered cheap and accessible. He would beg leave to conclude the few observations he had thought it necessary to make, in reply to what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen, with this general remark, that, as long as the Judges found it necessary to inflict punishment for transactions such as those which had been adverted to in the debate, so long would it be necessary for the Members of the Legislature to consider whether the evils arising out of the law could not be remedied by enactments of their own.