said, that the House having come to a Resolution that it was expedient to appoint a Committee to examine into the subject of the Liverpool Election, he thought it proper that he should now bring before them the manner in which he proposed to carry that Resolution into effect. It was not necessary for him to say anything with respect to this particular case of Liverpool, for it had already been brought before the House, and they had decided that it was a case for an inquiry, although there had been no Committee previously appointed to examine into the validity of the return. A precedent of great importance had thus been set with regard to inquiries into the bribery and corruption practised in elections. It might be useful, under these circumstances, that he should state the view he had taken of this subject, and the course which he should feel called upon to recommend to the adoption of the House at this moment. The House was aware that, by its ancient Constitution, whenever any complaints were made as to elections, they were referred to a Committee, consisting of the whole, or nearly the whole of the Members of the House itself. On this particular subject of bribery, many cases had occurred very soon after the revolution. One memorable instance to which he should just refer, was that of Sir Edward Seymour, who brought. a charge against a person of the name of Shepherd, accusing him that, with respect to no less than four boroughs, he had endeavoured to carry their elections by the influence of bribery; and he made it a matter of accusation against Mr. Shepherd, that that person had thus extensively endeavoured to corrupt the purity of the representation. The question was referred to a Committee of Privileges, of which Sir Edward Seymour was appointed the Chairman; and the result was, that the House resolved that Sir Edward had made good that charge, and that Mr. Speaker do publicly give him the thanks of the House. The Speaker did so accordingly, and told him, that great as had been the military and naval successes of his ancestors, there were none greater than that which he had performed when he rescued the Constitution of that House from contamination. After the Act known by the name of the Grenville Act became the law, that kind of inquiry fell into disuse, and the inquiries of the House became limited to the question as to which of two persons was entitled to his seat. The consequence was, that acts of corruption deeply affecting the character and the constitution of the House, the rights of the people, and the honour of the country, were compromised, and were concealed from public view. In a great many cases, it had been customary that, when two persons stood for a borough, and one of the candidates succeeded through bribery, that the other came before the House as a petitioner; but instead of an investigation taking place by a Committee, the person who was seated paid a sum of money to the other, to prevent his bringing the matter forward. That had occurred in many instances. He could mention one, as he had been in some degree connected with the case, it was that of Grampound. A petition was presented in that case, a Committee was appointed to decide upon the return; but, for some reason or other not then apparent, the petition was not proceeded with. The Committee sat but one day: and there being no evidence before them to impeach the right of the sitting Members to retain their scats, the Committee resolved that the sitting Members had been duly returned. It appeared afterwards that a sum of 7,000l. had been paid by the sitting Members, in order to suppress all inquiry. The time had at length come when these practices must no longer be tolerated; but the fullest inquiry ought to take place. The method he now proposed for this purpose was, that instead of an inquiry at the Bar of that House, which, as every one knew, was desultory in its nature, and in which it was difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood, as well as on account of the heat sometimes engendered among the Members by such an investigation, they should adopt another course. He should propose that a Select Committee should be appointed for any cases of the kind into which the House should think proper to inquire. The hon. member for Wiltshire had once proposed that the person who brought forward an inquiry of this kind should name the Committee. He differed from the hon. Member upon that point; but he admitted that that hon. Member should conduct the inquiry, and the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, might defend the borough. He proposed that the Committee should be named by lot, as they would be upon a petition against the return; but that, instead of their number consisting only of eleven, it should consist of thirteen—and that, instead of thirty-three persons being chosen by the House, twenty-one should be appointed, and only eight of their number struck off. One hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed opposed to any of the names being struck off. He himself did not think there was much advantage in the plan; but as those who were interested in the matter in one way or another might think, if there were two or three Members appointed who were known to have expressed strong opinions for or against the borough, that doubts could be raised as to the impartiality of the decision, he thought it would be better to obviate such a consequence. As this Committee would not be assisted by counsel, he should propose, that the hon. member for Wiltshire, and the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, should each strike off four names from the list, that the Committee should then elect their own Chairman, and proceed to consider the matter referred to their opinion. Their decision when made, must be reported to the House, and that report would, of course, be the foundation of further measures. He thought that an Act of Parliament should be passed in order to regulate for the future, the mode of proceeding in all such cases. It was their duty not to allow these deeds of bribery and corruption to continue and to augment. It was their duty to institute an inquiry, and if they did, then they should take care that that inquiry should be effectual, and that it should become, what it had not hitherto been, a terror to those who were disposed to contaminate the purity of election. The noble Lord moved, that the Order of the Day for the Ballot for the Committee upon the Liverpool Election be read.

then moved, that two Members should be named by the House to conduct the inquiry; that twenty-one Members should be chosen by lot from among the Members present, to answer to their names, with such exemptions as the House should think lit to allow; that the two Members should strike off each four names from the list of twenty-one; and that, the thirteen remaining Members should constitute the Committee on the Liverpool Petition.

was opposed to that part of the plan by which the names of some of the Members were to be struck off. Such a course would operate most injuriously. He would take his own instance He was known to have exerted himself to discover these acts of bribery at Liverpool, and, of course, if his name should come up among the list of the twenty-one, he should be struck off by the noble Lord opposite, on behalf of the borough. It would be the same with others whose opinions were known. He should, therefore, propose, that they should take the first fifteen names given by the ballot, and that there should be no striking off afterwards. He proposed this as an Amendment to the Resolution of the noble Lord near him.

said, that if this Amendment was put to the House he should most certainly second it. They were much indebted to the noble Lord opposite for bringing forward this Motion, and setting an example that would show bribery could not escape unpunished merely because fourteen days had elapsed without a petition being presented against the return. Hitherto there had been no means of reaching unsuccessful bribery, but he hoped that this Motion would have that effect. There had been up to this time no stimulus for bringing such cases before the House; he trusted that the House itself would now make up for that deficiency. He objected to striking off the names of any of the Members upon whom the lot fell, not only for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, but because, if that did not apply, the names of all those who from professional education might be supposed most capable of eliciting the truth from unwilling or corrupt witnesses might be struck off.

thought, there was another point in the Motion that required an amendment. It was said in the Motion that the members of the Committee should be appointed from those who were present to answer to their names. He thought that limitation to be objectionable, for it was well known, that whenever an election petition was to be the subject of consultation, there was what was called "a whip" in the House, and Gentlemen went and got others to come down, in order to be there to answer to their names, or else got them to go away, that they might not he there to answer. To obviate the consequences of such a proceeding, he should propose, that whatever was the number agreed on to form the Committee, it should consist of that number of Members whose names were first drawn out of the Box, exempting of course, those who were absent from town, or were already serving upon Election Committees.

said, this was a matter of great importance, for the House were now about to set a precedent for future cases. The House ought, therefore, carefully to consider what they were now about to lay down. The noble Lord opposite had intimated his intention of bringing in a measure of a legislative kind on this subject. He should have been better satisfied if they had waited for the measure of legislation, and then adapted the particular case to it, instead of bringing forward the particular case first, and then adapting a legislative measure to it. This was, in fact, a departure from the principle of the Grenville Act. Why was it not enough to ask, under the principle of that Act, for a Committee to investigate the election, and to declare the election void, for that was the most effectual punishment upon a man who had been guilty of bribery? He should like the noble Lord to tell them what he understood by the precedent which he now proposed to make. Did he intend on every allegation of bribery, a Committee should be appointed, as of right, by that House? If so, what security was to be given by either of the parties to prosecute their petition, or to pay costs, if they should fail in making it out? If there was not to be a Committee, as a matter of right, but the appointment of a Committee was to be in the breast of the House, the utmost partiality would ensue. All complaints against the minority would be listened to, and none would be allowed against the majority. Then again, who was to defend the poor persons who were accused; for, as in this case, there might be no accusation against the man who gave the bribes, the accusation might be against poor voters who had received them. Who was to defend them; for it was not a general accusation against the whole population, but against particular individuals? The noble Lord who sat behind him was not bound to defend these persons. But if the House instituted such Committees as these, the House would be bound to find means to defend them. The accusation was brought chiefly against the freemen of Liverpool. But the majority of these freemen now formed part of the 10l. householders, and they could not well be disfranchised, without the noble Lord declaring, that he found in Liverpool he had placed the franchise much too low—an avowal that might probably be just as applicable with respect to several other places.

referring to what had been said by a previous Member, who had asked out of what fund the charge for the defence of the accused freemen was to be paid, observed, that the whole Corporation Fund of Liverpool would be applicable to the purpose. The accused freemen were the tools of the Corporation, and the Corporation would defend its tools. He was opposed to the plan of striking off the name of any Member chosen by ballot to sit upon the Committee; but, at the same time, he thought that the Committee should be chosen from the Members present in the House at the time of the ballot, and who answered to their names.

doubted, whether by law the Corporation of Liverpool could apply a shilling of its funds to the defence of the parties charged with bribery. According to one of the provisions of the Corporation Funds' Act, they could not devote any of the corporate monies to any purpose, even "incident upon an election;" and that the defence would be incident upon an election no man could doubt. To pay for the defence out of the Corporation funds, therefore, would be to violate a positive Act of Parliament: and he strongly advised the Treasurer of Liverpool, or whoever might be charged with the Corporation funds, to beware how he issued monies for any such purpose.

remarked, that a deputation from Liverpool was at this moment in London, and that a similar deputation had been sent up last year, at an expense of no less than 1,200l., which sum was paid by the Treasurer.

did not hesitate in giving it as his decided opinion that an action would lie against the treasurer for that sum, and he advised the burgesses of Liverpool to look about them, and, if necessary, to commence proceedings to recover it back. As to the general question, he thought that the public money would be well expended upon inquiring into every case of bribery and corruption when it was made to appear that there was a good ground of accusation. He concurred with the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), that every Member whose name was drawn should be compelled to serve upon the Committee, whether he was or was not present at the time when the ballot took place; he would also, as in the case of Election Committees, make it compulsory upon them to attend. He hoped that this example would give warning to the elective body throughout the kingdom, that the House would itself proceed forthwith to detect and punish bribery, even if none of the parties thought prudent to prosecute. He begged the hon. member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason) to withdraw his Amendment, in order to make way for that of the hon. member for Bridport.

moved an Amendment, that the ballot should be taken, and the Committee appointed, from Members not having leave of absence, not serving on Election Committees, or not having such other exemption as the House think fit.

thought the question now before the House deserving of great consideration. It appeared to him that the expense of such a proceeding would be much too considerable for the House to incur it without full deliberation. He could assure the hon. member for Middlesex, that all the reductions he could make in the estimates this year would not be sufficient to meet the expenses which must be incurred, if the principle was laid down, that the House should enter into such inquiries. The moment the public were aware that the House of Commons would enter into such inquiries at the public expense, there would be no end to such inquiries. There would scarcely be a defeated candidate in any part of the country, who would not come forward and petition against his opponent's return on the ground of bribery, if it was once laid down as the rule that the House would decide on such petitions, and the petitioners incur no risk or responsibility.

thought Members were departing very widely from the question really under consideration. As he understood, the House had already decided, that the alleged bribery practised at elections for the borough of Liverpool should be inquired into, and the only question was, the best mode of forming a Committee to carry on the investigation. If he (Mr. Harvey) had been present when the Motion was made, he should certainly have voted against the inquiry, upon the ground that the alleged bribery was not stated to have had any thing to do with the recent elections for Liverpool; and the Reform Bill having passed, he thought they should draw a veil over the proceedings which took place at elections previous to the passing of that measure. However, the House had decided that the inquiry was to take place; and he merely rose to state, that he objected to striking off the names of any number of Members at the discretion of nominees, as proposed, and considered it would be better at once to appoint a certain number of Members to form the Committee. Twenty-one Members might be too many; but why not appoint fifteen Members at once. The principle of striking off Members was a bad one. He also thought, that the attendance of Members on the Committee should be regular, and enforced as strictly, as it was under the Grenville Act.

regretted, that he was prevented attending when this subject was formerly under the consideration of the House. He believed, that the hon. Member who brought forward the proposition for the appointment of a Committee did so, not with a view of establishing a precedent but merely as a motion, affecting the Corporation of Liverpool. He grounded that motion on the Report of the Select Committee of 1830, in which it was alleged that great bribery prevailed at Liverpool; and upon a petition which had been then recently presented, complaining of the continuation of such practices, both at the elections of Members of Parliament, and at the elections of the municipal officers of the town; in consequence of this, the House was induced to sanction the appointment of a Committee. He was willing to give his support to the Bill of last year because it appeared to him at that period when the constituency of the empire was under revision, that it was desirable to ascertain what class of voters were habitually guilty of bribery and corruption, and whether corruption prevailed in Liverpool to the appaling extent which had been stated. He thought that it was of importance, in fixing the future constituency of the House, to take steps to prevent those who had been in the practice of committing crimes of this nature, from possessing the franchise and exciting others by their example to similar conduct. He urged upon the House the consideration whether they were not fixing the right of election in this place, on the same body or the same class of persons who it appeared, had been in the constant habit of taking bribes? The House, however, was of a different opinion and thought that there was no necessity to deprive these persons of their votes. He certainly did regret that the House did not sanction the view which he took of the matter derived, as that was, from the evidence before the Select Committee; which he considered to supply a sufficient ground to proceed upon. In consequence of the motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire, the House came to a resolution to appoint a Committee to inquire into the practices alleged to prevail in Liverpool. The declaration of the noble Lord to-night, had put the matter in an entirely new light. The noble Lord said, that this proceeding was establishing a precedent which was to serve as a guide to enable parties in future elections, alleging that they had a charge of bribery or corruption to bring forward, to have an inquiry instituted before a Select Committee of the House, without any expense to themselves, instead of being compelled to go, as at present, before the tribunal instituted by the Grenville Act. In this particular case, they had, indeed, the Report of a Select Committee; but it had been stated, that, hereafter, it was to be understood that in any case where parties should bring forward allegations as to the prevalence of bribery at the election for any place, an inquiry of this sort should be granted. For the last fifty years the House in every case of the sort, proceeded in conformity with an Act of Parliament according to which, those "who bring charges affecting the returns of Members, or the mode in which the constituency of any place have exercised their franchise" were bound, under recognizances, to make good their charges. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that there ought to be no check to investigating cases of this sort on the score of expense; but that it was the duty of the House, when an allegation of this nature was made, to investigate it at the public charges. If the House intended so to act, the sooner it abandoned its jurisdiction in such cases the better. It appeared, that by this new device, the parties petitioned against were to be exposed to the greatest trouble, inconvenience, and anxiety; while those who made the complaint (which, of course, would be often groundless) were to incur no responsibility! The noble Lord had stated, that cases had occurred in which on complaint made of the prevalence of bribery in any place, the matter had been referred to the consideration of a Committee of privileges, which Committee had consisted of a limited number of Members. The only case of this kind with which he was acquainted, was that stated by the noble Lord, the case of Sir Edward Seymour, who preferred a solemn complaint against Mr. Shepherd, for having been guilty of bribery, and of having corrupted four boroughs. But in that case the inconvenience attending the proceeding was so great, that the same mode was not again adopted. Some hon. Gentlemen had objected to any Members being struck off by the parties concerned. If their opinion were acted upon, the most objectionable persons—those who had taken an active part on one side or the other in the very case to be investigated—might be constituted judges. Such a plan would place the decision of every controverted election in the hands of the majority of this House, and one party, the Members who belonged to the minority, would always go to the wall. The hon. member for Bridport had stated, that it was notorious, that, when the ballot was about to take place for the choice of a Committee on an election petition, a canvass took place among Members with a view to ensure the attendance of those who were known to be in favour of, or against it, according to the object of the canvassing parties. He knew, personally, of no such practice; and it was against both the letter and the spirit of resolutions and orders of this House. If the hon Member would bring the subject before the House, effectual steps would be taken to prevent the recurrence of so disgraceful a practice He did not think, that any political feeling or bias had hitherto contaminated the tribunal before which these questions were determined. He would ask whether they could desire any thing to work more equally and fairly than an election petition Committee? He was satisfied, that if the course proposed by the noble Lord were adopted, and were to be considered as a precedent for future cases, no more cases would be brought before Election Committees; but vague charges, and general allegations of bribery would be frequently brought forward. The noble Lord had proposed to adopt an entirely new course, of the inexpediency, injustice, and inconvenience of which he entertained not the slightest doubt. In case of a conviction before that tribunal, a Bill of Pains and Penalties was brought in; and that was the only equitable and just mode of proceeding. He did not apprehend, that any general measure would be sufficient to meet the present case; particularly as 1,400 of the freemen of Liverpool were holders of 10l. houses. The circumstance of being in possession of a 10l. house did not in the slightest degree purge the sin of corruption in the individual. When the House came to reflect upon the subject, it would be convinced that to adopt the resolution of the noble Lord, would establish a precedent of the most dangerous kind. How could justice be expected from a tribunal of which neither Judge nor witness was sworn, and where no counsel was to be employed? An hon. Member said, that there was no way of punishing unsuccessful candidates. He was mistaken; the course to be taken was plain and simple—the informer upon any alleged delinquency in an unsuccessful candidate, might sue at once for a penalty of 500l. It was true that this step was seldom taken; but it was not the less true that it was perfectly open to any person who chose to adopt it. Liverpool was not the only place where very extensive bribery had taken place. He was far from saying that bribery ought not, in every instance if possible, to be punished; but by agreeing to such a resolution as the present, they would be opening a door to individuals, without any responsibility whatever, to object to the return of any sitting Member. By presenting, what he might call, a fishing petition—knowing that, at all events, it would occasion great trouble and anxiety, and perhaps calculating upon the timidity of the Member, any party shrinking from the expense of presenting a regular election petition, might threaten to adopt such a course as that proposed; and thus endeavour to drive the Member returned into a compromise to purchase the silence of the accuser. He need not point out to the House how injurious such a result as this must be, in every point of view? Yet the noble Lord seemed to think it of very great importance to establish such a notable precedent! He was directly of the contrary opinion; but at all events he should certainly wish to offer to the noble Lord the same suggestion as on a former night namely—that, as by this new mode of dealing with a case of alleged bribery and corruption recourse was not to be had to a bill, it was very desirable to look cautiously at the plan, and reflect upon its probable operations before adopting it. In his opinion, it would only be proper that the subject should be embodied in a different motion, and be made the matter of further consideration and debate on a future day. It should be recollected that, in a case of this kind, it was necessary to consider not only the way in which they were to do justice, but the way in which they were most likely to convince the parties concerned that they were doing justice. He objected to the precedent which would be set by the appointment of the proposed Committee; because he believed that its effect would be, to lead the House into interminable inquiries. If, however, it were determined, that the Committee should sit, he thought it would be absolutely necessary to strike off a certain number of the names which might be drawn by ballot. If this were not the case, the most reckless individuals might be constituted judges on a matter deeply affecting the rights and privileges of the people; and, in the event of three or four Gentlemen being chosen, who were known to be eager either for or against the borough of Liverpool, the consequence roust be, that the public would believe the entire Committee to be influenced by their partialities. If they were to have a Committee at least assimilate it as nearly as possible, to those models which had hitherto answered so well in doing justice to all parties.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking, that if the names of three or four Gentlemen known to be eager either for or against the borough of Liverpool, were allowed to remain on the Committee, it would create a belief that the Committee generally were influenced by partiality either to one side or the other. He therefore thought it better that there should be a power of striking off a certain number of names; and four, in his opinion, would be sufficient. If the House should be in favour of an arrangement different from that which he proposed, he should not be discontented; but he saw no reason why it should not come this evening to a decision upon the present question. The matter had already been a good deal discussed; and he saw no insuperable objection in their way to induce the House to take further time for consideration. With respect to another point which had been urged, he believed it was not in the power of the House to compel the attendance of the Members of a Committee of that kind. Attendance upon Committees could only be enforced under the Grenville Act; and, consequently, it would not be in their power to render attendance compulsory in an instance of this kind, without another Act of Parliament for that purpose. It certainly would be an advantage if the whole of these inquiries were regulated by Act of Parliament. That had always been his opinion; and last year he brought in a Bill by which the whole of the inquiry might have been managed without difficulty. That Bill passed this House, and was thrown out by the Lords at the end of the Session; but because that Bill, or a Bill of a similar nature, had not yet passed into a law, he did not see why they should refuse to enter into the inquiry. On the contrary, it would be wiser to take advantage of such a case as the present, to try how the machinery would work; that they might thus be better enabled to judge of what the provisions of any enactment upon the subject should be.

I trust the noble Lord will persevere in his original plan, and allow four names to be struck out on each side on the ballot. The number four is sufficient to keep out those who may have a strong bias; and yet not enough to strike the brains out of the Committee, as is said. Our object is to obtain a fair and impartial tribunal. I object altogether to the Committee, and I think, if such inquiries are to be pursued, it would be much better to constitute by law a proper tribunal, acting under the sanction of an oath, and when the attendance of those who are both Judges and Jury may be secured. The noble Lord has referred to a precedent at a period subsequent to the Revolution. It is notorious that at that period the proceedings before Committees were most scandalous and unfair; the majority in this House rode over the minority, and election proceedings, which should have been the subject matter of law and of justice, were determined by the spirit of party.

could not help expressing his opinion, that the House had been inadvertently betrayed into the consideration of a plan which it would be most imprudent to adopt. The precedent they were about to establish would be most inconvenient and dangerous, inasmuch as it was calculated to throw aside the best tribunal that they had; namely, that appointed by the Grenville Act for the trial of election petitions. He thought, too, should the precedent be established, that, hereafter, individuals would prefer trying cases of bribery at the expense of the public, through the medium of such a Committee as it was now proposed to appoint, to trying them, as they must at present do, at their own expense, before a Committee appointed, in the ordinary and proper manner, under the Grenville Act. During the speeches of the noble Lord and others who had addressed the House on the present occasion, he had been looking to some of the petitions that had been presented in the course of the present Session of Parliament, and in which the recognizances had not been completed. In several of these he found allegations of bribery and corruption much stronger than those imputed in the case of Liverpool. What would the House do with those petitions? The recognizances not having been completed according to the ordinary practice they would be discharged. But, if in the instance of Liverpool a Committee of the hind now proposed were appointed, did it not follow, that they ought also to appoint similar Committees in all the other cases in which bribery and corruption were alleged, but which the parties had failed to come forward to prove, at their own risk and their own expense? He hoped that the general feeling of the House was opposed to the proposition; but if it were not—if it were determined to adopt it—he was sure the noble Lord would admit, that the machinery of the new plan should be made complete, and that they should understand the nature of the tribunal which was about to be constituted, the more particularly as it was one which, if once established, was likely to be called into very frequent action. But let him put it to the noble Lord, whether, in the case of a distant borough, a borough, for instance, in the west of Ireland, it would be just, on vague allegations of bribery, made by parties not willing to put their charge to the test, by going before a regular Election Committee, to put the country to the immense expense of bringing over witnesses for the purpose of investigating the case before a tribunal appointed in the manner proposed. He agreed with the right hon. member for Montgomery shire in the view which he had taken, and in the opinion which he had expressed, of the very unsatisfactory manner in which it was proposed that that tribunal should be constituted. Acting under the responsibility of no oath, incapable of administering an oath to the witnesses called before it, and unassisted by the ingenuity of counsel to sift out the truth from evidence, which, as was well known, in all cases of disputed elections, was strongly tinged with party feeling—he could not for his own part, conceive how the investigation of such a tribunal could terminate satisfactorily or advantageously. Why the employment of counsel should be refused, it was hard to comprehend; because, as the noble Lord must know, all the obligation of an oath was not worth half so much—would not go half so far—to extort the truth, as the ingenuity of a lawyer in the cross-examination of witnesses. There was another part of the proposition which he did not understand. They were told that two members of the Committee were to be named by the House, and that the remainder were to be chosen by ballot. What were to be the peculiar functions of the two nominees? There could not be two presidents of the Committee. Were they to act purely in the capacity of nominees of the two parties? That would be re-establishing a system which it was one of the particular objects of the Grenville Act to abolish. It was quite necessary, that this should be explained—because, from the passing of the Grenville Act to the present hour, he had never heard one word uttered in favour of the revival of nomination upon these Committees. On the contrary, he always understood that the greatest benefits had resulted from the abolition of that system. But, passing from that point, he would ask how the attendance of Members was to be secured upon this Committee, supposing it to be appointed? While so many regular Election Committees were sitting, how would it be possible to secure the attendance of Members upon a Committee of this kind? It was far from being impossible that the inquiry into the case of Liverpool might last for three months—in that case how could the attendance of Members be secured? Under these circumstances, he protested against the proposed mode of proceeding. He very much doubted, indeed, whether anything of the kind could be properly adopted, except under the sanction of a special Act of Parliament brought in for that purpose. If the House, however, was so confident in itself—if it imagined that it could so clearly foresee what the "end of this beginning" would be, and was therefore, determined to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion, it would be vain to oppose it. At the same time, he could not help thinking, that by acceding to the proposition, they would establish a dangerous precedent.

said, that, as a large majority of the House had been of opinion that a Committee should be appointed, the only question which the House had then to discuss was, how it should be appointed. There would be this difference between the nominees to this Committee and the nominees to election Committees: the latter were sworn—the former would not be sworn. Their duty would be limited to seeing that no injustice was done towards cither party. This Committee would differ in another respect from Election Committees. The Election Committees decided each case, and their decision was final: but this Committee would only have power to report to the House, and the House would be called upon to decide whether it would stand by their report or not. He did not think, that this plan would induce individuals to prosecute election petitions, not at their private expense, but at the expense of the public. Election petitions were in general presented by individuals for the purpose of unseating rival candidates, and of seating themselves; and in all former cases, as, for instance, in that of Grampound, where the inquiry was instituted at the public expense, the sitting Members had never been unseated, although the borough itself had been ultimately disfranchised. He did not think that it was necessary to have counsel heard before the Committee, but he thought that if, on the Report of this Committee, a bill were brought in with penal enactments, then the parties to be punished by them might be heard against such a bill by counsel at the Bar.

said, that having agreed to the appointment of a Committee on a former night, he felt himself precluded from opposing the appointment of it now. He thought that, before it was appointed, the House ought to know something of the proposed course of its proceedings. No rule had been laid down as to the time of its meeting, as to whether the attendance of its Members should be compulsory, and day by day, as to the number requisite to form a quorum, and various other similar questions. He thought that a tribunal constituted on this plan would be a tribunal of iniquity. He had been pointed out as one of the nominees, but supposing that he were to assume that character, how peculiar would be his situation. He would have to investigate a case in which his own conduct might be involved, and further, he must defend one part of his constituents against the attacks of another. Under these circumstances, he did not think that he was a proper person to act as nominee on the occasion. Who was to pay the expense of the inquiry? Were the funds of the corporation to be taxed for that purpose? In conclusion he entreated the House before the Committee should be appointed, to chalk out the mode of proceeding which it was to adopt.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to indemnify certain parties who might be called to give evidence relative to the circumstances of the last Election for the borough of Stafford. It had been ascertained, that an almost universal corruption prevailed in that borough during the late election: and a Committee had been consequently appointed by the House, to make inquiry into the subject, which was, he believed, to have held its first sitting on Thursday next. His object, in making this Motion, was to obtain a disclosure of the facts of the case, and to induce witnesses to come forward, in order that those guilty—if any—might be punished, and that the public might obtain the redress which was due to them in all such gross cases of corruption as that which appeared to have prevailed in this borough. If the Gentlemen returned did not defend their seats, no inquiry could of course be instituted, and no detection of the corrupt practices arrived at; but in this case, he understood the sitting Members were to defend their seats. From the representations made to him (Mr. Ellice), it would appear that at the Stafford election, a scene of such gross corruption and bribery occurred, as would scarcely be believed by the House, accustomed as they were to have cases of gross corruption brought before them. He held tickets in his hand which had been given to the voters as they went to the poll—some of which were sealed with a single seal, and others with a double seal. The single-sealed tickets were presented to those who gave single votes, and the double-sealed tickets were presented to those who gave plumpers.

said, that he thought the present an unfair proceeding on the part of the hon. Member, that such a statement made in presence of the judges who were to decide in that case, would necessarily prejudice the cause of the parties connected with it.

said, the hon. member for Coventry was quite entitled to make his statement, in order to justify the Motion which he was about to make.

proceeded: He wished to state the extraordinary circumstances which induced him to move for the Bill. He had been informed by two individuals who had paid the money to the voters, that those tickets were issued to 524 out of the 526 voters who formed the majority in favour of the sitting Member. On one side of the tickets was marked the name of the party who voted and was entitled to the money; and on the other side was marked the sum to be paid to the voter. The sum varied from 4l. to 16l. When he said that 524 out of 526 of the voters who formed the majority had received such tickets, he thought he had made out a case which called for some inquiry. With respect to the means in which that inquiry should be pursued, in order to bring the case fairly before the House, he thought the present the best. If they were to proceed to examine it in a Committee of the House, without taking means for the protection of those who gave evidence, witnesses who were themselves implicated would be unwilling to come forward, for fear of being exposed to a civil action for bribery. He was aware that the course which he then proposed was unusual in such cases. Indeed he did not know that there was more than one instance of such a course having been adopted. In the case of the impeachment of Lord Melville, a Bill of indemnity was sent up by that House to the House of Lords, for the protection of the witnesses who might give evidence in it. In the Grampound, East Retford, and other cases of the same nature, a different course was pursued. In these cases some circumstances transpired before the Committee which induced the House to suspend its operations till witnesses were examined at the Bar of the House. He was aware that there was formerly a disposition not to investigate such cases too deeply; but as this was the first instance of the kind which came before the Reformed Parliament, the country would see whether the Reformed House was willing to grant the means of making a fair inquiry into such gross cases as this or otherwise. If it was referred to a Committee up-stairs, it must be evident that some of the parties might take an opportunity of slipping out, and that the public might in that manner be deprived of every remedy for so flagrant a grievance. He proposed the present plan as the most likely to bring the guilty persons to punishment, and had no other reason for making the suggestion. His object was, not to annoy or reprove any individual, or to expose those implicated to a civil action. His only object was, to adopt such measures as were most likely to bring the circumstances of the case fully and fairly before the House, and to leave it to the House to deal with it as seemed most advisable, under the circumstances when it was so brought before them. He had no doubt, that he should be able to prove forty or fifty cases; and as it was one of the grossest and most flagrant instances of corruption and bribery which had ever come before the House, he hoped the House would adopt measures to secure the public from such practices, and to redress an evil which was quite intolerable. If any other method appeared to the House more likely to have the desired effect, he had no objection to adopt it; his only object being to procure the enforcement of justice, as due to the House and to the public. He had only further to say, that he wished the Bill of Indemnity to extend as widely as possible, so as to protect all the parties who might give evidence, whoever they might be. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill to indemnify certain persons from the consequences of the evidence they might give before the Committee of Inquiry relative to the corrupt practices at the late election for the borough of Stafford.

said, that before the House came to any determination on the Motion of the member for Coventry, be thought it might be well for him to take the opportunity of presenting a petition with which he was in trusted on that subject. The House would be able, when they heard the statement of the petitioners, to judge how far it might be proper for them to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member. The petition was from certain electors of the borough of Stafford, who stated, that Messrs. Chetwynd, Gronow, and Blount, were the candidates for the representation of that borough at the last election, and that they (the petitioners) were canvassed by the agents of—

interrupted the hon. Member. The petition which he was about to present, was in substance an election petition; but the time had gone by when the House could receive such petitions. As, therefore, it could not be received as an election petition, the only way in which the House could at all receive it, was, in connexion with a Committee already appointed to take the matter into consideration, and to that Committee the House could refer it. He therefore put it to the hon. Member, whether, if he persisted in presenting that petition, he would not be calling on the House to do indirectly what they could not do according to the general rules laid down in such cases?

said, that if they were to enter into the discussion of an election, the merits of which were to come before them (otherwise, it was impossible but it must prejudice the case of the parties concerned), he could not but feel that the petition ought not to be received; at the same time, when an hon. Member moved for a Bill of Indemnity for witnesses who might be examined, and stated the grounds on which he made the Motion, he (Mr. Wynn) saw no reason why individuals might not be allowed to state that they were ready to bring forward such evidence as would render the Motion unnecessary. He did not see that in this case a Bill of Indemnity was necessary. He was decidedly favourable to the principle of the Bill; but he saw no reason why it should be limited to one borough; he saw no reason why the same principle which made such a bill proper as regarded Stafford, should not make it likewise proper as regarded Liverpool. He thought, that if a case of intimidation against any of the witnesses examined before the Committee were made out, the special report made by the Committee would be a sufficient ground for the House to suspend the sittings of the Committee. He wished for a general measure.

If we cannot have a general law, let us have a particular law. Here we are asked to give leave for the introduction of a Bill of Indemnity to protect the witnesses who are to give evidence in a case, which, if proved, the borough should, and certainly will, be disfranchised; for it is idle to think that if such a case of gross and notorious corruption and bribery be made out, as that related by the hon. member for Coventry, that the borough of Stafford can remain in schedule C, or any other schedule but schedule A. The hon. Member says, that if the evidence is of such a nature as cannot safely be brought before the Committee, the House can suspend the operations of the Committee till an Act of Indemnity is passed. But, is it not better to obviate every difficulty by passing the Act just now? To be sure the member for Stafford may, perhaps, have some good ground for objecting to the passing of such an Act, because it may prejudice his case, but I understand that he means to offer no objection to the Bill. If such cases as these are passed by, what is the use of the Reform Bill? You take away by it the direct nomination by individuals, but you leave the electors exposed to a more dangerous and equally certain corruption of the temptation offered to them by wealth—and the only difference between the reformed and the unreformed constituency, will be, that more crimes will be now necessary to procure the same returns. It is, therefore, the duty of the House to take the very first opportunity of punishing bribery, in order to prevent such practices in future. This is called the Reformed Parliament; but it is not reformed, unless it takes measures to prevent Members from obtaining seats in it by corrupting the electors. We ought to have no cobwebs in the way; let us sweep them all before us. The hon. Member has stated, that 524 out of 526 of the electors were bribed—surely that is a case for disfranchisement. So, there were two in the majority who were not bribed! What an exemplary pair they must have been! Their names should be written in letters of gold. It should be handed down to posterity that there were two honest men in Stafford. Such a scene as this I never heard of. It ought to break down every barrier, and will justify the House in at once extinguishing the borough of Stafford, if that borough is really as guilty as it is represented.

said, that if reports were true, the corruptions of the borough of Stafford were the greatest which ever came under the consideration of the House. They appeared so gross and so notorious, that it appeared to him impossible for the House not to institute an inquiry into them, for the purpose of punishing the guilty, He did not, however, exactly see the object of the Hon. member for Coventry; if he understood it, it was intended to indemnify the very persons who were guilty of the bribery.

said, that the information which he received was from two gentlemen, neither of whom were Members of that House.

But those gentlemen paid the money with which the electors were bribed to those electors. He certainly agreed with the hon. Member, that there were difficulties in the case which might prevent proof of bribery being brought home to those who were guilty, without such a Bill as that proposed; it might then be proper to adopt it; but to him it appeared that the Bill of Indemnity proposed by the hon. Member, was to cover the malpractices of the guilty, and to screen them from the effect of their guilt. He (Mr. Baring;) thought it was improbable, if corruption and bribery to such an enormous extent had been practised, that it would be at all difficult to prove it.

said, that if the House thought there was any better way of procuring the evidence necessary, he would be willing to adopt it. His only object in making the Motion at all was to expose the most notorious and extensive system of corruption which had ever come within his knowledge. The corruption of the borough of Stafford had long been notorious. Even before Mr. Sheridan represented it, the price of a vote was 5l. In endeavouring to persuade them to adopt his opinion on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, that gentleman used to give them as an argument in its favour, that as they got 5l. then—

rose to order. He begged to ask, whether it was fair to prejudice the Jury, who were to try the merits of the case, by such statements.

thought that the hon. Member was quite in order.

No one could be influenced by a historical account of the elections of Stafford. Mr. Sheridan, to induce the electors of Stafford to become Reformers, used to say, "At present you get 5l. for a vote; but if yon obtain Parliamentary Reform, you will probably get 10l."

said, that if this Bill of Indemnity had any effect at all, it would be to protect the real delinquents. He could say, that the present members for Stafford had not been guilty of bribery, either directly or indirectly.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better protection of Dramatic Authors, said, that he did not feel it necessary to occupy the time of the House with many observations, as he was sure, that the necessity of some legislative measure on the subject was universally admitted. At this moment dramatic authors possessed no control over the use of their property, such as was very properly given to other labourers in the field of literature by the laws of copyright. A play, when published, might be acted upon any stage without the consent of the author, and without his deriving a single shilling from the profits of the performance. It might not only be acted at one theatre, but at 100 theatres, and though, perhaps, it filled the pockets of the managers, not a single penny might accrue from its performance, however successful, or however repeated, to the unfortunate author. It was to remedy such a state of things that he proposed to bring in the present Bill, and he begged to observe, that in the Committee which sat upon this subject last Session, there was not a single dissentient voice as to the injustice of the present system, and as to the advantages which literature would derive from a change in it such as that which he was now about to propose. By the Bill which he was going to bring in, it was proposed to allow to dramatic authors the same copyright that was, by the existing law, given to all other authors—namely, for twenty-eight years, or for the life of the author. It also enacted, that no play should be performed at any theatre without the author's consent, and that if played without his consent he should have the right of applying to a court of law for damages against the proprietor of the theatre where it was so played; the maximum of the damages to be given to him to be 50l., and the minimum 10l., for every night the said play was so performed. The evil of the existing system was pretty abundantly evinced by the striking decline of the modern drama, and he was quite sure that the result of the proposed change in that system would be, that greater talents and a higher order of genius would be enlisted in the service of the stage, and that the dramatic literature of the country would once more regain that exalted position from which it had been degraded by the want of the necessary encouragement and protection. It was but justice to his hon. friend opposite (the member for Dungarvon) to say, that he had been foremost in his efforts to procure such protection for dramatic authors. In a late Session, his hon. friend was the first to propose a measure similar to the present, and he was therefore sure that as his right hon. friend had been the earliest and ablest advocate of the interests of dramatic authors, he might count upon his supporting the present Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, that as far as he was acquainted with the provisions of the Bill of his hon. friend, they had his approval, and he did hope, that the consequence of passing such a measure would be to elevate dramatic literature from that depressed state in which, he was sorry to say, it, as well as all other interests connected with the drama, had been for many years. It struck him that 10l. would be too large a minimum of damages to be given in some cases. It would be too large, for instance, in the case of a manager of a company of strolling players, but, at the same time, it would be scarcely worth an author's while to proceed against a man of straw, such as a manager of strolling players usually was. He trusted there would be no difficulty in passing such a measure as this through Parliament.

said, he now rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill "for Licensing Theatres, and for the better regulation of Dramatic Performances in the Cities of London and Westminster, and within twenty miles thereof," and in doing so he should feel it necessary to trouble the House with but a very few observations. The Bill which he was now about to introduce was founded upon the recommendation of the Committee of last Session upon dramatic performances, and he should read to the House the paragraph from the Report in which that recommendation was contained:—'In respect to the licensing of theatres, the Committee are of opinion that the laws would be rendered more clear and effectual by confining the sole power and authority to license theatres throughout the metropolis (as well as in places of royal residence) to the Lord Chamberlain; and that his, the sole jurisdiction, should be extended twenty miles round London; that being the point at which Magistrates now have the power of licensing theatres for the legitimate drama. And as the Committee believe, that the interests of the drama will be considerably advanced by the natural consequences of fair competition in its representation, they recommend that the Lord Chamberlain should continue a license to all the theatres licensed at present, whether by himself or by the Magistrates. The Committee are also of opinion, partly from the difficulty of defining, by clear and legal distinctions, "the legitimate drama," and principally from the propriety of giving a full opening as well to the higher as to the more humble orders of dramatic talent, that the proprietors and managers of the said theatres should be allowed to exhibit, at their option, the legitimate drama, and all such plays as have received, or shall receive, the sanction of the censor.' This Bill was, as he had just said, chiefly founded upon that paragraph of the Report, in the first instance, as regarded the throwing open the performance of the regular drama, and, in the second place, in confining the authority of licensing solely to the Lord Chamberlain, within the district therein specified. The three objects which the Bill had in view were—first, to afford to the public at large the full advantage derivable from regular dramatic representations; second, to prevent the inhabitants of any district from being subjected, against their will, to the annoyance of any theatrical speculations; and, third, to guard against the exercise of any kind of partiality on the part of the licensing authority. With such objects in view, the Bill proposed to enact, in the first instance, that if any person should be desirous of obtaining a licence for the exhibition of dramatic performances at any theatre within the limits of the Act, he must post a notice of such intention on the outer door of such theatre three calendar months before the annual licensing day, at which such application was intended to be made—that copies of such notice must be, at the same time, served upon the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish, in which the theatre was situate, and that he must insert a copy of the said notice once a-week during the said three months in two of the daily morning newspapers. The same provisions were made applicable to the case where the theatre was not built or finished at the period when the application was made; and, it was further provided, that in the latter case the person so applying should deposit in the Lord Chamberlain's office descriptive plans and particulars of the mode in which it was intended to build, or finish the building, exhibiting the extent, elevation, and mode of structure of the said theatre, and the number of persons that it would be calculated to contain; that such plans should lie in the Lord Chamberlain's office, open to the public inspection, from the time of their being there deposited until the annual licensing day; and that in case a majority of the persons interested in the property contiguous to such theatre, or the proposed site thereof, should, in a petition, to be presented to the Lord Chamberlain two months before the licensing day, signify their dissent to the licensing of it, such licence should not be granted, but that if no such petition should be presented, the Lord Chamberlain should be obliged to grant the licence as prayed for. It was further provided, that nothing contained in the Act should be construed to affect the right of any person to object to the licensing of any theatre by reason of anything which, by the common law, would at the passing of the Act be considered a sufficient objection to the licensing of such theatre. The Bill also provided that where a licence was sought for a theatre, a certificate of the stability and safety of such theatre, signed by three architects or surveyors, should be produced by the persons so applying to the Lord Chamberlain; and it also gave to the Lord Chamberlain summary power, in cases where plays were performed at places not duly licensed, or in cases where the proprietors of theatres exceeded the limits of their licences. It would be observed, that no discretion as to granting a licence was vested in the Lord Chamberlain where the provisions of the Act had been fully complied with, and where no memorial had been presented within the time specified against the granting of such licence. As to the office of censor, he for his part must say, that he thought such an office was perfectly unnecessary. Undoubtedly the evidence which had been given by the present censor before the Committee, had failed to convince him either as to the importance of the functions attached to that office, or as to the discretion with which they had been exercised, but as it might prove fatal to the Bill if it proposed to abolish that office, it proposed to leave the authority of the censor just as it was at present. The Bill provided the following graduated scale of fees as payable to the Lord Chamberlain, or his deputy, for the licensing of theatres and dramatic productions:—

did not mean to offer on this occasion, any opposition to the Bill proposed by his hon. friend; on the contrary, he thought that the time was come when some such measure should be passed with regard to dramatic performances. It was extremely doubtful whether any good would arise from the interference of the Legislature in controlling the public in matters of taste. There certainly was an idea in the metropolis, and in other towns where theatres existed, that the neighbourhood of theatres caused the introduction of a loose population, and at all events, their neighbourhood was often objected to by persons resident in the vicinity. It was therefore but right they should have the power of objecting to their introduction. He feared that there would be some difficulty as to the summary power proposed to be given to the Lord Chamberlain. In consequence of the repeal, as proposed by this Act, of the 10th of George 2nd, by which players were classed with "rogues and vagabonds," the summary power of search, on the part of the police, would be taken away, and difficulties certainly would, in some cases, lie in the exercise of the summary power proposed to be given to the Lord Chamberlain. With regard to the censorship, he thought it was productive of utility, and that it could not be dispensed with. He trusted that his hon. friend would not hurry the Bill through the House, but would afford time to the persons in this metropolis who were interested in its provisions, to make their representations to the House either for or against the measure. He hoped that by the passing of such a measure, the law on this subject would be at length placed upon an intelligible foundation, for it had been of late years so complicated, and so variously interpreted, that there was no understanding how any theatre stood.

said, he was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, that he conceived the censorship to be necessary, for he had hoped that he would have taken a different view of the subject. If he were asked why it was, that theatrical property had become depressed, he could find a ready answer in what he believed to be the fact, that it was because of the Lord Chamberlain and of the censorship, which had trammelled the drama until it became as it now was. Every position which the right hon. Gentleman had taken he conceived to be false. In fact, fees were demanded here and fees there, according to the evidence taken before the Committee of last Session, and thus an eternal interference was kept up with the exhibition of the regular drama. He was of opinion that there should be a free trade in that as well as in any thing else, in order that there might be a fair manifestation of the talent of the country in that department. He hoped, before the Bill should pass into a law, that sufficient attention would be paid to it, in order to do away with those mischievous restrictions and impediments to the drama.

said, that as the object of the present system was the affording irrational amusements at the dearest rate, so the object of the present Bill would be to afford to the public rational amusements at the cheapest rate. The object of the great theatres seemed to be to administer rather to the physical than to the mental gratification of the people. He was of opinion, that they should throw open the minor theatres, and allow them to perform the legitimate drama. Indeed, he thought that such ought to be the principal object of the Bill As to consulting existing interests, why there was none remaining. He held himself a 500l. renter's share of Covent-garden theatre, which entitled him to 25l. per annum—when he could get it. He had not, however, obtained a farthing for many years, and he was at the present time entitled to seize the dresses, &c. on the premises. If, therefore, there was any allegation that existing monopolies should be protected, he should say that there were none remaining. The present monopolies were mortgaged to treble their value, and of course were worth nothing. For his own part he was willing to give up his 500l. share, and all his arrears, to enable the minor theatres to perform the legitimate drama at a cheap rate.

regretted that the Bill was confined to the metropolis. He had himself presented a petition from Liverpool, stating that, in that town and its neighbourhood, there was a population of 100,000 persons unprovided with theatrical amusement. He would move a clause to extend the Bill to the country, if the hon. Gentleman would not do so himself.

in explanation, said, he had not raised an obstacle on account of vested interests, but merely asked for time for them to make a case out, if they could. He doubted the propriety of extending the Bill to the provinces.

thought the office of censor a most useful one. Hon. Gentlemen had only to judge for themselves of the effect of an unlicensed system in Paris to arrive at the same conclusion. The productions exhibited in some of the theatres must shock every moral mind. He was not favourable to a vexatious censorship, but one which would enforce a respect for sound morals and public decency.

having visited Paris, said, the result of his travels was, that, the differed from the hon. member for Essex.

said, that there was no need of a censorship, as public morals had actually risen higher than the licence, which the censor could not lower. This was evident from the fact, that many of the old plays, which the censor could not prohibit from being represented, were not and could not be played from their indelicacy. The absence of such exhibitions here as those referred to by the hon. member for Essex in Paris was not imputable to our censorship, but a higher standard of public morality.

rose to submit a Motion to the House on a very important subject—that of Reforming the Municipal Constitution of the Royal Burghs of Scotland. It was a subject of which the discussion was likely to be monopolized by the Scotch Members, and he, therefore, would not then enter into any details of the measure. He believed, that it would be more convenient to the House, and more conducive to a saving of time, if the discussion were taken at a future period. He proposed, therefore, to read the Bill a first and a second time pro formâ, and after the second reading, he would move, that it be referred to a Select Committee. He would propose that this Committee should consist of all the Members for the Scotch burghs, about twenty-three, which would make a very proper Committee as to numbers. By so doing the House would not come to a discussion of the measure till it was well acquainted with it. He would then only move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws with respect to electing the Magistrates and Town Councils of Royal Burghs in Scotland.

expressed his regret that the measure was not in the first instance referred to a Committee of Inquiry, as had been done with respect to the English and Irish Corporations. He hoped, too, that the learned Lord would not confine the Select Committee to the Members for Scotch burghs.

explained, that a considerable time would elapse before the Committee could come to any conclusion, that the Bill would be amply discussed, and that the Committee would readily listen to any suggestions. As to placing other Members on the Committee, it would be open to hon. Members to name whom they pleased when the Committee was appointed.

wished to ask, when the Committee would begin its labours? He hoped nothing would be done till the Bill had been printed and sent to Scotland, so that the opinion of those most interested in it might be obtained.

thought the Committee might begin its labours immediately. An extension of the time sufficient to make the Bill known, would, however, be given, and the whole discussion, both on its principle and on its details, might be gone into after the Committee had completed its labours.

asked, whether the learned Lord meant to take any steps to improve the constitution of those boroughs which were not royal burghs? We understood the hon. Member to call them barony burghs.

believed, that his Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to propose a measure for them. He could certainly say, for himself, that he had a Bill in preparation to amend the constitution of the boroughs alluded to by the hon. Member.

differed from the hon. member for Aberdeenshire as to requiring a Committee of Inquiry, because the subject had already been much inquired into. Burgh Reform had agitated Scotland much more than Parliamentary Reform, and now that they had obtained the latter he hoped that the former would be also soon obtained. He recommended a sweeping and effectual Reform of the boroughs, similar to that which had been made of the Parliament, and not a bit-by-bit Reform.

wished to ask the noble Lord, what arrangement he proposed to make, as to the presentation of petitions, on the next day.

said, that it had been agreed, that petitions relative to the Irish Coercive Bill should be presented, and he hoped that hon. Members would adhere to that arrangement which had been made with a view of hearing those petitions which related to the Bill before it passed.

said, he should take the sense of the House on that subject, when the time came.

hoped the hon. Member would not. It would be of no use to receive the petitions of the people against the Bill after it was passed.

hoped the hon. Member would waive his intention.

thought the hon. member for Worcester should raise the question then, and not wait till the next day.

said, it was impossible to raise the question then. The question could only be raised on the presentation of any individual petition; and it might be raised at any time when it was proposed to lay a petition on the Table. It was in the power of any hon. Member to present a petition; but it was in the power of the House to decide that it should not be received. The House, however, had no right to interfere and prevent Members from presenting petitions. There certainly was a general understanding, that the petitions relating to the Irish Bill should alone be presented; but the House could not prevent other petitions being brought before it, if hon. Gentlemen offered them. He had given notice of a motion, to call the attention of the House to the propriety, in the present state of business, of always taking the Orders of the Day before Notices, during the progress of the Irish Bill. He did not intend to take the sense of the House on that Motion, but he only wished that an understanding should be come to on the subject. At the time of the debates on the Reform Bill, he had made a similar proposition, and the Gentlemen opposed to him had concurred in the suggestion; and the consequence was, that other business was not allowed to interfere with it.' He should, therefore, on this occasion, only make such a suggestion; and he hoped that Gentlemen would not again press their notices, and allow the Orders of the Day to take precedence, so as not to interfere with the progress of the Irish Bill.

wished to ask the hon. member for Worcester if it were his intention to interfere with the arrangement for presenting petitions against the Bill? If the hon. Member meant to raise the question, he had better do it then. He thought a resolution might be moved, that no other petitions should be presented to-morrow than petitions relative to the Irish Bill. If there were no impropriety in that mode of settling the question, he should have no objection to move such a resolution.

was sure the noble Lord would do him the justice to say, that he had never shown himself disposed pertinaciously to resist the wishes of the Government; but he must declare that the present state of the business of the House was now become a grievance of very great importance. The present mode of proceeding was neither more nor less than an interference with the rights and privileges of the House. If he were not allowed to present petitions, which he thought of importance, and if he were not allowed to submit motions of which he had regularly given notice, what was that but infringing on the rights and privileges of the Members? He admitted, that there had been an understanding across the Table between the noble Lord and the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and he knew that the House generally acceded to those understandings to which the parties most interested came. He did not wish to interfere with such understandings; but he wished to ask would the noble Lord assure him any day on which he might bring forward his Motion? He had a notice fixed for the 26th, on a subject which he considered of great importance—when was he to be assured of an opportunity of bringing that forward? The Notice-book up to the 20th of May, was filled up with Motions, four or five for each day, and motions of a description that each of them would, as things were now discussed, take four or five days to discuss it. If the country was not to be altogether deceived—and if the House was to have time for deliberation—something must be done to obviate the pressure of business. Such a state of things was inconsistent with the dignity, character, and usefulness of the House. He knew, unsupported as he was by any party, that his attempts might be unavailing, but he could not give up his rights and privileges as a Member of that House, and could not forego his right to introduce the Motion of which he had given notice. He wished to know whether all other business was to be put an end to till the Irish Bill was passed?

had always supposed that all the decisions of the House would be guided by good sense and discretion. He had, however, been apprehensive that the eagerness of Gentlemen to bring forward Motions would lead the House to attempt to do more business than it possibly could do in one Session. That apprehension had been realised. On looking at the Notice-book, he found so many notices of motions on very important subjects, that every man acquainted with business must know it would be impossible to get through them in one Session.

asked, if all the business of the country was to give place to the Irish Bill? On two grounds, the Bill, he thought, should be abandoned—first, because it entirely interrupted the business of the House; secondly, because, by every account from Ireland, it would be quite unnecessary to put into operation. But as to the precise course to be taken on the question before the House, he would not come to any understanding.

thought it strange that the accommodation granted to him by the minority in the last Parliament should be refused to him in this.

though highly disapproving of the coercive Bill, yet thought that the sooner it was disposed of the better. After the decided opinions expressed by the House on its necessity, it was hardly to be expected that it would be dropped in its present stage.

considered the course pursued by the noble Lord to be very unfair to the people of England, whose interests were made to appear very subordinate to the interests of Ireland, and who were left in the dark as to the intentions of Ministers in reference to the great public questions which affected their dearest interests. The admitted urgency of the Irish Coercion Bill did not justify the noble Lord's most blameable silence respecting the Established Church, and the Bank Charter, and the East-Indian and West-Indian interests, and the tithes, and the other important questions, which must, however late, come under their consideration. What was to prevent the noble Lord devoting one evening to express the intentions of Ministers in relation to those great questions? There need be, then, no discussion; all that was wanting, was to know what measures Ministers proposed respecting these important interests.

hoped to be able to state the intentions of Ministers before the recess. It was plain, that a short expression or outline of their intended measures would only lead to misconception and misrepresentation. If he adopted the course suggested by the hon. Member, the propositions of Ministers would be attacked piecemeal throughout the country.

said, surely it was not meant that the public were not to discuss any or every measure which Ministers would bring forward.

said, that the Irish coercion measure was introduced to draw public attention from the violation of the pledges made by Government. They were thus enabled to shift aside the questions of economy, reduction of taxation, &c, and deny the country the relief which it had a right to claim at their hands.