moved the Second Reading of a Bill respecting the Employment of the Poor in the parish of Bosmere, Suffolk.

observed that he could not allow this Bill to pass without making some remarks on several of its provisions. Mr. Whitbread had formerly called the attention of the House to the subject; and he was glad to see the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. Buxton) in his place, who had done more than any man living for the emancipation of slaves. He hoped that he would continue his exertions, and would equally oppose a system which seemed to be growing up for making slaves of children, and others, who were dependent on parochial relief. The Bill proposed to give to the Guardians of the Poor of this institution the power of letting out the poor to hire to perform harvest-work, or any other species of labour. The wages of such labour was not to be appropriated to the benefit of the parties who performed it; but was to go to the general fund for the maintenance of the parish poor. He hoped that those hon. Members, who were favourable to the abolition of slavery, would pay some attention to this subject. There was another clause of the Bill which, in his opinion, was an infraction of the principles of justice. It proposed to enact, that any guardian who was found to have embezzled any property belonging to the institution, should be dismissed from his situation, and fined three times the amount of the property embezzled. Thus, in the case of the guardian, embezzle ment was made only the subject of a fine—a crime to be compromised by the payment of a sum of money. Now what was the case if a pauper were found to have committed a similar offence? Was he to be dismissed from the poor-house and mulcted? No. He was to be taken up and committed to the House of Correction at once. The superior was to be punished only civilly—the pauper was to be punished criminally. He made these remarks, in hopes that they might tend to direct attention to the matter, and to cause the points which he complained of to be corrected in the Committee.

presented a Petition, signed, as he stated, by 3,800 inhabitants of Perth and its neighbourhood, for the abolition of Slavery. The petitioners begged that the emancipation might be immediate. There was no man more convinced that slavery ought to be abolished than he was, but he feared instant abolition might lead to consequences that the petitioners would be the first to regret. He was however, clearly of opinion that some steps ought to be taken to make a commencement in that desirable object, that the public might have it in prospect that slavery would in the end be entirely abolished. He had most perfect confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, knowing as he did, and as the House did, that it was their wish to place (as far as practicable) the slaves in equality with the rest of our fellow-subjects. It ought, however, to be borne in mind that at this moment the whole produce of the West-India colonies was returned to them again in the shape of necessaries and comforts for the slaves. Proprietors of land in these colonies did not derive a single farthing of revenue (taking them as a body), and consequently, when any alteration should take place in regard to the treatment of the slaves, which might have the effect of diminishing the produce sent to this country, the slave would, exactly in the same proportion, suffer a diminution in the necessaries and comforts sent out to them from this country. He repeated that he had great confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, and would give them his support in any measure they might bring forward for the amelioration of the slaves.

said, he had been requested to present a petition complaining of great abuses in the Corporation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; by which it appeared how much such abuses might affect not only persons living in the place in which they prevailed, but the community at large. The petition, which was signed by 1,500 persons, had been unanimously agreed to at a large meeting, at the Court of Guild. The number of inhabitants at Newcastle was 42,676; that of free burgesses 619; but of those burgesses, only nine or ten had any thing to do with the election of the Mayor and Aldermen of the town. The petitioners also complained of a misapplication of the revenue of the town. That revenue amounted to 34,000l.; and he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the fact, that upwards of 20,000l. of that sum was raised by dues on shipping and coals; so that the other parts of the community were interested in the subject as well as the inhabitants of Newcastle. It appeared however, that, notwithstanding this large revenue, the Corporation of Newcastle had incurred a debt of 100,000l. It was also stated that in the course of the last eleven years, 217,000l. had been paid among different members of the Corporation. The petitioners prayed for an early inquiry into all these abuses. The hon. Gentleman then moved that the petition be referred to the Committee above stairs on Corporations.

rose, not to object to the Motion, but on the part of the Corporation of Newcastle, to entreat the House to suspend their opinion until an inquiry had taken place on the subject. He repeated what he stated the other evening, that the Corporation were ready to meet the fullest inquiry which could be instituted into their conduct. He would say a word on one or two of the points which had been touched upon by his hon. friend. It was true that the election of the Mayor and Aldermen was as his hon. friend had described it to be; but that was under an express provision of the charter. The debt of the Corporation, for which they paid interest, was 46,800l.; the remainder consisted of annuities redeemable at half their nominal amount. A great part of the debt of the Corporation arose from their having been obliged, a few years ago, to build a bridge over the Tyne, at an expense of 50,000l.

I merely rise to say that I believe the corruption of the Corporation of Newcastle to be as great as it possibly can be.

presented a Petition from Broadstairs, praying for an Act to compel the better observance of the Lord's Day.

said, that a number of petitions had been presented on this subject, but he had not heard the prayers of any of them read. The Clerk read the prayer of the Petition at length, complaining of the profanation of the Sabbath which at present prevailed.

did not see anything in the prayer of the petition which the law had not already provided for. Perhaps the petitioners did not know that there was a law in existence which inflicted penalties on persons who carried on their ordinary calling on the Lord's Day. As to preventing profanation, he was sure that no law could be passed which would better effect the purpose than the laws now in being; and he was also sure that any further law on the subject would be productive of more mischief than good.

thanked the hon. member for Oldham for having called the attention of the House to the subject, and expressed his concurrence in the statements made by the hon. Gentleman.

could not agree with the Report of the Committee of last Session on the subject. If that Report had merely declared that the labouring classes should not be called upon to work on the Sabbath, it would have met with his concurrence; but when it appeared that the object of the Committee was not only to put an end to all amusement, but to all that exercise so necessary to the smoke-dried population of large towns, he felt quite unable to concur in such an object. He thought that the Committee ought to be re-appointed, for the last Committee had taken evidence only on one side. Now evidence ought to be taken on both sides of the question; and he thought it would then appear that many of the statements made before the Committee of last year were wholly without foundation.

recommended hon. Members to read the evidence of the Bishop of London upon the subject, which entirely concurred with the views he had taken, and did not sanction the measure about to be brought forward.

was convinced of the impolicy of any measure which tended to destroy the necessary recreation of the labouring population.

felt satisfied, that they could not increase piety by Act of Parliament; nor could they enforce the love of God by legislative enactments. There were statutes at present in existence which inflicted punishments on those who carried on their calling on a Sunday. The morning of a Sunday, by a man of religious feelings, might be devoted to his religious duties, but the afternoon of that day was required by the labouring classes for relaxation. The course that had hitherto been pursued, tended very much to drive men into public houses.

recommended the re-appointment of the Committee.

said, the deliberations of the Committee had been conducted with no view of abridging the recreations of the people. Their sole object had been to protect the conscientious observer of the Lord's Day.

rose to present a petition from an individual named Brennan, belonging to the poorer classes, in the Queen's County, complaining of harsh and tyrannical treatment on the part of the police. He stated, that the petitioner was a man of industrious and peaceful habits and that he was warmly opposed to the Whitefeet, who had, on one occasion, attacked his house. He, however, repulsed them, shooting one of the party. Three others he subsequently prosecuted to conviction. Yet this was the man the police selected for the unjust exorcise of their authority. He verily believed the police were acting as the agents of higher authority, which was endeavouring to drive the people to such acts of desperation as might appear to justify those unconstitutional measures of coercion which they were now preparing for Ireland. The hon. Member then read a letter from Brennan, which complained of the police having put sentries on his house, in consequence of his having refused them admission, and stated that he was kept in the strictest and most vexatious custody—that he was denied even a drink of water—that the police would not suffer the cows to be milked, or dinner to be sent out to the labourers in the fields. The hon. Member also read a letter from the priest of his parish complaining of having his house searched by the police for arms. This was done under the authority of a warrant signed by Mr. Scott, a Magistrate, who, the hon. Member stated, upon the occasion of the last election, went to the uncle of a young man confined in gaol upon a criminal charge, and told him that if he would vote as he (the Magistrate) wished, his nephew should be let go free; but if he did not so vote let him mark the consequences to his nephew. The priest, he stated, complained that this act of the Magistrate was meant to insult him, and to put it out of his power to preserve the peace in the same manner as heretofore. The police, he added, behaved with great propriety, and expressed their sorrow at being sent on such an errand. The rev. gentleman also stated, that he had succeeded in obtaining fifty stand of arms from the peasantry, which he had given up to the proper authorities, but that, in consequence of the insult offered to him, he could not again think of receiving arms in his house. The hon. Gentleman begged particularly to call the attention of his Majesty's Government to these statements. He wished to show the spirit that actuated the Magistracy and the police in Ireland. Gentlemen who lived in England, where the poorest individual in the community could not be trampled upon any more than the richest, could have no idea of the use that was made of power in Ireland and when they heard of outrages committed by the peasantry in Ireland, they ought not to be surprised at their breaking out into acts of violence, when they knew the injustice and persecution to which they were subjected. He hoped that these circumstances would operate as a cogent and powerful reason against giving powers beyond the Constitution, when it was seen how the present ones guarded as they were, were trampled upon.

said it was impossible for him to enter into the discussion of a question of the merits of which neither he nor the House had ever heard until this petition was presented. As well as he understood from the hon. member for the Queen's County, this complaint related to some conduct of the police, in the course of proceedings for the recovery of tithes, and the hon. Member had, he was sure unintentionally, conveyed an insinuation that the Government sanctioned the police in exceeding the law. If such an impression existed in the hon. Gentleman's breast, he could assure him that no impression could be more utterly unfounded. He did not mean at all to complain of the hon. Gentleman, for he was sure he had not brought the matter forward in any spirit of unfairness, or with a view to create a wrong impression; but he was sure the hon. Gentleman would see, on reflection, that whenever he had occasion to complain of the conduct of the Magistrates, or of those responsible for the control of the police, it would be more convenient if he would previously inform those who were so responsible, in order that they might be able to make the necessary inquiries, and give such an explanation to him as might prevent the necessity of bringing the subject before the House; or subsequently give a full explanation to the House. With reference to this particular case he would only say, that if the hon. Gentleman would intrust him with the papers to which he referred, he would make the fullest inquiry into both cases, and would give the hon. Gentleman the fullest explanation; and would then leave it to his sense of propriety, having received the explanation, whether he would give it to the House, as he had given the statement. He was sure the hon. Gentleman did not see the mischief which might arise from bringing charges of this description, which could not be rebutted on the moment, and of which a refutation could scarcely be given without the previous warning of a specific motion.

said, never was anything more true than what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary as to the injustice of acting upon ex parte statements. He trusted the House would maintain the principle, and that when the measures of coercion to be proposed for Ireland were brought under discussion in that House they would reap the full benefit of it. Being on his legs, though he would not give a formal notice, he would mention his intention in case of any measure of coercion being sent from the other House to move for a call of the House on the day it should be proposed, and, if necessary, every day on which it might afterwards be considered.

would, in future, act upon the hint given by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. When a complaint had been made in the case of Constable Miller, no redress had been given. These matters required more attention from the Government than he thought they had lately received.

said, that he had sent an account to the right hon. Secretary, who could not, therefore, be taken unprepared respecting Miller, and he had heard that since he had done so, the inquiry he wished to obtain had not been granted, and the constable had been praised by the authorities. He wished to know whether the right hon. Secretary had received the communication, and if so, why he had not been communicated with?

really was not aware of having received any communication from the hon. Gentleman, and when it was said, that he was not taken unprepared, a great mistake was committed, for really he had never been taken more unaware. The hon. Member knew little of business when he imagined that on a general statement, unaccompanied by any name whatever of any of the parties, or of any place at which the subject matter of the complaints made were supposed to have occurred, an explanation could be instantly given. But to show how inconsiderately hon. Members sometimes complained, he might just mention, that a short time since a statement was made that the law was not fairly administered in Ireland, and the Government were called to account because a Grand Jury had ventured to ignore a bill sent before them by the hon. Member who made the complaint. As to the particular statement now referred to, he begged to say, that he had no recollection whatever of having received any communication from the hon. Gentleman.

hoped, that whenever these matters of complaint occurred, hon. Members would always be found to bring them under the consideration of the House.

said, it was the duty of Members to see that petitions sent by their constituents were duly laid before the House.

stated, that Brennan did apply to the Irish Government, but he got no redress. There was, therefore, no alternative but to come before the House. In the county of Kildare, which he represented, the system of Whitefeet had been introduced under the protection of the police themselves. That could be proved; at least, he knew that one of the individuals who had been known to be active among the Whitefeet was now in the police.

presented two Petitions from places in Ireland, praying for a revision of the Grand Jury System. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to bring forward his Motion on the subject of the Irish Grand Juries. In introducing that subject to the consideration of the House, he should occupy but a small portion of their time, as he had already called their attention to it, and had printed his Bills, in order that he might obtain from all those who were acquainted with the subject the benefit of their observations. The present system of Grand Jury presentments pressed most heavily on the industry of the people; there had been more complaints on that subject than on any other—there was, perhaps, none on which all classes of men were so united as to the evils to which it subjected the country; and yet the greatest difference of opinion existed with respect to the remedy to be proposed. Since the last time when the question was agitated in that House, he had done his utmost to become acquainted with the opinions of men of all political classes, in order to obtain information on the subject, but with no view whatever to bind them or himself to any particular opinion. He should not go into any great details in the statement he was about to make, for Irish Members were well acquainted with these details, and to give them now to the English Members for the first time would be useless; but as English Members required to have some statement of the duties of an Irish Grand Jury made to them, he would merely quote the substance of a Report made by a Committee on the subject. "The Grand Jury in Ireland, in addition to their criminal functions, had the whole administration of the civil affairs of the country intrusted to them. They fixed the salaries of public officers; they regulated prisons and houses of correction; they levied funds for the support of hospitals; they made and repaired roads and bridges, and they framed accounts of the expenses incurred in these matters. They had, in fact, not only to transact the business which was usually performed by an English Grand Jury, but they exercised, at the same time, many of the functions of the English Legislature. They determined what public works should be undertaken—what price should be paid for them, and who were the individuals that should undertake them, and be responsible for their completion. They settled the amount of the local taxation of the county, and, under their direction, it was levied from the actual occupiers of the land." The Report which he had just quoted showed the broad points of difference between the English and the Irish Grand Jury systems. The evils which flowed from that difference were, perhaps, obvious enough; but, at the same time, in looking at the remedy to be proposed, the House must bear in mind that the jurisdiction thus exercised was of a mixed nature, criminal and civil. The Grand Jury were summoned as they were in England; but, being summoned, they had imposed on them the duty, or rather possessed the power, of collecting, expending, and controlling the local taxation of Ireland, which amounted to a sum of 940,000l. a-year. But, out of that, there were some sums which, though levied by the Grand Jury, were not controlled by them in the expenditure. He alluded to what were well known in Ireland under the name of Compulsory Levies. In every investigation he had given to that part of the matter, he had been led to the conclusion, that the whole of the expenditure of money thus levied compulsorily by the Grand Jury should be put under their complete control. There was one other part over which they had at present a complete control, and for the expenditure of which he thought they should themselves be accountable. He did not know whether by law Grand Juries were re- sponsible; but every one in Ireland knew that, in fact, they were not so, and every Englishman was, perhaps, completely convinced of the same thing. He proposed that they should be made responsible. They exercised at present a control which was not subject to public opinion—their deliberations were carried on in private, and not under the eye of the public—their reasons for what they did were not made known—their presentments were in like manner secrets—and no check whatever could be placed upon them; they were able to divide themselves into individual committees, looking into each particular object which they wished to carry into effect, and the management of which was entirely intrusted to them by the Grand Jury, on account of their superior local knowledge. Without any intention of being corrupt, therefore, this necessarily led to corruption. It was impossible it should not be so. It was of the essence of the thing that it must. Again, the Grand Jury met in the Spring and Summer Assizes, to consider of the civil and criminal business of the county. They had but a limited period allowed them; so short, indeed, that it was impossible they could duly discharge all the important duties with which they were intrusted. He had never heard any charge of corruption against the Grand Jury in criminal cases. He had heard of it, with respect to civil matters, which, perhaps, might be excused, as it was impossible, considering the little time they had to look into each case, that they could give to each one a full deliberation. It was beyond doubt true, that, under the cover of the responsibility obtained by the sanction of the whole body on whom the odium, though not the benefit, of the corruption devolved, many very improper acts were actually perpetrated. What, then, were the points of his plan to obviate the evils, the existence of which he had thus sketched? In the first place, there was a want among the Grand Jury of that knowledge of practice necessary to expedite the details of business—in the next, there was a want of the effect of public opinion in checking the Grand Jury in the exercise of their rights—in the third place, there was a want of sufficient time for them to perform their multiplied functions—so that even with the best intentions it was very possible they might be sometimes wrong—and, in the last place, there was that objection to the system arising from that broad and palpable inducement to corruption created by the Grand Jury having the power, not only of appointing the execution of public works, and the amount of expense that should be incurred on their behalf, but of appointing the individuals who were to perform, and to whom all the advantage was to be given. An instance of the mode in which corruption was exercised, in consequence of these powers of the Grand Jury, might be given in the making of roads. A gentleman who wanted a road made on his estate, or who wanted employment for his labourers, would make a presentment—a committee would be appointed—he would get his own name, and perhaps that of a friend, put upon this committee, and he would thus have the management of the whole affair. He would then employ his own labourers—would pay them out of the funds levied upon the county, and by these means would enable them to pay him out of the salary they thus received from the county at large a rent which depended not on the profits of the holding itself, but on the amount of the money he was enabled to procure them, on account of labours in public works. This was one of the points to which particular attention ought to be directed. Two years ago he had brought in a bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Grand Juries in Ireland. The utility of such a work was known to all who were conversant with the real state of Ireland. He now proposed, first, to make the necessary alterations in the system, and then to consolidate the result of these alterations into one Act, and this he did on account of the difficulty of bringing, in the first instance, all the required enactments into one measure. This was, he was happy to say, no party question. It was simply one of a practical nature, and the House would have to say whether it was or was not possible, with advantage to the country, to separate the civil and criminal administration of the laws in the functions of the Grand Jury? He was not prepared to submit to the House a measure for taking out of the control of the Grand Jury, more than a certain degree of the powers they exercised in the civil jurisdiction of the country. To do more, would not, he thought, be beneficial; nor did ha believe that it would meet with the concurrence of the Irish Members. He felt that the civil business of the country must suffer from being mixed, as it now was, with the criminal. He should be glad if it were found practicable to introduce any provision by which a more general representation of the various parts of each county could be procured. This was a matter of extreme difficulty, in consequence of the very different circumstances of the counties of Ireland; but he had prepared a clause, making it mandatory upon the High Sheriff to put upon the panel some one juror from each of the Baronies of the County, and afterwards to fill up the remainder at his discretion. He wished thus to secure to each part of a county, an opportunity of stating its case. The next complaint against the present system was, the want of publicity; and he proposed to remedy the evil in a manner which he thought would be satisfactory, by providing at once that every presentment should be separately canvassed in open Court, before it was decided by the Grand Jury. Although it was not his intention to remove from the Grand Jury, the ultimate control over the expenditure of the county, he wished that they should be checked in the exercise of this jurisdiction. The 59th George 3rd was passed with this object, and without stopping to inquire in what degree it had or had not been effectual, he should repeal the provisions of that Statute, and propose to separate the consideration of presentments chargeable upon counties at large from those which related to particular districts. The Grand Jury of the county for this purpose, was to appoint a day on which a Special Sessions should be held of all the Magistrates of the county, without distinction of qualification. This change would approximate the system to that of England—a circumstance at all times desirable, and which he hoped hereafter to see carried to such an extent, that the practice of both England and Ireland would exactly conform. The Magistrates were to meet on the day fixed, and any presentments first authorised by them, should subsequently be submitted to the Grand Jury; but any presentment negatived at this Petty Sessions should not come before the Grand Jury at all. Thus the Grand Jury would have the power of negativing what had been affirmed, but could not affirm what had been negatived. The benefit of this change would of course depend much upon the credit due to the previous Court of Inquiry. And here he was about to suggest one of the most material improvements. One of the best proofs of the growing prosperity of Ireland was, that the farmers of that country were undoubtedly rising in the scale of society; they were obtaining a greater degree of intelligence and influence, and ought to possess a greater check over the public expenditure. He did not think it safe at present to introduce the principle of election: he thought it would lead to corruption, confusion, and irritation in the small circles to which it would necessarily be confined. He was not sure whether he had explained, that besides the Special Session to take into consideration, works chargeable upon the county at large, adjourned Sessions should be held in each barony or half barony, to consider the works, their expense, and expediency, for the particular district. In these Sessions, he would claim the authority and influence of the Irish farmers, and he thought that their local knowledge would peculiarly qualify them to sit as judges upon such subjects. He, therefore, proposed that the Grand Jury should fix upon a certain number of the highest rate payers—that half the names thus chosen should be drawn, and that they should sit with the Magistrates and aid in the preliminary decision. It would be seen that this was a considerable addition of power given to the class of farmers. The evils of irresponsibility in the disbursement of money were so clearly understood, that he need not expatiate upon them, and he proposed that from the Grand Jury the power should be taken away, of fixing who should perform the work on which they had decided. The question having been discussed at the Petty Sessions, and before the Grand Jury, and the nature of the work and the maximum of expenditure having been decided, there the functions of the Grand Jury ought to cease. A day ought then to be fixed, on which tenders should be made for the performance of the under-taking, and in every case, with very few and peculiar exceptions, the person furnishing the lowest tenders, on giving security, should have the contract. He (Mr. Stanley) had taken the liberty of circulating queries in order to ascertain the opinions of different persons well-informed on these and other matters connected with the subject, and a greater diversity of opinion he never recollected; but there was hardly a dissentient voice to the proposition, that the principle of tenders and contracts should be resorted to for public works of this kind. He believed that there was only one more material topic with which it was necessary to trouble the House. He should suggest the appointment in each county of an officer, whose duties would be important and responsible; he must be an engineer, and approved by the Board of Engineers, and his situation would be that of County Surveyor. He would be required to attend Grand Juries and Petty Sessions, to report on the expediency and probable cost of any undertaking; and perhaps no sums ought to be paid without the certificate of this responsible officer that the work had been properly performed. Further, he should be called upon to report to the Grand Jury, not only on contracts fulfilled, but on the progress of the public works in each county. From the appointment of such an officer, he (Mr. Stanley) anticipated the most beneficial results, while he believed, that the advantages would infinitely exceed the amount of his salary. He need not say, that this Surveyor must not be allowed to take any contract, or to have the slightest interest, direct or indirect, in any of the works he is appointed to superintend. Another point was of much importance, and the Committee to which he should submit the measure ought carefully to consider its details; it was, that a provision should be made that in all leases the expense of the County Cess should be thrown, not upon the tenant, but upon the landlord. The tenant ought, in all instances, to have the power of deducting it from the rent; and although landlords might find means to defeat this provision, inasmuch as Parliament could not control contracts of the kind between individuals, yet care ought to be taken that the tenant should be fully aware, at the time he entered into his engagement, of the maximum of burden he was taking upon himself. Inasmuch as the County Cess was fluctuating and uncertain, it ought not to be paid by the tenant, and such protection as legislative enactments could give, ought to be extended to him. It was but fair that the burden should be sustained by the party who was mainly instrumental in fixing the amount. The Baronial Sessions would have the power of deciding regarding gullets and baronial roads, and the contractors for the works ought, in all cases, to be paid in money, and not in goods, their accounts being always open to the inspection of the surveyor. When a part of the work had been satisfactorily performed, a part of the money to be paid for it ought to be advanced by the County Treasurer; and although Treasurers did not come exactly within the scope of the Bill, it was indispensable that the known abuses that prevailed should, as far as possible, be remedied. Therefore it was his wish to introduce a clause, enabling the Session to appoint a Committee instead of a County Treasurer, and to advance sums for work performed from a fund to be placed in the Bank for the purpose. Too large balances had often been left under the control of County Treasurers, and defaulters had been numerous. At the present moment it was their practice to employ the public money in their hands in discounting bills, and in other modes, by which they consulted their private advantage, not unfrequently to the public detriment. Another question was not unworthy the attention of Parliament, although he had not introduced a clause concerning it in the Bill, namely, whether it was not expedient to take the great mail-coach roads of Ireland out of the control of Grand Juries, and to invest the whole in some public board. He only threw this out for consideration, for, as he had stated, he was not prepared with any specific proposition, although some progress had been made toward this end in the Public Works' Bill of the year before last. He had now gone through the whole of the points he proposed to submit to the Committee. The alteration of the present system might not, perhaps, go so far as some hon. Gentlemen might desire; but he assured those who were anxious to go further, that his object had been to ascertain and reach that point on which the opinions of most men in Ireland coincided. He wished to introduce such amendments as were practicable, as well as desirable; and no man would deny, that what he had suggested would amount to great and substantial improvements. Perhaps the greatest gain of all would be in the complete publicity given to the proceedings of Grand Juries. If the House should think that what he had offered amounted to valuable and serviceable amendments of the present system, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill, and, in the proper stage, refer the whole subject to a Select Committee, in which he invited discussion, and should be prepared to meet every suggestion, and, as far as possible, reply to every objection. He should be extremely happy to obtain the concurrence and sanction of all whose local knowledge gave them the means of judging upon this important subject. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to Grand Juries in Ireland.

wished to make only a few brief observations; and first he would remark, that in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman had understated the evils of the present system. It possessed all the deleterious ingredients that could belong to it, and encouraged jobbing by rendering it safe. It ought not to be forgotten, also, that it operated exclusively upon the occupiers of the soil, and was now admitted on all hands to be a cruel practical grievance. Some estates had been purchased, and many freed from encumbrances, merely by the owners sitting upon Grand Juries; and it at last became a point of honour not to vote against any gentleman's presentment. The main point on which he (Mr. O'Connell) differed from the right hon. Gentleman, was on the non-separation of the criminal and civil jurisdiction of Grand Juries. He saw no reason why the criminal jurisdiction of Grand Juries should continue at all; it appeared to him nothing but an absurdity, for a prima facie case ought to be made out before the offender was sent to prison. He should be glad, therefore, to see a Bill brought in entirely to abolish that branch of the duties of Grand Juries. As to the civil jurisdiction, the object of the right hon. Gentleman was to obtain a representation on a Grand Jury of each part of a county; and it was certainly true that the principle of a Grand Jury should be a principle of representation. The Grand Jury possessed the power of taxation, and they exercised it to the extent of one million out of sixteen millions, which was the whole rental of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Connell) contended, therefore, that every rate-payer ought to have a voice in the election of the Grand Jurors; for the Sheriff was irresponsible, and had no interest in making a good selection. Two persons in every barony ought to be elected by the rate-payers to sit upon the Grand Jury of the county; and the right hon. Gentleman never would give satisfaction, until he introduced the principle of actual and virtual representation. He (Mr. O'Connell) protested against the universal admission of Magistrates to sit at Special Sessions, and objected to the qualification of only 300l. a year. Some of the details in the plan of the right hon. Gentleman he highly approved, but others he thought impracticable. It was idle to suppose, that he would gain anything by publicity, if, after providing for the open discussion of a question, he allowed the Grand Jury to retire, and in secret to decide. This was blowing hot and cold, and destroying the very principle professed to be established. These were matters that could be discussed in the Committee, as well as the futile attempt (for such he must with all respect call it) to throw upon landlords the payment of the County Cess. At best it could only be prospective, if it did any good; but he feared it would do much harm, by inducing the landlords of Ireland not to grant leases. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for many improvements of the Grand Jury Laws, and for the tone and temper in which he had brought them forward. Though differing from the right hon. Gentleman on some points, he still thought any attempt to improve the state of the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland deserved the favourable consideration of the House.

said, he rose to add his meed to the approbation bestowed by the hon. and learned Member on the tone and temper displayed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, in introducing the present measure. He could not, however, avoid expressing his regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, should have permitted himself to cast such unmerited imputations upon the Grand Jurors and High Sheriffs in Ireland; but he (Mr. Lefroy) could not suffer that respectable class of persons to He under the imputations thus cast upon them, without assuring the House that they were undeserved. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that Grand Jurors in Ireland had made fortunes by jobbing: a general charge of that nature was easily made; but it did appear to him that it would be more becoming, if the hon. and learned Member, in place of casting a general imputation upon an honourable and highly respectable class of persons, had instanced a particular case and thereby given an opportunity to the House of judging upon what foundation he rested his charge. He had had the honour of holding his Majesty's commission on circuit for a space of eight or nine years, and having, consequently, had great experience of the manner in which Grand Jurors discharged their duty, he had no hesitation in stating, that he never saw anything in their conduct that could warrant the hon. and learned Gentleman in preferring the charge against them which he had made. He agreed with the right hon. Secretary, that Grand Jurors had not time for the discharge of the duties imposed upon them, but he denied that the decisions to which, they came were influenced by partiality. Formerly, perhaps, such abuses might have existed; but, of late years, he emphatically denied that such imputations were warranted. With respect to the manner in which the High Sheriffs summoned the Grand Jurors, it was the invariable habit for the Sheriffs to summon gentlemen of the greatest wealth and respectability in the county. A certain number of these gentlemen were in each Grand Jury, but as new inhabitants came into the county, or as property fluctuated, new men were added to the panel. He would, therefore, assert, that never was a more groundless charge preferred against any body of men than that made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, against the High Sheriffs of Ireland. With respect to the proposal made by the hon. and learned Gentleman of doing away with the interference of Grand Jurors in criminal cases, he (Mr. Lefroy) trusted that so mischievous a novelty would not be listened to in that House. He was astonished to find the hon. and learned Gentleman, who talked so much of liberty, an advocate for doing away in criminal cases with so valuable a protection to the subject as rendering it imperative upon a prosecutor to make out a prima facie case before a person could be put on his trial. He (Mr. Lefroy) rejoiced to find that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had not been led away by the fanciful speculations in which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had indulged, or disposed to introduce novelties at variance with our law, as well as at variance with common sense. Another novelty, which the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared anxious to have introduced, was with respect to presentments. If the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, the discussion upon each presentment would equal an association debate, and would occupy so much time that the business of the assizes could not be proceeded with. With respect to one of the clauses proposed by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, namely, of giving a right to farmers to vote, he would beg leave to suggest that, when coupled with other provisions of the Bill, vesting such a power in the farmers would be extremely objectionable. If nothing could be presented by the Grand Jury but what had previously passed at special sessions, and the farmers, who would always constitute a majority at the sessions, were to have votes there, it would, in effect, place the power of taxation in the hands of the farmers. He thought it would be, also, well worthy of consideration to inquire, whether it would be wise to confine to the special sessions the exclusive right of originating presentments. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman had intimated his intention of sending the Bill before a Select Committee, that provision, as well as others which he (Mr. Lefroy) considered open to objection, could be fully discussed. With respect to that portion of the plan which proposed transferring the payment of the cess from the tenants to the landlords, he saw great difficulty in carrying it into execution. He did not know how existing leases were to be dealt with. If a difference were to be made between the holders of present and future leases, dissatisfaction would be sure to arise, for one portion of the tenantry would be placed on a different footing from the other. It would be difficult so to legislate, as to future leases, as to prevent the provisions of the Act being evaded, as had been done in respect to tithes. If baronial presentments were left m the hands of the farmers, he thought it an additional reason why that portion of the measure should be subject to revision. It must, he thought, be admitted, that unless the House could legislate effectually, it would be better to have the law as it stood, and not force persons to deal in a particular way on a particular subject. The consequence of the proposed measure would be, that it would be evaded by the griping landlord, while the fair and conscientious landlord would alone suffer under the hardship of the enactment. The hon. and learned Member concluded by stating, that the right hon. Secretary was entitled to the thanks of the Irish Members generally, for the fairness of his proposal.

said, he felt most happy in joining his meed of praise to that already bestowed upon the right hon. Secretary, and to which he (Colonel Conolly) thought him so justly entitled. The right hon. Gentleman had not only bestowed great labour upon the measure, but had, with great consideration, consulted men of all parties where practical knowledge enabled them to enlighten his mind upon a subject of such vast importance. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pardon him for the few observations he was about to make; but he (Colonel Conolly) must be permitted to deny the truth of the general imputation cast upon the conduct of the Grand Jurors of Ireland. The House, probably, was not aware that a great portion of the charges levied by Grand Juries in Ireland were of a compulsory nature, and that they were obliged to make presentments, without having a right of scrutiny; and yet the Grand Jurors were obliged to bear all the odium of the burthens laid upon the county, as if it were optional with them whether or no they should be imposed. As an old Grand Juror himself, be thought it incumbent upon him to vindicate himself, as well as those with whom he had had the happiness to act, from the imputation which had that night been cast upon the Grand Jurors of Ireland generally. It had been his fate, upon one occasion, to free the county which he had the honour of representing from an overcharge of 1,600l.; and he had invariably raised his voice against making a presentment for monies, without a scrutiny into the manner in which those monies were disbursed. The police establishment entailed a very heavy expense upon the counties. He did not, however, object to that expense. He thought the police a most admirable and efficient force, which mainly contributed to the preservation of life and property in Ireland. He regretted that a superannuated fund was not established for the purpose of rewarding those meritorious men. The system had been adopted in public offices, and might, he thought, be extended to the police with considerable advantage. With respect to the Lunatic Asylums, they also entailed a very heavy expense upon the county. He thought a very expensive system had been adopted with regard to them—more so, indeed, than the exigencies of the case demanded. The quantity of relief afforded was not proportioned to the charge with which the county was burthened. The right hon. Secretary, in the course of his speech, had not alluded in any way to the expenses entailed on the several counties by the payment of the salaries of public officers. He was ready to pay all public officers liberally, but he thought the stipends allowed to the treasurers and clerks of the Crown and Peace, in some counties, too large; and, except in the county of Cork, he could see no reason why the salary should be doubled. He thought the present salaries were more than equivalent to the duties performed—they were, in fact, increased one-half by a recent Act of Parliament. He concurred in the view taken by his hon. and learned friend, the member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy), in deprecating that part of the measure which gave the farmers concurrent power with the Magistrates. He had great respect for the farmers; but he thought it not advisable to place them on the same bench, and give them the same jurisdiction enjoyed by the Magistrates. He would give the farmers an opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to the necessity of the works to be undertaken, but he would not render their decisions conclusive. If the farmers were to be the cess-payers, the thing might be otherwise, but he could not see the security or advantage to be derived by making it compulsory upon the landlords to pay, and leaving the tenants the power of imposing the tax. If the person imposing the tax were to pay it—if the occupier of the land were the person to pay the cess, then he (Colonel Conolly) would give him extensive powers in imposing it. But as the matter stood, he was confident the right hon. Secretary would see the necessity of altering his plan. Both branches of his proposition, he thought, could not, in justice, be suffered to exist—let it be either one way or the other, and he (Colonel Conolly) thought the measure would prove most salutary. There was another point connected with the criminal jurisdiction of Grand Juries to which he begged leave to refer. He thought much good would be effected, if the period for holding the assizes were more equally divided. He knew of an instance in one of the counties with which he was connected (Kildare), in which a man had been committed to prison shortly after the termination of one assize, and was kept in jail for nine months until the Judges again went circuit, when he was found to be innocent of the crime with which he was charged. If the Judges would go circuit towards the end of the long vacation, in place of at the commencement of it, the assizes would then be held regularly every six months—the convenience of the public would be consulted, and, as in the instance to which he had alluded, persons charged with crime would have an earlier opportunity of proving their innocence than they were afforded under the present system. There were various other points in the measure to which he wished to advert; but, as other opportunities would occur for his doing so, he should not trespass further upon the attention of the House at present. He could not, however, resume his seat without again expressing his general approbation of the measure, and of offering his personal thanks to the right hon. Secretary for introducing it.

wished also to add his approbation to the praise already offered to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the great improvements which he intended to introduce, but he could not help feeling some regret, that the right hon. Gentleman had not confined himself to remedial measures. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for the University of Dublin, had objected to the measure as one of novelty; he confessed that, for his part, he could not regard the character of novelty which it bore as detracting in the slightest degree from its merits. There did not, and there could not, exist any sound reason why we should not improve the state of our law, even at the expense of introducing some novelty. He was sure there was little to complain of on the score of novelty in that Bill, when they had before them such a striking novelty as the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself in a Reformed Parliament. As to the proposition itself of the right hon. Gentleman, it had for the most part his approbation.

merely rose to offer the tribute of his humble approbation to the measure proposed by the right hon. Se- cretary for Ireland. While he gave that approbation, he begged leave to say, that he did not entirely concur in all the details, and would, at another time, state the parts to which he objected. The ancient Grand Jury system was vicious, and should be founded upon one of Representation. Persons who held official authority in their several districts should be elected by those who had a voice in the Legislature. The gallant Colonel, after remarking that the converting of small farms in Ireland into large ones would tend to depopulate that country, was proceeding to propound his principles of political economy, when

rose to order, and said, that as the hon. and gallant Member seemed to be travelling a little out of his way, he would find, perhaps, a more propitious time to make his objections to the parts of the measure that did not meet with his approbation.

meant to be extremely brief, and wondered that there could be any Gentlemen who were of opinion that Grand Juries were immaculate. He had heard some hon. Members say so that evening, and it was the first time he heard such an opinion given in any company. He gave the right hon. Secretary for Ireland great credit for his proposed measure, and he trusted that it would be gratefully received by all classes in Ireland.

also thought, that the measure was one fraught with great benefit, and he begged to return his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for proposing it.

said, that though he had to return thanks for the measure proposed, he could not refrain from denouning the Grand Jury system as it had hitherto existed. He represented one of the smallest counties in Ireland (Leitrim), and he could say, that the roads of it were impassable, except in those parts of it where the Grand Jurors resided. There they were kept in such a high state of repair, that the county was not able to pay the expenses of them. He was aware that the right hon. Secretary might have proposed a more effective measure, but as the Bill would be a decided improvement, he would give it his support.

, whilst he admitted the necessity of improvement in the Grand Jury laws, could not go to the full extent with those who absolutely condemned the principle of Grand Jury assessments. He thought it would be a beneficial improvement if the Sheriff was bound to select persons from different baronies to serve on the Grand Juries, so that whenever a local improvement was proposed, it might be discussed, and either adopted or rejected by those personally acquainted with its utility.

admitted that the proposed Bill would be an improvement upon a bad system; but, discussing a question of that kind, might they not consider whether the institution of Grand Juries—in relation to their criminal jurisdiction—were beneficial? In his opinion, their assistance was perfectly unnecessary in the administration of criminal justice; and it was with some satisfaction that he heard the hon. and learned member for the city of Dublin throw out the idea; which was immediately and earnestly opposed by the hon. member for the University of Dublin, simply upon the grounds of its being a "novelty;" as if every change was not, at first, of necessity a novelty. It was said that Grand Juries were a protection to the innocent, but there was another object to be obtained by the administration of criminal justice—the bringing the guilty to justice. He appealed to every one who knew anything of the operation of Grand Juries, whether bills of indictment, containing very strong proofs against the parties accused, had not been thrown out by these Juries? Their inquiries were conducted in private, by men who were not lawyers: the case was seldom, if ever, fully brought before them; witnesses were often unwilling to attend, and the Grand Jury had no power to compel them; and even if they did attend, they were not pressed to tell the truth, as they were before a Magistrate; and the consequence was, that in many instances, offenders who ought to be brought to trial were allowed to escape. He could mention instances within his own knowledge in which crimes had escaped punishment merely from the circumstance of the Grand Jury being unacquainted with the law. A recent instance of this kind was fresh in his memory. A bill was presented against a person for arson. It was proved that he was not actually present at the fire but that he was near enough to watch it. That, by law, was sufficient to render him, constructively, guilty of the crime. The Grand Jury, however, because he was ten yards off, and did not actually set fire to the stacks—ignored the bill. He was then admitted King's evidence; and a second bill was presented against his companions as accessaries, but when called upon, he refused to say anything, and all the parties were acquitted. This was not a singular instance. The Grand Jury, perhaps, might have been valuable in early times when little communication existed between the different portions of a county, and when the Magistrates performed very different functions from those which now devolved upon them—in those times Grand Juries might have been necessary; but, in the present day, they were wholly unnecessary; they were an encumbrance—an impediment in the way of justice. All the protection which Grand Juries afford to the innocent—all the advantage derived from a man's not being placed upon trial without sufficient ground—would be obtained by uniting two or three Magistrates together, and compelling them to make a preliminary inquiry. By such an arrangement the advantage of responsibility would be obtained. There was no process by which Grand Juries could compel the attendance of witnesses. The consequence was, that if any prejudice existed in any county, with respect to a particular transaction, persons would not come forward to give testimony, and a denial of justice was the result. For example, the outrage of 1819, commonly known by the name of the Manchester massacre was a state in point. The feelings of the Grand Jurors, to whom the indictments were preferred, were so hostile to those persons on whom these outrages had been committed, that every bill that was preferred against the yeomanry was ignored by them, and consequently the merits of that affair were never fairly brought before a Court of Justice. He hoped that the present Bill would prove beneficial to Ireland, although he could not help entertaining very considerable doubts on that head.

expressed the satisfaction he felt at the explanation given by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland with respect to this Bill, which met with his cordial approbation.

thought, that the measure of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would give great satisfaction in that country, and that all the persons whose interests were likely to be affected by the Grand-Jury system would be more particularly pleased with it He had had many opportunities of acting on Grand Juries in Ireland for years. He was, therefore, well qualified to give an opinion relative to the present measure, which he thought would relieve persons who were in the situation of Grand Jurors there from a weight of responsibility which it was impossible for them to exercise with satisfaction to themselves or their countrymen. He admitted that there did exist some abuses in the present system of Grand Jurors, but he must claim for that particular body with which he was connected the merit of partaking in as small a degree as any other similar body in Ireland of the evils complained of. He admitted also that there was a necessity for applying some remedy to those abuses, and the present Bill, in his opinion, was calculated to do so, if as he felt confident it would be, it was fairly and properly treated in the Committee; at the same time he would beg to suggest that the qualification for the Magistracy ought to continue as it now was fixed at the Petty Sessions, and that the same qualification ought to be extended to Grand Jurors. He had ever entertained an opinion, that the cess-payer ought to have a voice in the election of those persons by whom the cess was levied, and this necessity had been partly met already by giving the landholders a voice in passing every presentment in the manner suggested by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. He would not detain the House any further, but should reserve any future observations on this Bill for the period when it should be in Committee.

said, that he had given notice of a Motion for the abolition of Tithes in Ireland. Since he had given that notice, a plan of Church Reform for Ireland had been suggested by his Majesty's Ministers. That plan did not include any relief to the people of Ireland with respect to tithes at the present period; nor, in what bad been announced to the House, had it yet been explained what was to be done with regard to tithes, or how the surplus revenue arising from the Ecclesiastical Reforms was intended to be appropriated; but as the plan of his Majesty's Ministers had only been explained in part, as the whole details were not before the House, he thought it would be better for him, under the circumstances, not to interfere with a measure of so great importance, which was brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers, and had the sanction, he believed, of a great majority of the House. He would not, therefore, bring the subject under discussion until the whole details of the plan of his Majesty's Ministers should be before the House, and would put off his Motion on the subject till the 9th May. He had also given notice of a second motion respecting the Vestry Cess. He had been fortified in his opinion respecting that impost by the arrangements which were proposed by Ministers in the bill which had been brought in by his Majesty's Ministers. Part of their plan went to accomplish those very objects which he had in view. Still he should wish to obtain leave to bring in a bill, because the subject was entirely distinct from the other matters included in the provisions of his Majesty's Ministers. There were several statutes which were applicable to Ireland and not to England, which it was desirable to have repealed. He wished to leave the matter unembarrassed by other measures. He wanted no portion of the merit of the great change which was about to be effected in the Irish Church, and it was not with any view of that kind that he gave the notice in question. If it were intended to oppose that Motion, therefore, he would not press it to a division.

said, he thought it still more desirable to postpone the Motion which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had now brought forward. It was quite clear, that the statutes which applied exclusively to Ireland, and to which he had referred, might be repealed by the Bill. He, therefore, thought it most desirable that the whole enactment should be included in one Bill. When the hon. and learned Member saw the Bill he would be able to judge whether any other measure were necessary.

rose pursuant to notice to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws respecting Letters-patent for inventions. He must claim the indulgence of the House for a short period, as the subject was one of the greatest importance —not merely to individuals, but to the public at large. He asked for the indulgence of the House, on the ground that the subject was encompassed with many difficulties, and there had not been any legislative enactment respecting it since the reign of James 1st. From that period down to the present time, the law-books had become filled with cases arising from the doubt and obscurity in which the law for the regulation of patents is involved. That enactment was only a clause in the Statute of the 21st James 1st, called the "Act of Monopolies," not above a dozen lines in extent; but from it the whole system of patents for inventions sprang. By that clause the King was empowered to grant, for the term of fourteen years, his letters-patent to the first and true inventor of such new manufactures, as other persons did not use in this country. In the reign of Queen Anne, a condition was introduced, providing that a description, or specification, of the invention should be lodged and enrolled in the Court of Chancery. There was, also, another condition, that no patent should be assigned to more than five persons, and that if an assignment were made to more than five, the patent to be void. From these three sources all the decisions by which inventions and discoveries were protected had flowed. In the Courts of Law and Equity, these decisions have fluctuated in doubt and uncertainty, and therefore he proposed in the Bill he asked leave to introduce, to take into consideration almost every one of the rules of law as to patents. To begin with the inventor. He should be able to show, that the laws relative to him might be much improved. The word "inventor," in the Statute of James, had been considered by the Judges to mean, not only the first inventor, but the first publisher, being also the inventor; and not only the first inventor or publisher, but also the first importer of an invention from abroad. He proposed to go one step further, and to provide, that an Englishman, who might learn an invention in a foreign country, and bring it home, should have his discovery protected; for there could be no distinction in principle between allowing a foreigner or an Englishman to bring an invention into this country. One of the principal complaints made by poor persons, who had given their time and attention to scientific pursuits, and made some discovery, was, that during the time between the presentation of the petitions, and the days on which the patents were granted, men of property, were continually endeavouring to drive the poor inventors to make an improvident bargain, and to deprive them of the benefit of the inventions, by pretending that they had made similar discoveries, which by the employment of their superior capital, they could carry into effect without patents, if the inventors would not admit them to a share of the invention. He proposed, that the inventor should be permitted to sell his prospective patent rights, and that the buyer might obtain a patent in his own name. The poor man, instead of running the risk, during a period varying from three to nine months, of losing his reward, together with the little capital he had expended in making the invention, would be enabled at once to realize some profit, and the person to whom it might be sold would be protected by patent in his own name. Another word in the Statute of James 1st, on which constructions, as diversified as human ingenuity could make them, had been put, was the word "manufacture." It had puzzled all the Judges from that time to the present, to find out what could have been meant by the Legislature. At one time, it was interpreted to include some new substance; at another, a machine; and, at another, a combination of machinery. It would scarcely be credited that, at one time, an improvement was held not to be a fit subject for a patent. It was subsequently acknowledged, however, that there was nothing new under the sun; and that, if patents were not granted for improvements, they would be very limited indeed. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members, that when Watt invented his improvement of the steam-engine, it became a question whether it was a fit subject for a patent, as the invention was only a condensation of steam, in a separate vessel. In the Court of Common Pleas, two of the Judges were of one way of thinking, and the remaining two were of a contrary opinion; and it was not until after some lengthened discussion in the Court of King's Bench, that Lord Kenyon and the Court agreed that the steam-engine of Watt, which with all its beautiful machinery and splendid apparatus, had since become connected with the arts, the wealth, and the trade of England, could be a proper subject for a patent. The question was, for a long time, agitated, whether the word "manufacture" could include the new and useful application of some principle either known, or previously in existence, but unnoticed, and whether a man who discovered a new application of something which must have existed, although it had remained undiscovered, ought to have a patent. Before common gas was brought into use as a means of lighting the streets: many scientific persons were aware of the existence of such a vapour capable of producing a flame, though no one was sufficiently acquainted with it to convert it to any of the present useful purposes. The Judges, in former times, considered that a principle or application was a mere idea, and therefore could not be a fit subject for a patent. Modern Judges had varied in their opinions upon this subject. Lord Kenyon was of opinion that all patents for inventions were monopolies, and he strictly construed them against the patentee. Lord Ellenborough considered that they ought to be governed by the rules of good sense, and the patentee had a fair chance before that Judge of supporting his grant; but Lord Tenterden said, that if any doubt should arise, it ought always to be decided in favour of the patentee; giving inventors the fruits of their labour. That was the proper and legitimate construction. The rule of law ought to be, that the man who had matured an invention for the use of the public—who had spent years of toil and study in the attainment of his object, who had thought much and laboured long, who endured many privations, and incurred considerable expense, and had, at last, presented the public with some useful or convenient article, ought to have every doubt given in his favour. A case, which occupied a portion of the public attention at the present moment—was the discovery of collecting a spirit from bread, whilst it was in the oven. Mr. Hicks, the patentee, observed, that a considerable vapour arose from the bread whilst baking, which he thought must contain some alcohol. He immediately placed a common still in conjunction with the oven, and his idea was correct. The vapour on being condensed contained alcohol. So simple was this discovery; and yet if it were applied to all the baking in England, the worth of the spirit so manufactured, would he was told, on good authority, be no less than one million of money an- nually. Could it be said, because such an invention was not a manufacture, not made by hand, as the old Judges held, that it was an unfit subject for protection? He proposed, then, that chemical discoveries, that principles, that new applications, when reduced to practice, so that some advantage was presented to the public, should be subjects in respect of which letters-patent might be taken out. From the new application of something old, or from the use of a new principle, there might be made some article for sale; he therefore proposed to add, to substances, machines, and combination of machinery and improvements thereof, all principles reduced to practice, and chemical discoveries which result in the production of some articles of commerce. A condition was now introduced into the patent, providing that a description of the invention for which a patent should be taken out should be enrolled in the High Court of Chancery. That description was technically called a specification, and from the construction which the Courts of Justice had put upon that specification, had arisen the greater number of the difficulties with which patentees had to contend. The constructions had been so nice, and had been so stretched by the profession to which he belonged, that it really was almost impossible for a scientific man to draw a proper specification without the assistance of a lawyer. He intended to propose two or three improvements connected with this part of the law, which, in his judgment, after a careful and deliberate study of the general question, would remedy those defects. He meant to propose, in the first place, that if a patentee discovered he had made an omission in the specification, he should have the power of enrolling a second one, but the second specification, in order that the public might be protected against an improper one in the first instance, and running the risk of a subsequent inquiry, should be marked with a stamp. The public was entitled to an accurate description of the invention, and it was necessary to its protection, that these specifications should not be given in merely at the caprice of the inventor. He would not impose a very large stamp on this amended or secondary specification, but such a one as would be likely to correct the evil of having too many of them. His next proposition was, that all errors of form in the title to the patent and in the specifications might be corrected. The House would perhaps be astonished to hear, that the omission of a letter in the specification had frequently been held to invalidate a patent. He also wished to propose, that when a patentee makes an improvement on his own invention, he may have a secondary specification to include that invention, without incurring the whole expense of an original patent, in order to secure to himself an improvement on his own invention. He would further propose, that a model might be deposited with the specification, instead of drawings, because a model was the best specification that could be given, and it was far more easy to describe an invention by a model than by a drawing, or by a written statement. He thought, therefore, that the inventor should if he pleased, deposit a model with his specification. He proposed, then, as far as the patentee himself was concerned, three things—The improvement of the law with respect to inventors; the extension of the subjects for patents; and a proper description of the invention, so that the public might have it fully explained. He proposed as to the property which the patentee acquired by the grant, that there should be two kinds of patents, instead of one—one for seven years, and another for fourteen years; that the expense of the patent for seven years should only amount to half the expense of the one for fourteen years; and that the inventor might sell his patent as he pleased. In former times only five persons could be interested in one patent; but by the liberality of the Government, the number had been enlarged to twelve. He knew no reason why a man should not be permitted to make the utmost use of his invention, and he proposed that the inventor should have the power of disposing of it to any number of persons. The utility to the public was often in proportion to the magnitude of the invention, with which a company might be well trusted. Patentees frequently incurred considerable expense, while a long time might elapse before the invention came into practice. In such cases the patentee applied to Parliament to get the term of fourteen years enlarged. Instead of their being obliged to make such an application, the proceedings by which they obtained the patent in the first instance, ought to be the means through which they might enlarge it. The House was perhaps aware, that in the process of obtaining patents, the inventor began by presenting a petition to the Secretary of State for the Home Department: then he travelled to the office of the Attorney General; back again to the office of the Home Secretary; and back again to the office of the Attorney General. From the Attorney General's Office he had to go to the Signet; from the Signet to the Privy Seal; and lastly to the Great Seal. If the Great Seal was out of town, he travelled after it. The sign-manual of his Majesty was necessary to two documents; for what purpose, when the only object in view was the protection of a commercial article, he could not understand. Buonaparte, it was said, on one occasion when a patent for an invention called "the invisible lady" was presented to him for his sign-manual, threw it under the table at which he was seated, observing, that he could not possibly discover why his time should be consumed in putting his sign-manual to every patent for every little invention that any tradesman might make. Trifles were often the subjects of patents in England. A tailor took out a patent for an improvement in the mode of fastening the trowsers to the boots. The inconvenience of the present system with respect to Ireland and Scotland was great; the sign-manual was required once for each country. It frequently required five or six months before a patent could be obtained for Ireland; the intermediate time being consumed in travelling. He would pose—first, that a petition should be presented to the Secretary of State, which should be referred to the Attorney General; and that the Attorney General should make his report and send his bill direct to the Great Seal. There was no necessity for going through all the other offices. If it were necessary that the present fees should be retained, the same amount could be collected at the office of the Secretary of State; and by obviating the necessity of going to the other offices, a great saving of expense would be effected, and much of that anxiety which men naturally felt when they were seeking for this kind of protection, would be removed. If they retained three efficient offices, that would be quite sufficient for all practical and useful purposes. The system followed in the office for patents of the Attorney General, was productive of very mischievous consequences. Any person could enter a caveat that a patent should not be granted to any person on any particular subject, and must have notice of every application sent to him. No useful end was attained by these caveats; but in many cases they brought ruin on the patentees, in consequence of the delay, not caused by the Attorney General, but by the people who entered the caveats, before the question could be examined or decided. It was done in this way. Suppose a person en-deavouring to procure a patent in a particular trade or manufacture; any persons connected with that trade, were at liberty to enter a caveat, and both parties were examined by the Attorney General, to the risk of the invention becoming known; and the person seeking the patent was not at liberty to proceed, until those who opposed had been satisfied. By this means a month was sometimes wasted. He proposed that, from the time of the arrival of the petition of the inventor at the office of the Secretary of State, fifteen days should be allowed for parties to come in and enter their caveats, and that the application should be advertised in the London Gazette,. in order not only that those who might wish to enter caveats, but that all the world might know, that particular patents had been applied for. He proposed as another protection to the patentee against fraud—for it was in this part of the process that fraud was committed—that the Attorney General should have the power of calling in two scientific men as assistants or examiners. He proposed, that they should receive two guineas each on every patent; and that the Attorney General, assisted by these two examiners, should have "A preparatory specification" laid before him, that was to say, an outline or sketch of the invention or improvement which it was the intention of the party hereafter more particularly to specify. He proposed that this "preparatory specification" should lie at the Attorney General's office until the end of the fifteen days during which period any person who wished to show cause or assign a reason why the patent should not be granted, should be allowed to come in and state his case to the Attorney General and his two examiners. The House would see that the great advantage to be attained by inventors at this part of the proceedings was to obtain a priority in the dates of their patents, and introduce a very material improvement by proposing that the letters-patent should be dated from the time when the Attorney General made his report. From this single proposition many material benefits would result. The party might be allowed two, three, or four months, according to the discretion of the Attorney General, to give in the specification, without running any risk of the loss of his labour by a discovery of his invention by other persons. During that time he could make such experiments as occurred to him without the chance of losing his prior claim. The preparatory specification would show whether he had in any way attempted to produce a different invention. He meant to leave the question of expense entirely with his Majesty's Government, leaving blanks in the Bill for the different sums. He should, however, suggest that patents for seven years should be only half the expense of patents for fourteen years; and that patents for fourteen years should be half the present expense. When this additional security was given to the inventor, the number of patents taken out would be at least double: so that the individuals who received the fees would have no ground to complain of the reduction. Stamps were most unequally imposed on inventions for the different parts of the kingdom; but with reference to this part of the measure, also, he should prefer leaving blanks in the Bill to be tilled up by the Government. He had no doubt that acting on those liberal principles which guided the other measures of the Administration, they would reduce the price of patents as low as would be consistent with the state of the revenue on the one hand, and the encouragement of the inventors on the other. It had been said, that if patents were too dear, a stop would be put to new inventions; but if they were too cheap, the country would be overladen, and it would be impossible to distinguish between the useless and the useful inventions. There was another complaint frequently made by patentees, respecting the legal proceedings necessary to enforce their rights, or cancel void patents. He had no doubt that hon. Gentlemen might contend that there ought to be a separate Board. To such a system he decidedly objected, for he never would consent to the appointment of secret commissions to decide upon the rights of an English- man. He disliked all secret Boards—he never would give up Trial by Jury for any purpose; and, if such a step were taken in this case, an injurious precedent might be established for others of greater importance. The arguments which he had heard advanced by those who advocated the establishment of a Board to try these cases, amounted to this, that, inasmuch as the subjects to be considered were frequently unintelligible to men of ordinary education, and only understood by scientific persons, therefore, questions of this nature ought to be decided by a body of scientific men. When he recollected that questions involving rights, and property, were tried by juries, he could not but conclude, that a special jury of English gentlemen would be perfectly competent to decide upon a question of this nature. With reference to the jury, he proposed to introduce two improvements. In the first place, that there should be a power of inspection, similar to the present practice of having "a view" by the jury. He apprehended there could be no objection to the drawings and model being inspected by the jury before coming into court. As scientific men appeared to imagine that they should have some of their own body on the jury, a power might be given to the Sheriff to summon twelve scientific men, but he would give each party the power of striking off six; for all inventors would not like to have men of the same business or profession as themselves upon the jury. He should also propose, that instead of pleading the general issue, as was done at present, every person who put in a plea to an action on a patent should be bound at the same time to give a notice of the objections he intended to urge in order that the party against whom the action was brought might have an opportunity of knowing what parts of the invention were to be disputed. He could not divine why a man who was pursuing a right in a common-law court should be forced to support a Chancery suit into the bargain. He would, on no account, interfere with the jurisdiction of that Court; but a power should be given to a Court of Common Law to call upon the party against whom the action had been commenced, either to stay him from using the invention, or to keep an account of the sales by him of the patent article. He proposed that the person who was convicted of infringing any patent should pay three times the amount of that account as a penalty; and, instead of common costs being allowed, in which case the patentee was often 200l. or 300l. out of pocket, that the losing party should be compelled to pay double costs. Even then, the patentee would not always receive the amount of his own attorney's bill. If these suggestions were complied with, we should have a competent tribunal for the decision of questions respecting patents. There was another point—namely, the legal proceedings necessary to cancel a patent. He did not wish to interfere with the present mode, which was by writ of scire facias,. but when a verdict was obtained on the writ against a patentee, a certificate was carried into Chancery, and the patent was thereupon cancelled. He wished that the same result might follow a verdict in a common action, and if the defendant obtained a verdict in an action, then on motion to the whole Court, the Judges should have the power of granting a certificate to enable the Lord Chancellor to cancel the patent. Some means might be devised by which a party might be enabled to go to the Great Seal, and have the patent cancelled. These improvements were founded on the present law. He had not, in the Bill which he asked leave to present to the House, departed from any principle or practice of law. He had consulted the laws not only of this but of every other country in which inventions were protected, and endeavoured to cull from the enactments all the clauses congenial to the principles of the British laws. He had endeavoured to select those parts which would best amalgamate with each other, and with our notions of justice and equity. He wished to submit to the House a Bill which should render the law respecting patents for inventions as clear as the Judges now made it, without ever reverting to old decisions. Such a system would give protection to men of ingenuity, and, at the same time, afford ample security to the public. In conclusion he begged to move, that leave be given to bring in a Bill "to amend the laws respecting letters patent for inventions."

said it was not his intention to oppose the bringing in of this Bill, which was connected with a subject of the utmost importance to the public at large, as well as to a class of individuals deserving attentive consideration, and whose interests it was especially connected with. So far from opposing the Motion, he assured his hon. and learned friend, that he should most cordially concur in every practical mode of adding to the simplicity of these proceedings, or of preventing delay and unreasonable difficulty in procuring patents. He must, however, qualify that assurance by stating, that he should only give his support to the hon. and learned Gentleman's measure, provided it should appear to him consistent with the grounds on which they ought to deal with the question. The object proposed was to secure to scientific individuals, a valuable reward for the discoveries they might make in science, or in the elegant or useful arts—that reward being, the legal possession to be vested in them of an undisputed monopoly of their respective inventions for a certain term of years. This monopoly, although well deserved by the individual, however, was undoubtedly, given at the expense of the public at large, who had, therefore, a right to require the fullest and clearest description of the invention. For this reason, the specification ought to be so clear and so precise, as to place the identity of an invention beyond all possible doubt, in order, on the one hand, that if any question should arise on the validity of a particular patent, the public might be able to refer immediately to the specification; and, on the other hand, that when the term of such monopoly expired, the public might have the advantage of such invention, which could not be secured without making the specification so distinct, that "he who runs may read." Without expressing any opinion on this part of his learned friend's statement, he should feel it his duty strictly to uphold the law. If it were altered at all, he should be inclined to say it ought to be by making specifications more strict than they were now. He should, certainly, too, not be disposed to delay the giving in the specification, which, in many cases, might deprive the public of the benefit of it altogether; for, by what ulterior process could a man be compelled to give in a specification? With reference to the principles of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill, they could be better collected from the Bill itself than from any statement. He was sorry that he could not do justice to the very able speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman because he had not previously communicated to him his intentions as to the objects he proposed to accomplish by the Bill. As part of his speech referred to the office of the Attorney General, it would have been as well if the hon. and learned Gentleman had communicated with him beforehand. He hoped the House would not suppose that there had been any abuse in the Attorney General's office; for nothing could possibly be more unjust than for the Attorney General not to receive caveats in cases of this nature. Did his hon. and learned friend know what a caveat meant? It was a notice by any party, who thought that a man who asked for a monopoly against his fellow-subjects, had no right to enjoy it to their prejudice: in entering this caveat you gave him a reasonable time to make out his case or amend his specification. The Attorney General summoned the person giving the caveat to come before him; but not that the invention of the patentee might be looked into and inspected by him; quite the contrary; he who put in the caveat was obliged to state to the Attorney General, who had previously taken care to inform himself upon the subject, the grounds on which he objected to the patent. If the objection appeared a good one, further inquiries were instituted; if not, the objection was directly dismissed. In conclusion he had only again to assure his hon. and learned friend of his entire concurrence in the object he had in view.

begged to say, that he entirely concurred in the view which had been taken of this subject by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he only regretted that the matter had not fallen into such able hands at an earlier period, for no man could have read any part of the evidence taken before the Committee, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, without feeling that the present state of the law relative to patents, called for attention and alteration. With regard to the question of expense, it was deserving of consideration. It was suggested before the Committee, that if patents were rendered too easy of attainment, the great manufacturers would be considerably annoyed by having a vast variety of patents taken out for small, trifling, and unimportant inventions. The suggestion for shortening the process of obtaining a patent was most valuable; since nothing could be more inconvenient than the delay, the trouble, and the anxiety, consequent upon the present system. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman had actually understated the amount of that inconvenience; for, during the last reign, it was in evidence that a much greater loss of time than he mentioned took place, in consequence of the illness of his late Majesty, and of other causes, which, in some cases, amounted even to as much as a delay of seven or eight months. It should be remembered, too, that during the whole of the time a man was endeavouring to obtain a patent, he was under great risk, and considerable anxiety, as to the chances of his invention being discovered. It was well known that when any individual intended applying for a patent connected with a branch of trade, the thoughts of practical men were immediately turned to the subject; and it was by no means improbable, that a course of inquiry would lead an ingenious man to the very same result as that invention for which the application for the patent was depending; besides which, the inventor was always exposed to the risk of having his secret discovered by the person whom he might have employed to assist him in the mechanical detail of its development. It was true that the Judges had lately strained the law, to adapt it to the circumstances of the present times; but he must say, that he would rather live under a law made by Parliament, than under a law made by the Judges. He was aware that they had to contend against the acts of legislators who had been wilfully blind to the signs of the times, and who had obstinately refused to adapt the laws to the changing circumstances of the country. He was informed that no man could venture to say what would be the decision of the Judges, in cases where questions relative to patents arise; some had been for extending the law, and others for confining it. Great inconvenience arose from the existing uncertainty as to the point of law, and the opinion of the Judges. He concurred in the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General—namely, that it was due to the public that the specification should state accurately and distinctly the nature of the invention; and he begged to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be desirable, in order to the attainment of this object, that a Committee of scientific men should be appointed? An eminent lawyer must be a man of very varied and extensive accomplishments; but the Attorney General might not always be competent to inquire into a question of this description. He would further offer his thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having introduced a measure for effecting an important improvement in the law of patents.

was of opinion that it was highly important, and very necessary, that the attention of the House should be directed to this subject, which involved very great and very peculiar interests. The best course would be, to allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to bring in his Bill; and, on the second reading, such suggestions could be made as would lead to the attainment of the object in view.

hoped his hon. and learned friend would shape his Bill so as to give all parts of the empire the benefit of it. Why should not a man in England have the benefit of a patent in Ireland by enrolling it here? And why should not an Irishman have the benefit of a patent in England, by a similar proceeding in Ireland? Why should it be necessary, to come here to get a sign-manual attached to a patent for Ireland? Why should not the signature of the Lord Lieutenant be sufficient for that, as well as for the other purposes in which it represented that of the Sovereign? In Scotland, the stamp for a patent was 6; in Ireland it was 25l. Why was this? Surely there could be no reason why they should pay 25l. in Ireland, for what could be got in Scotland for 6l. These were grievances; and he hoped his hon. and learned friend would give Ireland the benefit of his comprehensive and accurate knowledge.

said, that if it were only to convert Judge-made law into statute law, he should wish to see the proposed measure introduced. He was persuaded, however, that it would be advisable to refer the Bill to a Committee above stairs, when it would be rendered a very valuable measure. Leave granted.

said, that, in giving his notice of a Motion to place on the Standing Orders a distinct Resolution, condemnatory of the interference of the Treasury in the return of Members of that House, he had not had the slightest intention of casting any imputation on his Majesty's Ministers. Such a thing never entered his head. He should be sorry to rest the general propriety of such a Standing Order on any particular case. The general principle was a correct one, and ought to be recognized, without any case whatever; and were he to bring forward any case, and fail in establishing it, still the general principle would remain untouched. By passing the Reform Bill, the Legislature had shown their determination to put an end to nomination boroughs; and had intimated with sufficient distinctness that no one should thenceforward be allowed to make a nomination borough. He repeated, that he had no intention of throwing a slur upon anybody by his proposition. At the same time he honestly and ingenuously confessed that he had an object in view; but that object was totally different from that which had been imputed to him. The Standing Orders were found to be useless, because of their form. What he wished, was, to give greater strength to them; and that while they spoke of the interference of Peers in elections, they should not be silent on the interference of Ministers. He wished to turn the attention of the House by that means to getting rid of a very possible abuse, and to impress upon them that the only means of doing so was to establish the Vote by Ballot. That was his object, and he had no intention of casting any imputations on his Majesty's Ministers. It had been his intention to move—"That it is highly criminal in any Minister or Ministers, or others, servants under the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland, directly or indirectly to use the powers of office in the election of Representatives to serve in Parliament; and an attempt at such influence will at all times be resented by this House, as aimed at its own honour, dignity, and independence, as an infringement of the dearest rights of every subject throughout the empire, and tending to sap the basis of this free and happy Constitution." If, however, the Motion should be considered unnecessary, he would agree, having thus expressed his opinion on the subject, to withdraw it at once, having thus, he hoped, set himself right with the noble Lord.

complimented the hon. Gentleman on his candour. The objection which he (Lord Althorp) had to place on the Orders of the House, for the first time, a Resolution such as that proposed by the hon. Member was, that it would give rise to the supposition that something extraordinary had occurred to induce the House to take such a step. He did not think the hon. Gentleman would at all strengthen his position by passing any specific Resolution. The liability of the Government did not depend on any Resolution. No Resolution or Order of that House could justify them in any interference, and they certainly were not justified in interfering, whether any Order existed against it or not. He remembered several cases since he was in Parliament, when Ministers were attacked on this point, and on one occasion they deemed it advisable to bring in a Bill of Indemnity, although no Resolution was on the books of the House against such practices. He certainly could have no objection to the hon. Member withdrawing his Resolution.

inquired whether election petitions were necessarily printed or not. It struck him to be a very useless expense to print a great number of those which were never followed up. Many personal attacks were made in these petitions, and no opportunity afforded to the person attacked to defend himself. As the Members of the House had full access to them, he thought it unnecessary to print them until it could be fully ascertained that they would be followed up.

said, the observations of the hon. member for Middlesex were worthy of consideration. At present they were printed under an Order of the House, not so much for the purpose of publicity as of giving full notice to all parties interested. Perhaps the hon. Member had better take a day or two to consider the subject, as he might think proper to bring forward some substantive motion.

agreed in the justness of many of the observations. Perhaps, if the petitions were not printed until the recognizances were entered into, the objection of the hon. Gentleman would be obviated.

said, that most scandalous and libellous matter was frequently put upon the records of Parliament, which, unlike any other Court, the House had no power of expunging. He hoped the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex would be taken into consideration. Petition ordered to be taken into consideration.