presented a Petition from St. Anne, Westminster, for the repeal of the House and Window Tax.

supported the prayer of the Petition, and hoped his Majesty's Ministers, if consistent with their duty, would attend to this Petition, and all others of the same kind.

said, the feeling in favour of the repeal of these taxes was as prevalent throughout the country as in London.

said, that, in his opinion, these taxes did not press so heavily as some others; they were, however, most odious taxes, on account of the inequality with which they were levied, and the partiality of their operation. The great complaint of the people of England was, that the taxes were paid by the industrious part of the population, and received by those who did not work.

hoped, that the Ministers would not merely repeal the House and Window-taxes, but the whole of the Assessed-taxes; the other taxes would be very small, and the levying them would be most annoying. These taxes were evaded by the wealthy, and the great burthen thrown on the poor.

presented a Petition from the parishes of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the city of Bath, for the Repeal of the House and Window Taxes. The hon. Member also presented another Petition to the same effect from Walcot, in the county of Somerset.

hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would take the prayer of the petition into their consideration; and that they would also, with a view to some alteration in taxation, take generally into their consideration the distressed state of the country. The people were really, and not nominally, dying of starvation.

said, that as one of the Members of the western division of Somersetshire, he had been requested to support this petition. He knew that in no city in the kingdom were those taxes more oppressive than in Bath.

said, that was certainly the case, and supported the prayer of the petition.

supported the prayer of this petition; for it must be apparent to those who gave the subject proper consideration, that the Assessed-taxes pressed heavily on those who were least able to bear the burthen. The rent of the poor man bore a much greater proportion to his expenses, than the rent of the rich man did to his; therefore to assess the poor man, with reference to his rent, was most unjust and unfair—more particularly as such a system must be oppressive, in the extreme, to a large body of the people. He would respectfully beg every hon. Gentleman to look to this question, and to give the subject his best consideration. The Assessed-taxes were prejudicial in many ways; the Window-tax was particularly so to the health of the poorer classes; for they were compelled, in many instances, to shut out, not only the light of Heaven, but were also prevented from having a sufficient current of air, in times when fresh air was absolutely necessary to the preservation of health. Not only these, but other oppressive taxes ought to be done away with, when they were detrimental to the health of the people.

stated, that a series of questions, intended to be put to the principal clergy of the Established Church, and to others possessing Church Property, had been drawn up with great propriety by the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical inquiry. One question, however, had been omitted, the answer to which, if such a question had been propounded, the noble Lord would see would have been most important. To remedy that defect, he should move, that an humble Address be presented to the Crown, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to direct the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to ascertain the localities of all Church Property, the amount of rent paid thereon (other than rack-rent), the probable number of acres in each place, and the actual annual value thereof.

said, that he did not think that this was a return at all called for at present, while the production of it would throw a considerable impediment in the way of the conclusion of the labours of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He understood the object of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, if object it had, to be, that the Commissioners should inquire into the value of Church Property, not merely with a view to ascertain its amount, as applicable to the support of the Church, but also to ascertain the amount of that property that was applicable to the support of private individuals. Now, it appeared to him that it was not at all necessary to have such a return. Besides, the hon. Gentleman's Motion certainly did not apply to the motion which had been before the House last night, for, as he understood it, the hon. Gentleman's Motion applied solely to England, and had no reference whatever to Ireland. Where, he would ask, was the necessity for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners going into a complete valuation of all the Church lands in England, which they must do in order to comply with the terms of the hon. Gentleman's Motion? What object would be gained by their going into an inquiry so extremely operose, and so utterly unnecessary? Such a return, in the end, would prove nothing with regard to the revenues of the Church; it would only show what fines were imposed upon the renewal of leases for Church Property, and what sums were given for long leases of such property. Was it necessary for such a purpose that they should go into a valuation of all the Ecclesiastical lands in the kingdom? Such an inquiry would not put that information into the hands of hon. Members which it would be desirable for them to obtain, at the same time it would occasion a great deal of trouble, and give rise to a large expenditure. He should, upon these grounds, oppose the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

wished to know from the noble Lord what he meant by those words in his Speech last night, which had been just referred to by the hon. member for Colchester, where he spoke of the proceeds that would be derived from letting out ecclesiastical lands in Ireland in perpetuity? Did the noble Lord mean that such proceeds should be devoted to ecclesiastical purposes or not?

said, that in the statement which he last night made upon the subject referred to, and which had been repeated on the same occasion by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, he meant to say this—that in his opinion all the sums of money that would be derivable from the increased value of the land occasioned by the mode of purchasing leases of Church Property in perpetuity that should be devised by Parliament, ought not to be considered Church Property, and that therefore, without infringing upon, or at all bringing into question, the principle, with regard to which he was aware that great difference of opinion existed,—namely, the principle of the applicability of Church Property to state purposes—he thought that the proceeds to which he had alluded should be considered as State Property, and applicable to such purposes as to Parliament should seem fit.

asked whether it was intended to diminish the number of the Irish Ecclesiastical Representative Peers in the House of Lords?

said, that it was not his intention to propose a diminution in the number of the Irish Bishops in the House of Lords. While he was upon his legs, he would remind hon. Members that it would be a much more convenient and satisfactory course for them to put such questions to him, in reference to the details of the measure, when they were in Committee upon it.

said, that he wished to put a question on this subject to the hon. member for Staffordshire, who, he believed, was one of the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He wished to know from him whether any of their inquiries had been directed to the objects which this motion had in view? No man could doubt, that if the Church of England was to come under the consideration of that House, as it was tolerably certain that it would, and that at no distant period—no man, he repeated, could doubt, if that should be the case, that it would be most desirable that the House should be put in possession of the most accurate and detailed information with regard to the amount and the value of the property be-longing to the Church of England. Such was the object of his hon. friend's present Motion, and it was most desirable, that the information to which it referred should be obtained. A return of this description was absolutely necessary, so contradictory were the opinions that were at present entertained with regard to the amount of Church Property. While some held that the Church Property would not be sufficient to pay all the clergy, he knew that it was held by others that the whole of the Church Property vested in the Bishops alone was more than sufficient to pay all the clergy. Suppose if that property which was derived by Bishops from the fines upon the renewal of leases, &c., should, instead of amounting to 1,000,000l., as was stated by some, amount to 10,000,000l., as was asserted by others, he (Mr. Hume) would put it to the noble Lord, if an amount so extravagantly great was required, as a remuneration for the duties which they performed, and if the greater portion of it should not become the property of the State? He would submit to the noble Lord that nothing was more desirable than that the House should obtain the fullest and the best information on this subject. Indeed, if he wanted to find a reason for supporting his hon. friend's Motion, he could not find a better one than that stated by the noble Lord himself in his Speech last night with regard to the Church of Ireland—namely, "that greater exaggerations existed upon that point (the amount of the revenues of the Irish Church) than upon any other political topic that had ever come under his (Lord Althorp's) consideration; and that he confessed, until he had looked into the subject himself, he had exaggerated even to himself the amount of the revenues of the Irish Established Church." Was it not equally necessary, in case similar exaggerations existed with reference to the Church revenues in England, that accurate information should be afforded to the House and the country upon the subject? If the Ecclesiastical Commissioners could afford them the information in question, it would be most desirable to obtain it from them. Of this he was well satisfied—that, in one way or another, this information must be obtained; but it would be more desirable to have it afforded through such a quarter.

said, that having been referred to by his hon. friend as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he had no hesitation in stating, that the inquiries made by the Commissioners with regard to the Church Property in the hands of bishops would not furnish the information respecting the value of Church Property, as contemplated by the Motion now before the House; and he rather apprehended that the conclusion of the labours of the Commission would be materially delayed if the Commissioners should be obliged to go into the inquiries proposed by the hon. member for Colchester. He would state, that the fullest possible information had been afforded by the Prelates in reply to the inquiries of the Commissioners; that, indeed, no individuals could have exhibited a more anxious desire to communicate every possible information with regard to it; and this he was justified in saying of the Commissioners—that they had pursued their inquiries with as much diligence, and with as great a solicitude to arrive at the truth, as if the Commission had been composed of the most thorough-going Reformers in that House.

said, that he did not apprehend that much delay would be caused in bringing the labours of the Commissioners to a close by calling upon them to produce the information which he now sought for by the present Motion. That such information should be possessed by the House he did not suppose would be denied, and he thought it would be as readily conceded that this was the proper period for obtaining it, when, as he supposed, they were about to make a searching reform into the Church Establishment of this country, as well as into the Church Establishment of Ireland. Sooner or later, such information must be laid before Parliament, and the only question was, when they were to have it. If the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was ready, it might be presented, and this information could be supplied in a supplementary report, which it would not take them much more than a month to make out. On account of what had fallen from the noble Lord, he (Mr. Harvey) would not press this Motion to a division upon the present occasion, but he would withdraw it for the purpose of giving notice of it for that day week, when he would certainly take the sense of the House upon it.

said, that in consequence of the publication in yesterday's papers of a correspondence which had taken place between a gallant friend of his and the First Lord of the Admiralty, in which that right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to refuse the command at Portsmouth to the gallant officer in question, assigning as his reason for so doing, that he considered a seat in Parliament inconsistent with the holding of such a situation, he wished to put a question to the first Lord of the Admiralty on the subject. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman, whether there existed any order of the Admiralty that precluded any naval officer holding a command from having at the same time a seat in Parliament; and, if so, whether such an order was not equally applicable to a gallant officer, a Member of that House, who had at present his flag in the river, and also to another gallant Member of that House, whose frigate was at present abroad, with an acting officer on board, as well as to his gallant friend, the member for Lymington? If there was not such an order of the Admiralty Board, he thought it rather hard that because a respectable body of constituents had elected his gallant friend as their representative, his gallant friend should, on that account, be refused the command at Portsmouth.

in reply to the question of the noble Marquess, had no hesitation in saying, that there was no order of the Admiralty Board, disqualifying naval officers who happened to be Members of that House from holding naval commands; but, at the same time, he did not suppose that it would be disputed that a discretion was vested in the Commissioners of the Admiralty as to the individuals whom they should select for the approbation of his Majesty to be appointed to situations with which great public duties were connected. He, conceiving that the discharge of the hon. Baronet's duties as a Member of Parliament would be inconsistent with the discharge of his duties as the officer holding the command at Portsmouth, certainly refused to lay his name before his Majesty for that situation; and if the noble Marquess had any fault to find with him for so doing, he could bring the matter in the shape of a substantive motion before the House. It was for the noble Marquess to consider whether such a course would be consistent with his duty as a Member of Parliament, and whether there had been anything in this instance, in the exercise of that discretion which was vested in the Commissioners of the Admiralty, to call for the interference of that House. With regard to the two cases of other officers mentioned by the noble Marquess, he had to state that in the instance of the first of them—namely, that of the gallant officer, a Member of that House, whose flag was at present in the river—the noble Marquess was perfectly right. In the second case he believed that the noble Marquess referred to the frigate Stag. He begged to state that in that instance the noble Marquess was in error, for the officer commanding that frigate at the present moment was not a Member of that House. Now, as to the gallant Admiral whose flag was in the river, he (Sir J. Graham) was sure that the House would at once perceive the difference that there was between removing an officer from a command because he happened to have been chosen by a body of constituents as their Representative in that House, and the selecting an officer who was a Member of that House to fill a high naval situation, where a constant residence on the spot was absolutely indispensable for the proper discharge of the duties connected with it. Subject dropped.

said, that upon the Motion of the right hon. member for Cambridge, a return had been last night ordered "of all benefices in Ireland in which divine service, according to the forms of the United Churches of England and Ireland has not been celebrated within the three years ending the 12th of February, 1833." Now, as benefices frequently consisted of two or more parishes in Ireland, he (Mr. O'Connell) would move for an amended return, by moving for a return of" all the parishes in Ireland" in which divine service had been celebrated within the period specified, so as to obtain that information which it was desirable the House should have upon the subject.

said, that such a return would afford a most fallacious species of information, as in the case of two united parishes attached to one benefice divine service could be only performed in one of them, though the parishioners of both parishes had the means of attending it. As he understood the proposition of the noble Lord last night, it was that where, in the instance of a benefice, no duty had been performed during the last three years, it would be in the power of certain Commissioners to suspend the appointment to such benefice, and it was for the purpose of obtaining accurate information upon that point that he (Mr. Goulburn) had moved for the return that was ordered. He did not understand the noble Lord to apply his proposition to parishes.

said, that the result of the two returns being made would be, that they would have correct information both as to the performance of duty in the benefices and in the different parishes. He knew, himself, of one benefice which was more than twenty-six miles in extent. There were about sixty Protestants in the parish at the extreme point of it, and in the other parish of which it consisted there was neither a Protestant nor a Protestant Church.

said, that his proposition certainly applied to benefices, and not to parishes, and there could be no doubt that where two or three parishes were united under one benefice, divine service might be, as he believed was usually the case, only performed in one of them; therefore it did appear to him that the return moved for by the learned Gentleman would give a fallacious view of the case. There might certainly occur extreme cases, such as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just mentioned, but the return he had moved for would not point out such cases, while it would enumerate parishes in which divine service had not been performed, though the parishioners might have had full means of attending divine service in the parishes united to them.

would withdraw his Motion for the present, for the purpose of shaping it in such a way as that the information which he desired should be laid before the House.

said, that he had postponed the Standing Orders with regard to the Committees upon religion, privileges, &c., for the purpose of taking the sense of the House, as to appointing them. That appointment bad been hitherto a matter of course; but if the sense of the House should be now against it, he should not press it. Indeed, those Committees, of whatever use they might have been of at a former period, had long since become altogether unnecessary. For instance, in a case of privilege, every one was aware that the usual and the better course was, to refer it to a Select Committee, rather than to the Standing Committee of Privileges, which consisted of almost all the Members of that House; he should therefore withdraw his Motion for the appointment of those Committees. The Speaker then proceeded to read the Standing Orders against the interference of peers at elections, against bribery, &c.

thought it would be well to retain such a Standing Committee as that upon public justice. To such a Committee the case of the Baron de Bode, which had been so often ineffectually brought before the House, might be very properly referred, as it was impossible for the Members of that House, without due inquiry and without official knowledge on the subject, to do justice in cases of that description.

said, that the Committee upon justice was like the others, a mere nominal one, and equally unnecessary. He agreed with the hon. Member, that it would be better to refer cases of the description he spoke of to a Committee, than to the whole House, but the best way to do that was always to move the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose. Who, for instance, would move that a ease of privilege should be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges, which was, in reality, the whole House, with this difference, that instead of meeting in that place, it met in the long gallery, so as to increase the confusion and difficulty attendant upon their coining to a conclusion? No case could be referred to one of those Standing Committees without such motion; and it therefore appeared to him that the end in view would be equally well obtained by referring a subject of this sort to a Select Committee, as by retaining the Standing Committee.

had witnessed most improper proceedings on former occasions, when persons interested in any subject brought it forward, and then, as a matter of course, named the members of their own Committee, in which case either the partial proceeding had to be permitted, or the nominated Committee to be swamped by the addition of a dozen other names. As Reform was so much the fashion, he hoped that the House, looking with proper jealousy to any attempt to render it a tribunal for personal purposes, would take some means of rectifying the abuse of which he complained.

perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Essex, that nothing could be more detrimental to the public interests, than the bringing forward cases of alleged grievance, which had no foundation in fact. With respect, however, to the particular case to which the hon. Member referred, towards the conclusion of his observations, he (Mr. Littleton) should be prepared, when the proper time arrived, to prove that it was a fit one for the consideration of the House. If the House were to adopt the hon. Member's proposition, of referring all cases of personal grievance to a general Committee of Justice, the practice would be attended with most pernicious results. This Committee was originally the creation of violent times, when the House of Commons aimed at usurping all the powers of the State. This Committee obtained petitions from all parts of the country, setting forth grievances of all descriptions; and by this means succeeded in exciting a hostile feeling against the Government, which led to the Revolution. The time was past in which such dangerous machinery was necessary. If it should go forth to the world that this House had instituted a Committee of Justice to which all complaints could be referred, not a petty sessions through-out the country would pass without some attorney recommending a petition to be sent to the House. If the hon. Member would look Over the Journals, he would find that, during a long course of time, there had been only a solitary instance of a reference to the Committee of Justice, and that appeared to have been made with respect to a case which would more properly have been referred to a Special Committee.

although he denied, that the Revolution had been at all brought about by the Standing Committees, agreed with his hon. friend that they might be advantageously abolished. In allusion to what had fallen from the hon. member for Essex, he observed that the Orders of the House interposed a sufficient bar against the abuse of which the hon. Gentleman complained. By those Orders no claim of a pecuniary nature could be received without the recommendation of an Officer of the Crown. When he (Mr. Goulburn) was in office, he had always acted on that principle; and he thought that any Officer of the Crown who neglected to do so was guilty of a breach of duty, in not withholding his recommendation, unless he was satisfied that the claim was a just one.

moved the following Order: "That if it shall appear that any person hath procured himself to be elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such person."

proposed two alterations in this Order. As it now stood the vengeance of the House was threatened only against the Member who might have attempted to procure his return by bribery. This denunciation was too limited. Not only the Member, but all other persons who had acted in this manner, and to such an end, should be punished. His object was two-fold—namely, to punish persons who had bribed for unsuccessful candidates, as well as those who had bribed for Members that had been returned. The alterations he meant to propose would meet both these cases. He, therefore, moved first, that the words "procured himself to be" be omitted, and the word "been" inserted in their place; and secondly, that the concluding words "such person" be omitted, and the words "all such persons as have been wilfully concerned in such bribery, or other corrupt practices," substituted in their place.

said, the expressions, which the hon. and learned Member would introduce into the Resolution, were not so decisive as those already contained in it; and they would give rise to a question before the Committee, as to whether the candidate himself, or other persons, had been guilty of bribery? If the indiscreet friends of a candidate should without his knowledge, and against his wish, resort to bribery in order to secure his return, it would be carrying the principle of constitutional severity too far to punish him for their misconduct.

said, if his first amendment stood alone, the alteration would be liable to the objection which the noble Lord had advanced; but if he would look at the effect of the two Amendments together, he would find that the Member could not be punished, unless he was himself cognizant of the bribery before and at the time when it took place. The words in the second Amendment, "all persons wilfully concerned in such bribery," would preclude the possibility of the injustice to which the noble Lord referred.

said, his objection fell to the ground, in consequence of the hon. and learned Member's explanation

observed, that the existing law on the subject required alteration. By the law as it now stood, there was no bribery unless there was a previous contract; so that money was not distributed until after the election, and then, although the electors who received 5l. or 10l. a-piece recovered it as a reward for their implied consent to vote in favour of the candidate, that was not considered bribery. He hoped his noble friend would not drop his intention of bringing this subject under the consideration of the House in the shape of a Bill. The question of treating also required revision. At present, candidates might treat before the test-day of the writ, but not after. He trusted that his noble friend would not relinquish his attention to these subjects, or the Reform of the House would be unavailing.

said, it struck him that there were but two effectual preventives against bribery. Respecting one of them there might be some doubt raised—namely, the imposition of an oath upon the candidates. The next was, that if an Act of Parliament was introduced to give the power of exhibiting interrogatories by the House to the candidate without releasing him from the necessity of answering questions that might implicate himself, that would be the most effectual mode of putting a stop to the corrupt system.

proposed, as one of the modes of punishment, to make the guilty candidate liable to the payment of all the expenses upon the bribery being proved. He could not but regard the practice of giving sumptuous breakfasts, dinners, and two or three pounds to individuals, as, in substance, bribery. His great object was to bring before the House cases of unsuccessful bribery, and which were not likely other wise to be brought forward. Successful cases of bribery were likely to be brought forward by the defeated candidate, and they would be more frequently brought before the House, if it were not for the outrageous expense attending them. No person could bring a case of bribery before the House from a remote part of the kingdom, or from a borough in Ireland, without putting himself to the expense of from 1,000l to 5,000l. There ought to be some cheaper mode of getting at justice. He proposed that there should be a Standing Committee of probably twelve hon. Members, entitled to take into consideration all undue interference of Peers and others in the election of Members to serve in Parliament. In his own county he had known no less than five, six, or seven Peers advertising in the public newspapers for a gentleman to come forward and stand for a county, they pledging themselves to support him. He could mention several cases in Ireland in which enormous sums had been refused by persons for their vote. In one instance, which he could name, an individual who was not worth twenty pounds in the world, had refused not less than 200l. for his vote.

as there were some difficulties on the subject, recommended his hon. and learned friend to postpone his Motion until Monday.

concurred in the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex; because they ought not to adopt so great a change as that now proposed, in so thin a House. The subject was one to which he formerly turned his attention; and drew up a resolution with respect to it very nearly resembling that now proposed by the hon. and learned Member. The objections which were stated to his resolution possessed, he thought, great weight. If a Committee were appointed to sit one day in every week to hear all matters which might be brought before it, he was afraid that it would open the door to numberless accusations from parties who had not sufficient evidence wherewith to proceed to an Election Committee; but who would avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded of making general charges for the purpose of producing an effect against their opponents. The result of his deliberation was, that after all, the best course was, to appoint a Committee only when a primâ facie case of bribery had been established. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member, that great encouragement was held out to the practice of corruption by the extraordinary degree of expense which attended the prosecution of an election petition. As long as this continued to be the case, it was not likely that any person would incur the expense of 3,000l. or 4,000l. by petitioning against a return, unless he expected to be able to seat himself. He was doubtful whether the interference of Peers, in the election of Members for Parliament, ought at all to come under the cognizance of the Committee, if it should be appointed. It was true that the House passed a resolution, as a Sessional Order, against such interference; but he never thought that that intervention could be altogether prevented. The degree of censure which might be cast upon Peers very much depended upon the side with respect to which their interference took place. He remembered that about a year and a-half ago, when great anxiety prevailed relative to the passing of the Reform Bill, two or three noble Peers of his acquaintance subscribed to the fund, for endeavouring to secure the return of a Whig candidate for the University of Cambridge, and their names actually appeared in the list of subscriptions advertised in the newspapers; but he heard no complaint whatever on the subject from any Member in the popular interest. He thought that any act of bribery or intimidation which interfered with the freedom of election was culpable, whether it proceeded from a Peer or a Commoner; but although he never objected to the resolution being passed against the interference of Peers, he did not wish to see its spirit carried further. No doubt the extract which the hon. member for Dublin had read from the speech of a noble Marquess, was very foolish; but if the House of Lords were to occupy their time in noticing every idle speech which might be directed against them, they would have sufficient to do. He hoped that House would not set them the example of entering into an inquiry respecting a foolish and absurd oration.

was glad to find that the noble Lord was strongly impressed with the justice of the view which he (Mr. O'Connell) took of the subject; and that the Solicitor General concurred in the same opinion. He trusted, therefore, that his Majesty's Ministers would avail themselves of the abundant means in their possession to put down the enormous evil of bribery—an evil which had even been increased by the Reform Bill, in consequence of the new classes of voters introduced by that measure. He begged leave for the present to withdraw his Motion.

wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) if the statement of the death of the Master of the Report Office, which he had read in the papers, were correct, and if the vacant appointment had been, or was intended to be, filled up? The emoluments of this situation amounted to 4,589l. 11s. 10d. per annum, which sum was paid out of the Court of Chancery. According to a former declaration of the noble Lord, all offices, as they fell vacant, were to be subject to revision; and he took it for granted that this was to be the case in the present instance. He would venture to throw out a suggestion, that inquiry should be made how far it was necessary to fill up the office at all; and if necessary, at what reduced salary. It was of great importance that these points should be strictly attended to in all cases when appointments fell vacant. At present, when any situation fell vacant in the colonies, or in the array or navy, the first intimation the public generally had of it was the appointment of a successor. He should give notice of a motion for a future day, to the effect, that all offices in the colonies, or in the military or civil service, that might fall vacant after that date, should be subject to such revision as that House, or the heads of the departments to which they belonged, should deem expedient.

was not aware of the vacancy mentioned by the hon. Member, or the amount of the emoluments attached to the situation.

seeing the right hon. President of the Board of Control in his place, wished to know when he thought it likely that he would be able to hiring the question of the East India Company's Charter under the consideration of the House? He ventured to suggest that the great importance of the question to every part of the kingdom, and the great interests connected with it, rendered it necessary that a subject of such magnitude should not be brought forward at a late period of the Session. He was aware that there were already questions before the House which would prevent this subject from being brought forward at present; but he was desirous of expressing his objection to have a subject of such vast importance brought forward at a late period of the Session. The noble Lord had stated that it was not his intention to move for the re-appointment of the Bank Committee, and he (Mr. Baring) must say it appeared to him that the House were already in possession of sufficient information upon the subject of the East-India question; indeed, his objection was rather to the abundance than the scantiness of evidence on the subject.

said, that the importance of the question to which the hon. Member had referred could not be overrated. It was at present under the consideration of the Government and the Court of Directors. The introduction of the subject into the House certainly would not be deferred to a late period of the Session; indeed, it was his intention to bring it before them at no distant period from the present time. Of course he could not pledge himself to the exact moment, but he expected it would be before Easter.

observed that a large portion of the evidence taken before the Committee in the last Parliament was not yet in the hands of Members, and desired to know when it would be produced.

replied, that the Report of the Committee had been furnished to Members a fortnight since. With respect to the evidence and the appendices, they were so voluminous that it had been found impossible to complete the printing of them. That, however, was not owing to any want of exertion on the part of the printer, for he had been indefatigable. Subject dropped.