moved, in the first place, that their Lordships' Amendments to the Forgery Bill be agreed to. the Amendments, he observed, which their Lordships had made, related to the crimes of forging wills, and of forging powers of attorney for the transfer of stock. He confessed, that when the measure was before that House, he was an advocate for the total abolition of the punishment of death ill all cases of forgery. On reflection, however, he thought perhaps, that it might be better not to abolish all the capital cases of forgery at once, and he regarded the extent to which the Lords allowed the measure to go as a very great point gained, for amongst the variety of cases, only two were excepted. It had been asked of him by an hon. Member, who had just taken his seat, whether any representation had been made to him on the subject of the present Bill by the Bank of England? In reply to that he had only to say, that he had had a conversation with the Governor of the Bank, but he had not received any formal communication whatever. Thus much, however, he thought himself fully warranted in stating, namely, that the wish of the Bank of England certainly was, to retain the punishment of death in all cases where powers of attorney were forged for the transfer of stock. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Amendments be agreed to.

did not rise for the purpose of objecting to or opposing the Amendments made by the other House of Parliament, because he, for one, though he should be glad if the punishment of death could with propriety be done away with in cases of forgery, would at once acknowledge that he concurred in the Amendments which had been made in the other House of Parliament; and he could have wished that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not given way to his humanity. There was one point to which he could not help adverting, and that was the forgery of wills. In these instances professional men possessed the most unlimited confidence of the parties making them. The opportunities which they possessed of committing frauds were far beyond that which could by possibility be possessed by any other class of persons; and in no other country besides England was such unbounded confidence placed in any body of men, as was placed in England, in men of the profession of the law. He therefore would say, let them see how this Bill, with the Amendments made by the House of Lords, would work; though, on the other hand, it might be necessary to extend the capital punishment in cases of gross breaches of private confidence.

was truly sorry that the Lords had thought proper to make the Amendments, which had been sent down to the House of Commons, but he hoped, nevertheless, that the Bill would be permitted to pass. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), had said, that he had received a remonstrance from the Directors of the Bank of England, on the subject of the abolition of death in all cases of forgery. He hoped that no objection would be made to that remonstrance being laid on the Table.

That remonstrance was only verbally made.

said, that he hoped that the noble Lord would not only state what were the terms of the remonstrance, but also what were the reasons upon which that remonstrance had been founded.

The statement upon which the objections of the Governors of the Bank of England were founded, was, that a great number of clerks were employed in the Bank of England, who, from the very nature of their employment, must be fully acquainted with the specific amount of stock, standing in each person's name. Now, all persons claiming dividends on stock, or principal so invested, were compelled to state to the uttermost farthing what amount they claimed for, and also to give the exact particulars, as to the profession, residence, &c., of each person, in whoso name the stock stood; hence it must be obvious that those persons who were clerks in the Bank of England had facilities put in their way for forgery which no other men possessed; and that, therefore, it was absolutely necessary to render the punishment in cases of forgery of powers of attorney the most severe which the law could inflict. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Edward Sugden) was quite mistaken in supposing that the reason why he had been anxious to abolish the punishment of death, arose from a morbid and over tender passion of humanity. The view which he had taken of the subject was simply this, that more good would be produced by the infliction of a secondary punishment, where the punishment was certain to be carried into effect, than by enacting a capital punishment for an offence when, under such a penalty, few men could be found to prosecute, and Juries were reluctant to convict. He felt more for the persons who suffered from the practices of those who committed forgeries, than he did for those who committed the crime. With respect to those objections, which were always, he thought, admissible in all other cases, he really thought that, in the case of the Bank of England, an exception to a general rule might be pleaded with great fairness. In the case of an individual the case was very different, and he must confess that, after every possible consideration of the question, he had great doubts as to the correctness of the opinions which he had at first entertained. He certainly felt it to be most inexpedient to reject this Bill; but he had more doubts as to the necessity of inflicting death in the case of forgery of wills, than he had of its infliction in cases of forgery of powers of attorney.

thought that the statement of the noble Lord showed a very good reason why the Bank of England should be the only exception to a general rule. But the reason why he admitted the necessity of abolishing the punishment of death, was his conviction that the severity of the law as it now stood, always, or at least generally, had the effect of permitting the culprit to go free. On this ground, then, he considered it was much to be lamented, that these Amendments had been made by the House of Lords. He had no hesitation in saying that it would be much better to reject the Bill altogether, than assent to them without some understanding as to their operation. He had stated to the noble Lord, that, up to the present period, particularly within the last two years and a half, the public feeling was and had been so strong on this point, that he much doubted whether or not the Amendments would be beneficial in their operation. He, therefore, felt it would be most advisable to allow the law to remain in its present state, and to reject this Bill, inasmuch as it might tend to make the infliction of the severest penalty of the law imperative upon persons now under sentence of death for certain offences, but whose sentence, as the law now stood, might be commuted. The noble Lord must be aware that there were many persons now under sentence of death, audit would indeed be hard to apply to their case that which might in many respects be considered an ex post facto law. But as he could not believe that the present Act would be interpreted to the prejudice of such unfortunate persons, he, in common with the noble Lord, felt disposed rather to agree in the Amendments sent up from the Lords than reject the Bill, because some improvement in the criminal law had certainly been obtained, though the two exceptions were made in respect to the punishment of death, in the cases of forgeries of wills and powers of attorney. He would however, again repeat his hope, that the present Bill would not affect persons now under sentence of death. He was satisfied that if the Legislature wished the laws to be properly enforced, it was their duty to see that the infliction of the sentence should be rendered certain; and it was upon that ground he argued, that when it lessened the punishment, but made its infliction sure, it best protected property. It must be evident that, under the existing system, the penalty as by law established, was so frightfully severe that few persons were to be found to enforce the punishment prescribed: and this feeling of repugnance to the law pervaded the judgments of those who ought not to entertain compassion in such cases. He had thought it right to state his views in connexion with this subject, and he hoped that, early next Session, some measures would be taken to revise the criminal law still further. By rendering punishment more certain, more good would be done to prevent crime, than the enactment of a multitude of new laws. Before he had come into the House, he had felt determined to take the sense of the House upon the propriety of rejecting the Amendments, but upon hearing the explanation of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), he had been induced to waive in some degree his objections, because the Bill, with the alterations made in it by the Lords, was calculated to achieve a very great improvement in the existing law.

said, he hoped that in expressing his concurrence with what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, it would not be supposed that either he or his hon. friend acquiesced in the law as amended by the alterations made by the Lords. He considered that those alterations were only calculated to be temporary, and, under that feeling alone, he was induced to agree to the Bill as amended.

said, he was very sorry that his Majesty's Attorney General was not present, and ready to defend his Bill. He had given him great credit upon his introducing the measure, for his laudable exertions in the cause of humanity; and he much regretted that that hon. and learned Gentleman, and other Members of the House of Commons were so ready to register the edicts of the House of Lords. It appeared to him, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had altered his opinion very readily; not, perhaps, his own personal, but his political opinion; and it was quite clear, that if the House did not assent to these Amendments, the Bill must be lost. It was quite clear that the House had only to send a popular measure up to the House of Lords, and it followed as a matter of course, that they returned such measures with amendments, which served to make them most unpopular. The hon. member for Middlesex bad said, that he had been of opinion that it would be much better that the Bill should be thrown out, and in that first opinion of the hon. Member, he sincerely concurred; but he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the question, inasmuch as he well knew that he should be unsuccessful in the attempt to reject the Bill; but he wished it to be clearly understood that he protested against the Amendments which had been made in the House of Lords. He thought it most preposterous that they should call themselves Representatives of the people, while they assented to the alterations which had been made, upon the plea that if they did not do so the Bill must be thrown out, because it had only reached its last stage at an advanced period of the Session. He begged to call the attention of the House to another Bill which had been lately passed. By the law as it stood previously, it was enacted that persons convicted of certain offences should be transported for various periods; but by the Amendments which had been made in the House of Lords, the sentence was made transportation for life, and it had been made imperative on the Judges to pass sentence accordingly, no discretion being left in the hands of the Judge.

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Preston might feel satisfied that he had done some good by not dividing the House upon this occasion; for whatever opinion might be entertained as to the amendments which had been made, it was quite clear that the Lords had taken away the punishment of death for forgery, except in two cases—those of forgery of a will, and of a power of attorney. He rejoiced at so much having been achieved, though he should have been better satisfied had the Lords given their sanction to the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases; and he would confess that he could not exactly distinguish the principle upon which the amendments had been made, because the arguments which had been urged on both points, would apply with equal, if not greater force to bills of exchange. Undoubtedly as to the forgery of wills, professional men had a great deal of confidence reposed in them, and that was a reason for punishing that species of forgery very severely. With regard to another Bill alluded to by the hon. member for Preston, he must say that he rejoiced it had become the law of the land, because he was sure it had effected a most important improvement in our criminal law.

had no objection to hang all lawyers who might be guilty of a breach of trust.

again protested against this Bill, and he also took that opportunity to protest against the doctrine lately attributed to the Lord Chancellor, that the Habeas Corpus Act could be suspended in Ireland at the mere dictum of the executive, and without application to Parliament on the subject. Such a doctrine, he said, was at variance with constitutional law, common law, and common sense. It was a doctrine, too, to which the expressed opinion of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was directly opposed. The hon. Member also condemned, in strong terms, the language attributed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the late interview of his Excellency with the Cork deputation, on which occasion his Excellency was represented to have said, "One of those parties I have put down, and you want to mount and bestride them; but that shall not be, for I will master you both." He thought that such language was not the fittest that could be employed by the King's representative in Ireland.

Sugden said, he was sure that every hon. Member who was present at the discussion on this subject on a former evening, would remember that he (Sir Edward Sugden) then deplored as deeply as any one could, the violence which had been resorted to against the people, and that he regretted the necessity, if such there was, of the cavalry acting, in that instance, against the people. Hon. Members would perhaps recollect, that he went on to say, that this outrage was obviously a premeditated one, and that while what had occurred was to be regretted, it was, perhaps, to be considered as a happy termination to what might have been a still greater evil, and a more fearful outrage. Now, in an article in an evening paper, to which his attention had been that day called, his sentiments on this subject had been grossly misrepresented. It was there stated, that he viewed the cutting down of the people as a matter of indifference—that he hailed the termination of this affair as a happy one; and it was finally asked whether the House could have heard such sentiments without disgust? Now this he must say, on his own part, that he had not given expression to sentiments on that occasion that any one Member of that House would have been ashamed to utter. He had expressed his regret at what had occurred, and he had also expressed his opinion, that probably what had then taken place had prevented the occurrence of a still greater evil.

wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether one of the results of the inquiry on this subject was, that the military had been called in without the sanction of the bailiff of Clithero, and against his protest on the subject, and whether they had not proceeded to act before the Riot Act was read?

said, that the protest of the bailiff of Clithero against the introduction of the military was made when he was only acquainted with a part of the outrage that had been committed; at that period the bailiff certainly thought that there was no necessity to send for the military, and he accordingly proceeded to stop them on their inarch to the town; on his way, however, he was convinced, from communications which reached him relative to the progress of the riot, of the propriety and necessity of calling in the military for the purpose of suppressing it. There was, in fact, no regular protest made by the bailiff against calling out the military, and the moment he was convinced of the propriety of such a step he acceded to it. With regard to the second question which had been put by the hon. Gentleman, he was ready to say that there was no doubt that the troops had entered the town before the Riot Act had been read; but no attempt was made on their part to disperse the crowd until the Riot Act had been read, not once only, but five times. The inquiry, as far as it had gone, had shown that the troops had acted with great forbearance, and under circumstances of great provocation, and he did not think that any blame attached to the Magistrates for their conduct in this instance.

wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman had any further information to communicate as to the reasons which the Magistrates assigned for calling out the troops, and whether he would state that any further steps would be taken to prosecute the inquiry on this subject?

said, that there was such a mass of contradictory evidence on both sides on this subject, that he was not at present prepared to say what further steps would be taken towards the prosecution of an inquiry into the matter.

said, that he had heard a very different version of this affair from that which had been given of it in that House. He would say, that if the elections of the people of England were hereafter to be carried on contrary to law, at the point of the bayonet, and under the surveillance of a military force, it was high time for the people of England to do that which The Times had recommended them to do last Christmas—namely, to arm themselves, in order to protect themselves against the aggressions of the borough mongers. Having been an eye-witness of the Manchester massacre, he would state that the grossest falsehoods had been uttered in that House on that subject, in order to screen the military, and it was not at all improbable that the same was the case in this instance. As to inquiries, all inquiries on the part of Government were mere farces, for they were only inquiries on one side of the question.

said, that the military had conducted themselves in this instance in the most exemplary manner.

I agree with the hon. member for Preston, in hoping that it may not be necessary to call in the military at any of the approaching elections, because it is unusual, and even contrary to law to call them in at the time of an election taking place; but if a riot takes place, it may become necessary to call them in, though this would only be justifiable in such a case. The hon. member for Preston says, that he hopes the people will arm for the purpose of resisting the aggression of the military. I hope that the law will always have power enough in this country to protect the people of England without their having to take the law in their own hands. I am satisfied that the advice given by the hon. Gentleman would produce the most serious evils. If the military act improperly, and the King's subjects are injured, the law is open to them; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that the Government will not be slow to protect the people if they are improperly attacked. But if the people are thus called on to take the law in their own hands in a moment of irritation, and when no one can form a cool judgment, I am afraid that such a course will tend to produce the greatest calamities to the country. The doctrine of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, is one which I feel it necessary to protest against in the strongest manner. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, thinks that inquiry in this case ought to be made: that inquiry has been made: but then he tells us, that if we do institute an inquiry, such an inquiry as that he does not care one farthing for, and that that is not what he wants.

begged to say, that he did not advise the people to arm. He had merely asked the question whether the time had not arrived when the advice given by The Times last winter for the purpose of carrying the Reform Bill—namely, that the people of England should arm themselves, to protect themselves against the aggressions of the borough-mongers—should be adopted by the people of this country? The noble Lord attributed to him different words, though perhaps not a different meaning.

presented a Petition from the Reform Association of Manchester, complaining of the cumbrous machinery, and the many inconvenient provisions of the Reform Bill. They prayed, that the whole of the Bill, with the exception of the disfranchising clauses, might be repealed. If some remedy was not applied before the next general election, to remove the objectionable provisions, it would be fatal to the peace of the country. This petition came from those very persons from whom the member for Westminster (Sir John Hobhouse) presented a petition, upon a former occasion, in support of the Bill.

said, that he would take that opportunity to make a few observations in reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant member for Rye, on a former evening, with regard to the disqualifying effect of the Reform Bill, in Manchester and other places. Before doing so, however, he begged to remark, with respect to the present petition, that as it went to the extent of calling for the repeal of the whole of the Reform Bill, with the exception of the disfranchising clause, it would, should its prayer, by any possibility, be granted, go to deprive Manchester, and other large manufacturing towns, of Representatives. He, therefore, thought, that such a petition was entitled to no attention. His hon. and gallant friend (the member for Rye) stated, on a former evening, that the effect of the Reform Bill, unless some alteration should be made as to the payment of the rates, would be, that in Manchester there would be only 758 persons entitled to vote; that in Salford there would be only forty; in Bolton only 84; in Blackburn only 78; in Warrington 40; in Oldham 40; in Rochdale 38, &c. Now, he (Lord Althorp), in consequence of that statement, had received a communication from a most respectable gentleman in Manchester, well known to him, and who had ample opportunities of being accurately informed on the subject, and that gentleman's statement was, that instead of 758 voters, there would be, in the township of Manchester alone, 4,400 persons qualified to vote, and that the entire number of voters for the borough of Manchester would amount to from 7,000 to 8,000; that, in Salford there would be from 1,100 to 1,200 voters; that in Bolton, instead of only eighty-four, there would be 1,000 voters, there not being above ten persons there, who would be entitled to a vote under the Bill, disqualified from the non-payment of the rates, and that in Blackburn there would be 1,000 voters instead of seventy-eight. The information with regard to Blackburn came from a gentleman who had already actually canvassed 800 out of the 1,000 voters in that borough. He had not received any information with respect to Warrington, but, from the statement to which he had adverted, he felt warranted in saying, that the lowest number of voters in any of the boroughs that had been alluded to by his hon. and gallant friend, would be upwards of 700, which was, by no means, an inconsiderable constituency. He knew not on what grounds his hon. friend had made the statement in question; but it certainly was a most incorrect one. He could state that, at Preston there would be from 6,000 to 7,000 persons qualified to vote. He (Lord Althorp) felt happy in being able to make this statement, as he certainly confessed, that at the time his hon. and gallant friend made the statement to which he had alluded, he felt considerable apprehension lest the disqualifying effect which he attributed to the Reform Bill should proceed to the extent he represented. That statement, he was glad to find, was, as far as Lancashire was concerned, greatly exaggerated; and he hoped that the same would be found to be the case throughout the country.

had that morning had an opportunity of conversing with a gentleman from Yorkshire, who had told him that no inconvenience, such as that described by the gallant Officer, had been felt about Leeds, for that there the generality of the rates and taxes had been paid up, and he believed that the same statement might be made with respect to all the manufacturing towns in Yorkshire.

was very glad to hear the statement that had just been made by the noble Lord; and, in fact, if the noble Lord had not made that statement, he (Colonel Evans) should have risen for the same purpose, because he himself had received letters confirming the account just given by the noble Lord. In the reports that had been given of his former speech on this subject, it had been made to appear as if he had positively stated that the numbers in these different towns were such as had been just recounted by his noble friend. But the fact was, that he had only stated a supposititious case. He had said, "taking the standard of the parish of St. James in London, and reckoning the towns in Lancashire by the same rule, the effect will be so and so." He must, however, again repeat his belief, that it would be found that great disfranchisement would prevail at the time of registration in the metropolitan districts.

The noble Lord, on a former occasion, stated, that any scot-and-lot voter who had paid his rates up to the day of registration would be entitled to vote. I wish to ask him whether he meant the rates due to 5th April, or the rates due to the day of the registration?

I really think that these questions would be more fairly addressed to a lawyer than to me; but I apprehend that the law formerly was, that all rates must be paid by the scot-and-lot voters up to the day of the election; and all that is done by the present Bill is to put the day of registration vice the day of election. Therefore, where a voter claims under the old law, all rates must be paid up to the day of registration; and this would have been the case if we had adopted the proposition of giving all scot-and-lot voters, throughout the kingdom, the elective franchise.

Then I am able to state that not one elector in the parish of St. George, Westminster, will be entitled to vote. They have paid their rates up to 25th March; but, if required to pay them up to the day of registration, not one will be able to do that; indeed, I believe that it is already too late now to take such a step. I had an opportunity this morning of ascertaining that not one of the. 5,144 rate-payers in St. George's has qualified according to the opinion just delivered by the noble Lord; while, on the other hand, 4,180 of them have paid their rates up to Lady-last. And now the simple question is—Can they vote?

I omitted just now to state what I have already frequently stated, that those only are disqualified who refuse to pay when the demand is made on them. That is the old law of scot and lot voting; and that is equally applicable under the present Act, Besides, if they have all paid up to Lady-day, such as occupy 10l. houses will be able to vote on that claim.

No, no!

The noble Lord does not appear to be aware that subsequent rates have been made.

I understand that only twenty-two out of the whole parish have paid the last rate.

When the collectors of the taxes give in their accounts to the Public Treasury, they are obliged to make affidavit that they have made the demand on all the rate-payers; so that it is impossible that any can escape that way.

My right hon. friend I having so long been a Member for a scot-and-lot borough, I am surprised that he is not aware that payment of taxes is not necessary to entitle a scot-and-lot elector to vote.

wished to ask whether the Government would allow the register to be postponed? He understood the Paymaster of the Forces to have intimated that, in all probability, no new election would take place before December, in order to admit of the registration being perfectly completed. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble Lord whether there was any chance of a general election before the register was complete?

I think that it is quite impossible for a Minister of the Crown, consistently with his duty, to give an answer to that question. I, certainly, did state, on a former occasion, that there would be a great inconvenience in a general election taking place before the register was complete. I am willing to repeat that statement; but I think that I should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, were I to give any pledge as to the dissolution of Parliament; and I must, therefore, decline giving any answer to the hon. Baronet.

apprehended that there was no danger of a general election, until the new bill had come into complete operation, and until after they had the benefit of the registration. Indeed, it would be the greatest calamity to the country if a dissolution should take place before that period. He was quite satisfied from the statement of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) on a former evening, that there would be no dissolution until then, unless a great public necessity called for it. He, for one, always thought that this Bill imposed too many restrictions on the right of voting. He had endeavoured, when the measure was before the House to do away with some of them—such, for instance, as the payment of a shilling for registering; and he was sure that their existence would be productive of much dissatisfaction throughout the country.

said, the reason for this part of the Bill, requiring the payment of a shilling on registration, was a very general complaint, that if the expense were thrown on the poor-rates, it would fall as well upon those who had no vote as those who had. He confesssd that, at first, he felt great objection to it. Country gentlemen complained that the burthen would press hard upon the payers of poor-rates if the expenses were charged upon that fund, and it was upon this consideration that it had been resolved that the payment of 1s. should rest with the party obtaining political privilege. It, certainly, was but a small payment, and those who objected to such a payment could not care much about the possession of that privilege which it was intended to secure; probably they did not want to have a vote at all. If the regulation respecting the payment of 1s. had been productive of so much evil as hon. Gentlemen represented, he, certainly, should deeply regret it; but still, the balance of inconvenience would have been the other way, had the other suggestion been adopted.

admitted that he had not foreseen the inconvenience or evil of the regulation for the payment of 1s. for registration. But the clause respecting the payment of rates and taxes was that which had been productive of the most mischief. Ministers had been warned of this effect of the clause by an hon. friend near him, who pointed it out as a fruitful source of bribery. He had himself seen letters, offering votes, upon the condition of the taxes of the voters being paid; and this proposition arose out of the distress of the voter, rather than any other feeling. The class now most distressed in the country was the class of tradesmen. He hoped that when the Bill came under consideration again, this provision of it would be duly modified. He was certain it would never give satisfaction until the qualification by payment of rates was changed, and he hoped that change would soon be effected.

could not help expressing his surprise at hearing the hon. member for Preston cheer the hon. member for Middlesex in the concluding sentences of his speech; for, if he was not very much mistaken, that hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) had himself brought forward a motion to exclude all who had not paid their rates from voting.

observed, that this was the second time the noble Lord had tried to put him in the wrong. The noble Lord was, however, himself in the wrong. The motion he had made, and to which the noble Lord had referred, was not one of an excluding nature, but the contrary. The object of his motion had been to include in the right of voting all who paid scot and lot. He thanked the noble Lord for his kind intentions, but he guessed he had taken nothing by his motion. He (Mr. Hunt) hoped this tax qualification of voters would be altered. As to the effect of the clauses of this Bill, that effect would not be determined by the opinions of hon. Members in that House, but by the opinions of Barristers out of it; and if the Barristers did their duty, he affirmed that the greater part of Manchester would be disfranchised.

wished his noble friend (Lord Althorp) would answer the question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Duncombe), according to whose account a whole parish in Westminster would be disfranchised, by a mistake respecting the period up to which it was requisite their rates should be paid. The inhabitants of the parish in question had paid their rates up to the 25th of March, and the question was, whether they ought to have paid them to April? He hoped his noble friend would be able to give some satisfactory answer upon this point.

Sugden hoped that the noble Lord would give no answer to the question put to him. The interpretation of the Bill did not now belong to that House; it was in other hands, and must take its course as all other Acts did. However respectable the opinions of Members of that House, they would not in fact alter the true legal construction of any part of the Act. It was, therefore, most advisable, as well with reference to the respect due to the House itself as to the opinions of those who would have to decide upon the strict legal bearing of the Act in all its parts, without regarding the opinions of any, that they should abstain from uttering dicta which could not be availing.

wished to be informed whether the old right of voting would be altered by the present Bill.

could not determine upon the legal effect of any particular clauses. His own opinion was favourable to the right.

said, it appeared by the noble Lord's statement that the only way to obtain an opinion upon the meaning of any of the clauses was for the unfortunate candidate to come to that House and to have an Election Committee ballotted for. They were told not to give an opinion upon the subject. But, when he saw such a place as the city of Westminster nearly disfranchised by this Bill, he could not refrain from giving it as his opinion that it would be much better to have a short Session before dissolution than to go to an election with so imperfect and mischievous a measure. In the parish of St. Clement Danes, he understood, a great doubt existed about the franchise. The rate, it appeared, had been made up to June 2,5, and it was not called for from the inhabitants till the 2nd of August. Now the question was, whether the whole of that parish was disfranchised or not? The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) told them that the rate must have been demanded before the voter could be disqualified. But there were decisions of Committees of that House directly to the contrary effect. How were they to determine with such contradictory decisions before them.?

thought it pretty clear, from the present discussion, that the Bill was good only for one party in the State, and that party was the lawyers. One man, it appeared, would be disfranchised because he did not choose to pay 1s.; another, because he did not pay his rates when they were demanded; and a third, because he did not pay rates before they were due, and before any application had been made to him for them. Thus was this incongruous and inconsistent Bill, fit for nothing but to furnish a rich harvest to be reaped by the lawyers.

strongly condemned the system of asking and discussing questions upon points of law in that House. There were thirty or forty Gentlemen, each coming from a different place, and with different local circumstances as the foundation of his question, and each expecting to get an answer satisfactory and conclusive. He had always said, he would not answer any question which he had not on black and white, with the circumstances fully before him. He had given the same answer to his right hon. friends near him. For his own part he did not anticipate that there would be those difficulties in the way of the voter under this Bill which some imagined there would be; but he was quite sure that opinions hastily given, various and contradictory, such as were uttered in discussions of the kind then going on, and which by some means found their way out of doors, could only be productive of mischief.

thought his hon. and learned friend forgot that they sat in that House to correct the law. It was their duty to change the law if it was not adequate to its purposes; and if they were not to be permitted to discuss the state of the law, how could they discharge that part of their duty? As to the Reform Act, if it were to be allowed to go to the country in its present state, so far from there being any tribunal for interpreting its meaning hereafter, he did not believe there would be Members enough to form even one Election Committee. He had risen to mention a report he had heard very much to the credit of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Stanley), namely, that he had summoned all the practising barristers to Dublin to consult upon the Bill, and come to some understanding upon its provisions, in order that there might be but one interpretation of it extant in the elections. He hoped this report was true, for it was a most discreet and useful step.

said, that from his information it did not appear that there would be those obstructions to the voters, which were anticipated from the defective wording of the Bill.

did not think it just to require any pledge from Government respecting the re-assembling of Parliament, until they had seen the Returns from different parts of the country. If they then found that the constituency generally was much narrowed, Parliament, no doubt, ought to be called upon to apply a remedy. But if the inconvenience existed in one or two places, the mere result of accident, then he thought it would be unreasonable to put hon. Members to so much inconvenience.

presented a Petition, signed by 200 inhabitants of the city of London, expressive of the "disgust and indignation" which they felt at the sentence passed upon two individuals, Mr. Twort and Mr. Ward, for the declaration of their religious opinions, and praying that the House would interfere to obtain their liberation from prison. He (Mr. Hunt) had always understood that the Attorney General was opposed to prosecutions and punishments for opinion merely, and he was therefore the more surprised at the sentence.

expressed his thorough disgust at the daily prosecutions going on against men for their opinions. Every man in this country had civil rights, and the right to express his opinion was one of his rights. To give a man eighteen months' imprisonment for such an offence was an utter disgrace to any civilized country. He held religious liberty to be a civil right, and a man was therefore free to adopt whatever religious opinions he might choose. When the Whigs were out of office they were as much opposed as any one to such prosecutions. Why, then, did they tolerate and encourage them now? They complained of the conduct of the despots of Frankfort; but if such a line of conduct were permitted in this country, they would themselves de-I serve to be enrolled amongst the foreign despots. He could imagine nothing more atrocious than the punishment of these men.

complained that the hon. member for Middlesex did not know the nature of the offence for which these men had been punished. He assumed that it was merely fur giving utterance to blasphemous opinions.

It is so in the Petition.

It was not upon what the convicted individuals alleged, that the hon. Member was entitled to turn round and condemn those who had been instrumental in bringing about the conviction. The fact was, that the individuals in question had been guilty of a gross assault upon a respectable divine, upon the morning of the day appointed for a general fast; and, further, of disturbing a congregation. It was not, therefore, as assumed by the hon. member for Preston, for a mere difference of opinion, that these men had been punished.

said, he did not mean to palliate an assault; but even assaults ought to be kept on their proper footing as to punishment, and surely, to justify eighteen months' imprisonment, the assault should have been of a very serious nature.

said, he understood that the Clergyman to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred had disgraced himself, and commenced the disturbance by attempting to pull down the placards carried by the men, and in the course of the struggle, he got a blow or a scratch. The petition was signed by 200 individuals, and was entitled to the attention of the House.

could not sit in that House and hear any man defend such conduct as these convicted men had been guilty of, without raising his voice to denounce such defenders of iniquity and blasphemy. It was disgraceful to any man calling himself a Christian to rise in that assembly as the avowed protector of the foulest, the grossest, the most wicked and filthy attacks upon Christianity. He said it was disgraceful (turning to Mr. Hunt who sat immediately behind him) to that House, and to the character of the community, that men could be found there the willing instruments of blasphemers, the conduit-pipes of the vilest blasphemy.

rose to order. He begged to know from the Chair whether it was consistent with the Orders of that House that his conduct was to be stigmatized as "disgraceful" because he had presented a petition.

said, he was sure the hon. Member (Mr. Perceval) could not have intended to apply such language to any Member of the House.

explained. What he had meant to say was, that when a man was brought before the laws of his country, and made amenable to punishment for the dreadful offence of blaspheming his God and his Saviour, any Member of that House who reverenced his God, and if he did not reverence him his conduct was the more disgraceful, was bound to inquire into the circumstances of the case before he attacked the Government and the law in favour of such a man—before he made himself the vehicle of such improper and unjust attacks. If a man did not do that, but came forward voluntarily, and without inquiry, the self-elected defender of foul, beastly, and horrible blasphemies, then he said his conduct as a man and a Christian was disgraceful. He was not alluding to any particular individual, but laying down a rule for the general guidance of the Members of that House. Before all it was their duty to reverence God; and they who did not do so would be overtaken in their course of sin. But let the Government of the country look to those irreverent and blasphemous publications which were abroad, sapping the morals and principles of society, depraving the minds of the multitude; and working mischief with a horrible tide, which was overbearing all the barriers of decency and religion. These things were working in an, under-current, not apparent to that House, not visible on the surface, not likely to come to the ears of those who did not diligently seek to know them, but as surely sapping and undermining the foundation of—

rose, and, interrupting the hon. Member in the middle of his sentence, moved, that the House be counted.