rose and said, it was the understood intention of the House to proceed that morning (at the twelve o'clock sitting) with that important measure, the Irish Church Temporalities' Bill. Hon. Gentlemen, he thought, would agree with him, that it was necessary to devote the mornings, excepting only two days reserved for petitions, to the business actually in a state of progress, in order that the labours of the Session might be finished in moderate time. He would suggest, that these morning sittings should be confined solely to the Orders of the Day, and the passing of Bills, that not only might the public business proceed more rapidly, but such Gentlemen as had Bills in charge might be enabled to prosecute their completion. He would suggest, that that clay should be appropriated, as was appointed, to the Irish Church Temporalities' Bill.

was sure it was the duty of every Member to afford every facility to the progress of public business. Whether hon. Members agreed to the measures to be brought forward or not, all must agree, that it was of the highest importance that every means should be adopted which were calculated either to carry those measures through, or to have them rejected. A new proposition was now brought forward; and would it not be proper and necessary, that upon the days on which the public business was to be taken at twelve o'Clock, the sittings of the Committees should be suspended? Whatever the measures might be, it would be extremely unsatisfactory to have them disposed of, while hon. Members were necessarily engaged with other public business? They were now at the usual period at which the Session closed, and yet there were three of the greatest questions to be considered which had ever come before the House, and upon which Bills had not yet even been introduced—namely, the Batik Charter, the East-India, and the West-India question. He (Mr. Wynn) thought, that if the Government would consent to consider those different measures one by one, and carry the one commenced to a termination, before they began another, they might get through the business sooner, and with greater satisfaction to themselves. But if hon. Members were to come down to the House, as at present, without knowing which of the measures was to be brought forward, they could not possibly be prepared for the discussion; and the business would ultimately be delayed instead of accelerated by the present plan. He would, therefore, propose to the noble Lord, that the sittings of Committees should be suspended on those days.

entirely concurred with what had fallen from his right hon. friend. He had thought, at the commencement of the Session, that that would be the best system to adopt, although it had certainly not been attended to hitherto. It was the system by which business was the most likely to be got through; and he would assure the House, that hereafter one subject should be taken up, and that that should be gone through with, as far as was practicable, before any other question of importance was touched.

was sure, that had the noble Lord been really of opinion, at the commencement of the Session, that the system now proposed would have been the most desirable, it would not have been objected to by the House. Indeed, he remembered, that when the Irish Coercion Bill was brought in, the Irish Church Bill was introduced at the same time, and it was said, that the latter was to be carried forward, pari passu, with the former. Hon. Members, however, soon found that exclusive attention was given to the Coercion Bill, until it was carried into a law, while the Church Bill was allowed to go, he might say, entirely to sleep. Still he hailed the present proposition as the beginning of an era, when a sounder system was to commence than that which had hitherto been acted upon. It had been only a system of scrambling night-work—an effort to see whose physical strength was the greatest, and would endure the longest. Now, however, they were about to begin business at ten or eleven o'clock, when all other properly constituted bodies did begin their work, and that system should have all the assistance to maintain it which it was in his power to afford.

did not think, that the system now proposed would either facilitate the progress of business, or shorten the Session, or enable the House to break up any earlier of an evening.

could not agree with the Amendment. He did not see, that a person in holy orders should be disqualified. It would, in his opinion, be better that the choice should be left in the discretion of the Crown.

thought they had not yet come to the time when the House would say, that ecclesiastics should not be appointed to a Board that was to deal with ecclesiastical matters. There were here six of the Commissioners already appointed by the Crown—he would suggest that the other three should be elected by the Bishops—that plan was now pursued in the lay appointments to the Board of First Fruits.

thought the House ought to bear in mind what the Commission might eventually have to do. In case there was a surplus, the Parliament had not yet determined what was to be done with it—it had not been determined that it should be applied to purposes exclusively ecclesiastic. If the surplus was to be applied to temporal purposes, he would ask whether it was not reasonable that there should be temporal Commissioners for applying the fund to temporal purposes. Why should it be left entirely to clerical? In his opinion, there should be the check of lay Commissioners, and he, therefore, thought it the duty of the hon. Gentleman to insist upon his Amendment, even to a division.

thought there was very little chance of all the three Gentlemen being clergymen. On this point, the Crown ought to have unrestricted power.

thought, considering the very extensive powers which, under the 68th, 69th, and 71st clauses of the Bill, were vested in the Commissioners, to deal with any surplus fund which might come to their hands, in the building of glebe houses and additional churches, and in the increase of small livings, as in this respect, a duty of a very delicate nature would devolve on them, it was very desirable, in order to raise them above a suspicion, that there should at least he some laymen in the Commission, who could not be suspected of any other object than a wish to support the general interests of the Protestant religion.

could not approve of the constitution of this Ecclesiastical Commission. In Scotland, every matter regarding the interests of the Church itself was regulated by the Ecclesiastical Courts, but when the temporalities were concerned, they then came to the supreme civil court, where justice was dispensed. At present the power of the Crown was so extensive under this Bill, that the nomination of the Commissioners might just as well be at once vested in the right hon. Secretary for Ireland.

did not contend, that ecclesiastical persons were incompetent to the proper discharge of the functions which the Commission would impose; but in order to obviate the possibility of a suspicion, that a not illaudable, but indiscreet zeal might be exercised by the ecclesiastical members; and at the same time, to secure the independence of the Board, it would be proper that laymen should be eligible.

objected to it as establishing a most pernicious principle. If the House passed it, then how could they refuse to entertain such a motion as this, if he were to bring it forward—"Whereas, the revenues of the Dukes of Sutherland and Cleveland, far exceed those of other Dukes"—[the conclusion of the sentence was drowned in cries of "Oh, oh!"]

thought the income of the Bishops of Ireland was much too large for their duty, and that the diminution of their wealth and splendour, woulds not produce a diminution in their efficacy or respect. In the notice which he had given, he had intended to have proposed that the income of the future Bishops of Derry should be reduced to 5,000l. a-year. Since that period, however, he had been induced by several Gentlemen to alter that sum to 6,000l. a-year. The incomes of the Bishops of Kilmore, Cashel, and Tuam, were, in his opinion, too large; but he did not feel himself competent to take up so great a subject as dealing with them. He should, therefore, move that an addition be made to the clause, to the effect that the income of all future Bishops of Derry should be reduced to 6,000l. a-year. He thought there was no hon. Member who would not join with him in thinking that sum quite adequate.

remarked, that although it was undoubtedly true, that the present Bi-shop of Derry had accepted that see, upon the understanding that it was to be subject to any deductions that might be decided upon, without any limit whatever, yet, in his opinion, upon the construction of that understanding, it would not be expedient that he should be placed in a worse situation as Bishop of Derry than he was as Bishop of Killaloe. He did not object to the proposition of his hon. friend, as he had now brought it forward, but he should have given his decided opposition to it, if its effect had been to place the Bishop of Derry in the situation to which he had alluded.

said, he did not rise to make any objection to the present Bishop of Derry retaining double the income he enjoyed as Bishop of Killaloe. They were at once adopting the example of reducing the salaries of the Bishops; but were they aware that, while they were diminishing their revenues, they were doubling their patronage? For example, they were combining Raphoe with Derry, and, at the same time, throwing the whole of the patronage of the former into the latter, for the purpose of compensating for the reduction of the salaries. It was much better, when they had merged one bishopric into another, that instead of extending the patronage, they should convey it at once to the Crown—or even to the Commissioners. He particularly called the attention of the House to that fact. This was a Church reform, and yet the patronage of Bishops in Ireland was doubled by it. Besides, the reduction of salary was founded on the present actual salary, and not on the real duties to be performed. If 4,000l. was enough for A, why should B receive 5,000l., and C 8,000l.? There was no fair adjustment, no proportion in the case; and, condemning the augmentation of patronage, the reduction of revenue was far from meeting the justice of the case, so that the real nuisance, or abuse, was substantially untouched. He declared his intention, on the third reading of the Bill, to bring up a clause by way of rider for reducing the salaries of the Irish Bishops.

he should resist the reduction of the Bishop of Derry's income, because he was the only Bishop who had advocated the cause of religious liberty, when he (Mr. O'Connell) was advocating the cause of Catholic emancipation; and he knew that the people of Ireland would not desire such reduction. He should certainly oppose its reduction below that of the Archbishop of Armagh.

said, that the benefits derived by the Bishops were in the nature of income, and that was different from salary in a legislative sense; and therefore it could not be dealt with, as the hon. member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) seemed to think it could be.

said, the Motion which I have now the pleasure to submit to the House is one which, I am persuaded, will enlist in its support every feeling of liberal regard for the entire community of England. It is the first step towards breaking down an odious monopoly, by affording permanent encouragement to universal and cheap education; and whatever advantages may attend cheap law, cheap religion, and cheap government—and no one is less disposed to undervalue them than myself they will be the necessary result of cheap education; and it is really—to adopt a homely adage—placing the cart before the horse, to bestow privileges upon men until they are rendered capable of appreciating their value, and of submitting to their wholesome moral influence and restraints. It would be worse than nugatory to occupy the time of the House by entering on any detailed account of the origin and progress of the University of London. Suffice it to say, that its foundation was the spon- taneous effort of a generous public, put in action by some great and good men, with each of whom, in his high musings for the public good, the plan may be said to have originated. In 1825, the sum of 160,000l. having been raised by voluntary subscription, a noble edifice was erected, and has in chief part been completed, The plan of instruction then commenced and having gone through the inevitable process attaching to infant establishments, of struggle and detraction, of internal schism and external persecution, has, I may confidently assert, settled into perfect union and consequent utility. A body of professors, not to be excelled in Europe for talent and for character, have the entire conduct of the discipline and literary, and scientific portion of the establishment; while a superintending council of distinguished laymen has delegated to a small Committee the financial and business details, between whom and the professors the utmost harmony prevails. By way of steady supply of pupils in all the classes, a junior school has been established within the walls of the University, which is conducted to the entire satisfaction of the public; and in aid of the medical students a hospital is now building by voluntary subscription, which is calculated by the facilities for clinical lectures, and the practical information it will afford to the medical class, to constitute the metropolis the first school of medicine in the United Kingdom, if not in the world. Early in the progress of the University, the necessity of a Charter was contemplated, for the purpose of giving legal protection and permanency to the institution; an instruction to that effect is contained in the deed of settlement, and, therefore, so long ago as 1830, a Charter was applied for, on a petition of the Duke of Somerset, Mr. John Smith, and Doctor Lushington. The draft of the Charter was approved by the then Attorney and Solicitor General; it was ingrossed, and went through all but the last sanction of the Great Seal, at an actual expense in fees of 268l., and when thus on the threshold of completion, it was stopped by a private application on the part of the Chancellor of Oxford, and by the more public course of a Petition from the University of Cambridge, to both which learned bodies, according to customary practice, notice of the application had been given, as well as to all the other Chartered Universities of the United Kingdom, and, as I have before stated, the only opponents were Oxford and Cambridge, the former requiring a restriction from conferring degrees in arts, the latter objecting to the granting of any degrees at all. It is not generally known, that no university whatever is entitled to confer degrees, by grant of any Charter whatever, the claim so to do being considered as incident to the name and title of University, and, therefore, King's College, although it has a Charter, can at present claim no such right; the name is consequently the sole matter in dispute, the University of London praying to be incorporated as such, subject to no other restriction than as against granting degrees in divinity, but wholly unfettered in all other departments of literature, science, and the arts. There can be no pretences for Oxford and Cambridge insisting on a monopoly, which they only possess in common with Dublin and the Scotch Universities. The privilege now claimed is purely honorary, as no legal rights attach to it; the qualifications in medicine and for abridging time both for the Bar and admission as solicitors, are by several Acts of Parliament limited by name to Oxford and to Cambridge, and who will still, therefore, for the present, retain those and many other exclusive rights and exemptions, provided for by Acts of Parliament; there is no pretence, therefore, for their interfering with the creation of a new theatre, for the noblest emulation of youth, seeking honorary distinctions, and depending only on merit for a reward. I trust that the better spirits of Oxford and of Cambridge, those who have so liberally distinguished themselves in the last and the present year, by entertaining in their walls the assembled science and literature of the kingdom, cannot be parties to this conspiracy against the extension of that knowledge they have thus professed to honour. Let as believe that they have reluctantly acted under the influence of some ancient statute, and will be well pleased with their defeat. At all events, defeated they will be. It is impossible that a Legislature, which has, to its immortal credit, in this, its first Session, granted the rights of conscience and immunity separately to various classes of fellow-subjects, whether Roman Catholics, Quakers, Moravians, Separatists, or Jews, will refuse to them and every other sect and denomination collectively the sacred right of acquiring knowledge, and competing with their hitherto more favoured fellow-citizens, for the honours and the advantages which should attend a successful issue of that competition, the high prizes due to intellectual eminence. The whole dissenting community of England is now altogether precluded from academic honours, if not academic education, which may, it is true, be obtained at Cambridge, but leading to no result. Even, under this disadvantage, the dissenting youth have eminently distinguished themselves; and what may not be expected when the monopoly shall have been broken down, and all admitted into generous competition? I will not—I cannot—anticipate any objection on the score of merits, there really being none; the only point, therefore, that can be alleged is mere matter of supposed form—namely, that the question is one that should be determined by the King in Council, or argued before the Chancellor, for there appears no certain course of proceeding on these occasions of mere honorary distinction; and, indeed, it is difficult to conceive how any one should presume thus to circumscribe the Royal prerogative in its most beneficial exercise. When a Charter was granted to the Asiatic Society, it was unsuccessfully opposed by the Linnean Society; and more recently on the grant of a Charter to the Royal Society of Literature, Sir Humphry Davy objecting to the title, I met him in amicable controversy before the then Attorney and Solicitor General, who instantly over-ruled the objection. In the present instance, Oxford and Cambridge peremptorily declined the discussion. I then gave a long notice of this Motion, and immediately apprised them of it, and have received an answer from each Vice Chancellor, abiding by their objections. They have, as I contend, thus taken issue before this tribunal, and thus literally put themselves upon the country; and to its righteous verdict, as expressed by the House, is the appeal now made. The two learned bodies cannot say their interests will not be watched and protected here; they are well represented by four learned and hon. Members, with whom I would not venture to compete in argument, could any be adduced; or in eloquence, were any needed to perplex, rather than to refute the plain statement I have so plainly submitted to the House. Several petitions in aid of the object have been presented to the House, and the prayer will be supported by some, I am sure, of my hon. friends; and, therefore, reserving to myself, in reply, such observations as may arise out of the discussion, I leave the decision in perfect confidence to the House, with my cordial thanks for the indulgent hearing it has vouchsafed me. I move "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, beseeching him to grant his Royal Charter of Incorporation to the University of London, with such powers and privileges as shall appear to his Majesty to be most effectual for the encouragement of education amongst all classes of his Majesty's subjects."

in seconding the Motion of his hon. friend said, that the question was not confined to the London University alone, but had, in fact, relation to the rights of the public generally. It was because of the rights of the public which were involved in the question as to the propriety of granting this Charter that gave the subject importance in his eyes. The only point they would have to consider was, whether this institution was in a fit condition to receive the privileges for which it asked—namely, whether qualified masters had been provided for the instruction of the pupils, and if proper and suitable rules and regulations had been constituted for its government. In all these respects it was, he believed, in a situation for incorporation; and when it was known that the granting of the Charter had been formerly stopped at the eleventh hour, and that many of the members of the Government took a strong interest in the success of the establishment, the present appeal to the justice of the House would not, he hoped, be made in vain. He had certainly been surprised at the opposition which the universities of Oxford and Cambridge had given, and, without being at all insensible to the advantages of those learned bodies, he must say, that such conduct on their part but ill assorted with that liberality of feeling which ought to distinguish them in the face of the country. It was undoubtedly true that genius was sometimes called forth by those ancient seats of learning, but it was equally as true that talent was not un-frequently stifled in them. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge conferred no advantage whatever upon any person who did not belong to the communion of the Church of England; but ought they to shut their eyes to the propriety of allowing the Dissenters, who were now a powerful and important body of intelligent and meritorious citizens, to participate at all events in some of the benefits to be derived from such institutions? He was not himself a Dissenter, but still he thought it highly impolitic to exclude any class of persons merely because of their religion from the advantages and emoluments to which a University education might entitle them. It was by no means his intention to cast any reflection on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but at the same time that he admitted their vast utility he must in common honesty say, that they were constituted only for the rich, and virtually excluded the poor. This was a truth that could not be disputed by the best and most zealous friend of those establishments. The temper of the present times was opposed to monopoly of any sort; but could, he would ask, any monopoly be more odious or more injurious than a monopoly of the means of education? And such was the nature of the monopoly of the Universities. If Dissenters were excluded merely from all advantages connected with the Established Church he could understand it; but why they should be debarred from benefits which had no relation whatever with religion he certainly was at a loss to conjecture. It was undoubtedly true, that the funds of the London University were not in a very flourishing state, but that House, he submitted, had nothing whatever to do with its pecuniary affairs, the question they had to consider being simply, was it or was it not in such a situation as would enable it properly to exercise the chartered privileges to be confided to it? No allegation had been urged against the institution which could justify the Government in feeling the least alarm in granting it a Charter. The question, after all, resolved itself into this:—Should the monopoly of education be continued to the existing Universities, or should the privileges enjoyed by them be in future participated in by other establishments of a similar description? The time had arrived when it was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to do something for insuring the blessings of education to all classes and denominations of the people, and, knowing the anxiety of his noble and learned friend at the head of the law (Lord Brougham) on this point, he must believe, that the sentiments attributed in the public prints to that noble individual, who had already done so much in favour of subjects like this, with reference to the London University, had been misunderstood. It could not be denied, that the lower classes in this country had now attained a higher degree of political power than was ever possessed by the people of any country, and this power had been so increased and fortified by the Reform Bill that it would be hopeless to think of resisting its influence. More danger, he contended, was to be apprehended from ignorance than intelligence, and, therefore, he entertained a strong desire adequately to provide for the general diffusion of knowledge.

said, the question of a Charter was at present under the consideration of his Majesty's Government. The mere assent to the granting of a Charter was but of little consequence; the important part of the question being the terms on which the Charter should be granted. The mere granting of honorary degrees without legal honour and advantage was but of little consequence. He was one of those anxious for the success of the London University, and who thought it reflected great credit on those who founded it. After what he had stated, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, but at the same time, if he persisted in pressing his Motion, he could not feel himself justified in voting against it.

had no objection that a charter should be granted to this establishment; but still the House would do well, before they concurred in the Motion, to consider in whom the Constitution vested the power of granting it. By the Constitution, this power belonged to the King, and the question therefore was, would they not be interfering with the prerogative of the Crown, if they agreed to the present proposition? Me contended that not only would such an address as the hon. Gentleman called for be an interference with the prerogative of the King, but that the Motion was in itself premature, as the matter was under the consideration of the Government. He said this without meaning any hostility to the institution, for in fact he had given some proofs of the wish which he entertained for its success. But he must at the same time join in the request made by the noble Lord, merely because he thought the Motion would operate as an improper interference with the prerogative of the Crown.

would not have risen on this occasion if the noble Lord had placed the matter in its right light, namely, as his right hon. friend had stated, that the Motion would be an interference with the prerogative of the Crown. That was the question which in limine the noble Lord ought to have raised. The object of the Address proposed to be presented to the King, was that his Majesty would be pleased to grant a charter to a body which had been associated together voluntarily, and bore all the characteristics of a joint-stock company. He contended that the shares of the institution were as marketable as the shares of any other company that had been formed in the year 1825. In fact it had been one of the speculations which were set on foot during that year. If he was wrong in this he was at all events right in saying this establishment was formed in 1825. The House would recollect that in the May of that year the hon. and learned member for Winchilsea, who had since been elevated to the Woolsack, brought in a Bill for the purpose of giving a charter to this institution. It was discovered, however, that this was a private and not a public measure, and the hon. and learned Gentleman consequently withdrew his Bill. But, although he had been in that House from June, 1825, to November, 1830, five years and a half afterwards, he had never deemed it necessary to bring the subject forward, although it was in his power to have done so if he thought fit. When that Bill was introduced, the hon. and learned Gentleman expressly stated, that none of the privileges which he intended to confer on this institution, would enable it to confer degrees, or give fellowships or scholarships. He never intended that it should enjoy any privilege which could at all interfere with the two Universities; and he (Sir Robert Inglis) was of opinion, that it would be most improper to confer such privileges upon any Joint-Stock Companies, for in no other light could he regard this establishment. It was clear that the Government could have no knowledge of the doctrines that were to be taught in the London University; and, as to the granting of honorary rewards for scientific purposes, it was as much in the power of that institution to do so now as if a Charter were granted to it, as it was perfectly indifferent whether the reward was a wreath of parsley or of laurel. The object of the present Motion, however, seemed to be to acquire political privileges, and that should never have his sanction. Knowledge without religion was only a more extended means of doing mischief. It had been so for 6,000 years, and, as religious instruction was to form no part of the system of education in this institution, he was convinced that incorporating it would be attended with more evil than good. He concurred in the request that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, but on other grounds than those stated by the noble Lord.

was much disappointed by finding this was not made a Government question. The nation was much disappointed that the taxes on knowledge were not repealed. The question was, not what was expedient at the time when Lord Brougham disclaimed a desire on the part of the University to grant degrees, but what was expedient at the present moment? The hon. Baronet had called the London University a Joint-Stock Company. It might be so, but it sought no profit; its only object was to diffuse the blessings of education amongst all classes. He did not wish to depreciate the two Universities, to one of which he owed much, but he thought it very objectionable that these honours should be confined only to those of the Established Church.

observed, that he was an early subscriber to the London University, and he was a hearty well-wisher to it; and he utterly denied that there was anything like a bargaining speculation in the affair, or that there was any intention of starting an opposition to the established Universities. He had advocated the new establishment, because he thought it would be the means of extending the advantages of an University education to classes of persons who were now excluded from them; and also because the method was not a new experiment, but had been already practised in the portion of the empire to which he (Mr. Abercromby) belonged, and practised with distinguished success. He had no doubt that the institution would ultimately be placed in a situation which would enable it not only to hold competition with the institutions of this country of a similar nature, but with those of all Europe It had been provided that the University should not have the power of granting any degree in theology, and he was of opinion that that provision was amply sufficient to avert any of those dangers to the Established Church, which excited the alarm of some hon. Members. He thought that a degree ought to be made a distinction, the importance of which should be estimated by the character of the University by which it was conferred. But as his Majesty's Ministers had expressed themselves favourable to conferring the powers required by the London University, he thought, upon the whole, that it would be better to withdraw the Motion at present, and to leave the matter to those who were now pledged to do something effectual upon the subject.

said, he merely wished to express his total dissent from the proposition that the established institutions had any desire to preserve a monopoly of education. The best proof of that was, the successful career of the London University. He had no objection to granting Charters to the new Universities; but the great point was, what was to be the contents of these Charters?

said, he would very reluctantly withdraw his Motion.

rose to propose the Motion of which he had given notice. He had no private motive in bringing forward this Motion. In a population of 200,000 in Liverpool, it appeared that there were 11,000 electors, of whom a large proportion were voters under the ancient franchise. There was still, in his opinion, a wide door left for corruption, both in the counties and the boroughs. His great anxiety was, to eradicate these practices entirely from Liverpool, and to prevent them from spreading to other boroughs. In support of the course which he was pursuing, the hon. Gentleman quoted the opinions delivered upon former occasions, of the hon. member for Montgomeryshire, and other hon. Members; and concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed to pursue the inquiries entered into by the Committee appointed on the 6th of March, to take into consideration the Petition presented to the House on the 21st of February, from certain inhabitants of Liverpool complaining of bribery and corruption in that borough.

contended, that it would he exceedingly unjust to appoint the proposed Committee unless the House were satisfied that the evidence taken before the Committee which sat two months established the fact of the existence of a gross system of extensive and systematic bribery in the borough of Liverpool. It had never been understood that the inquiries of the Committee were to be directed to the expediency of carrying the principles of which the Reform Bill was founded into further effect in the borough of Liverpool. However he might regret that when the Reform Bill was in progress, its provisions were not extended in that respect it was certainly now too late to re-open the discussion on that point with reference to a single borough. Such being the case, and the only question for the House to consider being whether or not there existed in the evidence taken before the late Committee, a case of extensive and systematic bribery and corruption against the borough of Liverpool, he had no difficulty in saying that he did not think there existed any such case. In support of this opinion, the hon. Member entered at some length into an examination of the evidence as contained in the Report of the Committee, and maintained that it by no means bore out the allegations against the borough. For these reasons he should oppose the Motion.

said, it was the understanding of the House, that if, on inquiry, it should be found that the freemen of Liverpool had not repented of their corrupt practices, then a general investigation should be instituted into the whole of their past delinquencies. The Solicitor General and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed themselves to that effect; the latter of whom went so far as to say, that it was not intended that the Committee should confine their inquiry exclusively to the last election, but only that they should devote their attention to it in the first instance. The question, then, was, had the constituency of Liver-pool reformed itself? It appeared, from the Report of the Committee, that bribery and corruption prevailed at the last election; and he believed the desire to be bribed, as far as regarded the old burgesses, was general and undiminished. The hon. Member quoted several portions of the evidence for the purpose of showing the general expectation and desire felt by the old freemen to receive money for their votes. With this evidence before them, he did not sec how the Members of that House could refuse to accede to the proposition for the re-appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. Member then read the evidence of Mr. Keyhole to prove that Mr. James Ackers and Mr. T. Horsfall, the son of the Mayor of Liverpool, had proposed to give half a day's wages to such of the old constituents of Liver-pool as would receive it, to vote for Lord Sandon and Colonel Sir Howard Douglas. He contended upon the evidence of that witness, which he read at considerable length, that Mr. James Ackers had, from his own knowledge of the old constituency, calculated the purity of each of the old electors at the price of 2s. 6d. a-head. He then admitted that, though it was easy to prove the readiness of those electors to receive bribes, it was a task of more difficulty to prove that bribes had been given to them. Still no man who considered the evidence carefully, could have the slightest doubt that bribes had been given. There was the evidence of Mr. Keyhole that ribands, in which sovereigns had been wrapped up, had been furnished by Mr. Wilson, the linen-draper, to Mr. Ackers, and had been given away by Mr. Ackers to different voters. Mr. Ackers had admitted that he had given away ribands to the electors wrapped up in paper envelopes, which he had received from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson might have been called to prove that those paper envelopes contained nothing but ribands. The other side, however, had not called him, and what was the inference which the House ought to draw from the non-production of Mr. Wilson? He had quoted and said enough to prove to the conviction of every unprejudiced person that the wholesale disposition of the old constituency of Liverpool to receive money, if money was offered to them, continued to exist. He would also call the attention of the House to the unremitting attention which the canvassers for Lord Sandon and Sir H. Douglas displayed in going up to the poll on the second day of the election with the old constituency, many of whom were in a slate of complete intoxication. Why was this done? Because several of those electors, when the bribery oath was put to them, refused to take if, in spite of the intoxication which overpowered them. There was proof upon proof that these canvassers had pressed many of the electors—whose consciences permitted them to take money, but whose consciences were not sufficiently seared to take an oath that they had received no money—to go again to the polling-booths, and swallow the oath which they had previously rejected. This was proved by the evidence of Thomas Edwards, the bugleman, Lord Sandon, who heard a man, brought up by Lord Sandon's canvassers on the second day, say, when the bribery oath was tendered to him by Mr. Thornley's agent, "No, I'm d—d if I take it," and then leave the booth. The same witness also deposed that he heard another voter, who was brought up by two young gentlemen, declare, on having the same oath tendered to him: "No, I'll not take that oath, by God! for I have been bribed." He further deposed, that when they left the polling-booth he heard the same young gentlemen remonstrating with the man on account of his refusal to vote, when he told them, that they were more in fault than he was; that they knew he was bribed, and that it was wrong in them to bring him up to swear that he was not. The hon. Member also referred to the evidence of Dr. Thornley, the brother of the candidate, which the House would find at page 27. The evidence of this witness (which Mr. Warburton read) was to the effect that a voter, of the name of John Winwood, was brought up to vote for the conservative candidates. The bribery oath was put to him. He repeated the words of the oath till he came to the words "money or promise of money." As soon as he came to the words "promise of money," he stopped, and said, "I cannot swear to this, for I have had promise of money." John Winwood was afterwards called before the Committee to explain this circumstance, and he fairly stated to them, "I refused to take the bribery oath because I had received a promise that I should have money for my vote." After the evidence which he had read, he thought that it was impossible to deny, that he had laid before the House sufficient grounds for continuing the investigation, which had been so well commenced, into the corrupt practices so long prevalent in the borough of Liverpool. He was confident, that if such investigation were granted, the iniquities of the old constituency of Liverpool would be proved beyond all dispute. As the electors of Liverpool bad not at the last election turned away from their former iniquities, nor shown a disposition to do that which was lawful and right, he hoped that the House would inquire further into their conduct, and would, if their guilt were proved, punish them for their misdeeds.

regretted, that the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Attwood) was not in his place, as the evidence quoted showed, that an unrestricted paper circulation had increased the price of votes as well as of every other commodity. In the course of a few years the price had increased, according to the cases which had been cited, from 10l. to 40l., and, in some instances, a much larger sum had been given. He believed, however, that the system had not been confined to Liverpool. The bills paid to voters in the city of York had been proved in a Court of Justice; and was it fair that Liverpool should be disfranchised, and York left untouched? In his opinion it was better to see how the Bill of the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, would work, before they commenced legislating for any particular place. He should vote against the Motion.

did not agree with those who thought the House should wait and sec whether the Reform Bill would put an end to corrupt proceedings at elections. The question was, whether the privileges intrusted to the freemen of Liverpool had been exercised by the constituency of that town to the public benefit, and not whether depriving them of the privilege would be prejudicial or otherwise to the freemen of Liverpool? He conceived that the measure about to be proposed stood now precisely as it did last Session, when it was postponed in consequence of the pressure of business. He believed, that the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces (Lord John Russell), and the right hon. member for Montgomery (Mr. W. Wynn), then promised, that if it did not pass in that Session, the measure should have their support in the next. He thought a sufficient case had been made out for probing the matter to the bottom; and the Motion should have his cordial support.

contended, that as the Report now stood no man who was acquainted with the rules of evidence in our Courts of Justice could say, that a case had been made out, or that any proof had been given of bribery beyond the amount of three guineas. One part of the proof was, that a man had received 7s. a-day for services performed during the election; but if cases like that were to be taken as proofs of bribery, there was no election in the country that might not be set aside. It was, he contended, cruel to drag up witnesses from Liverpool in cases of this kind. The House should consider this was not an election petition. In that case the expense would be thrown on the parties, but here it would be thrown on the public; and he would ask the House was there any case made out to show that such an expense ought to be incurred? The hon. Member contended, that whatever bribery had been proved was confined to an extremely narrow compass, and that no case of general bribery had been shown to warrant a further inquiry, or to put the country to any further expense.

said, that the principal error which had been made by the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, consisted in his having overlooked the fact, that corruption could exist where no direct proof of bribery was possible. With respect to the condition of Liverpool in this respect, let him only ask the House whether it was not distinctly understood, when the Committee was appointed, that their duty was not confined to the examination of bribery cases, but extended also to the question of the corruption of the freemen of Liverpool generally? He could also refer generally to the evidence taken before the Committee, as affording strong proof in support of his opinion with respect to the corrupt state of that borough; and he considered it was imperative on the House to notice it. He begged at the same time to disclaim any connexion either with a disappointed faction in that town, or, indeed, with any person interested in the matter; his observations and his vote were solely guided by his determination to perform his duty to the public as a Member of that House, and by no other consideration whatever. He was of opinion, that, unless some further proceedings were instituted upon this report of evidence of the Committee now before the House, the whole of the inquiry up to the present moment must be looked upon as a farce; and with these views he should certainly vote for the Motion before the House.

contended, that the Motion of the hon. member for Manchester, (Mr. M. Philips) not only involved the interests of the town of Liverpool, but affected the security of the elective franchise in every town throughout the Empire. He knew the unpopularity which attached to an indisposition to concede Committees of this description, but he could not concur in the opinion, that it was always the safest course to grant them, when he remembered the ruinous expense which they entailed, and the local irritation which they tended to promote. They were told, that investigation was the peculiar province of a reformed House of Commons; and he admitted that they were placed by that circumstance in a situation of considerable delicacy; but he was so far from thinking that it ought to increase their predisposition to suppose guilt, which was always too great, that he thought, on the contrary, it ought to increase their caution, and make them doubly jealous of advancing a single step in cases which were not supported by the clearest and most undeniable evidence. He characterized the petition which had been presented against the freemen as a wanton and ungenerous attack upon the part of their political opponents, and as insolent in the highest degree as regarded that House, and expressed his opinion that if any real proofs of bribery had existed, they would have shown themselves in an attempt to unseat his noble friend, (Lord Sandon). The House, too, should bear in mind that no opposition had been offered to the original appointment of the Committee, upon a distinct understanding that no further steps were to be taken, if the petitioners should fail in substantiating their allegations; and yet, in violation of this express contract, it was proposed to revive the inquiry. The success of the present Motion would be attended, in his opinion, with no one practical advantage, but would have the effect of endangering the peace of Liverpool, and of every town which was large enough to contain the elements of electioneering rancour. He should, therefore, give it his decided opposition.

was glad to hear some hon. Members cry "Question!" for he was bound to conclude, that those who called for the question had at least read the evidence. As it was his fortune to be intimately connected with the town of Liverpool, he was desirous of making a very few observations on the question under consideration. The facts proved before the late Committee, when contrasted with the bold and menacing accusations previously made was so ridiculously small, that he should not have the smallest apprehension as to the vote of any hon. Gentleman who had made himself acquainted with the Report, if it were not for a circumstance connected with the borough of Liverpool, which brought this question to trial under great disadvantages. He alluded to the election of 1830. The proceedings at that election were certainly sufficient to secure for the town of Liverpool an immortality of disgrace, and the recollection of the transactions connected with that election had produced a predisposition in the minds of many to give easy credence to charges against the borough of Liverpool, to which, under other circumstances, they would not be so readily disposed to listen. The disgraceful acts at that election were, however, in a great degree, attributable to an accidental combination of events, which would have produced very nearly the same results upon any constituency in England. Previously to that election, the freemen of the town of Liverpool, composed chiefly of the labouring classes, had been accustomed to vote, not under the influence of bribery, but in conformity with the example of their masters. These elections might have been carried on in a manner exceedingly to be deprecated; there might have been a considerable degree of treating; and there might have been payment of wages; but direct bribery had not prevailed extensively or systematically. It was not the moving spring of the election. In 1830, two candidates presented themselves, who entertained similar political opinions; no principle was involved; and the people of influence did not actively interfere. This left the poor freemen exposed to the offers of those who wished to tempt them, and they almost universally accepted bribes; but it was not fair to assume that they had before taken bribes, and would again take them when political feeling could have opportunity to operate. He must complain of the nature of the evidence adduced in this case, both on the score of quantity and of quality. The fact of such a witness as Elizabeth Robinson, whose name had already been mentioned, being introduced by the peti- tioners, showed the weakness of their case. She refused, throughout her evidence, to give any names or circumstances which would have rendered it possible to put her assertions to the proof. Not only did she decline giving the names of parties, but she actually told those who brought her up to London before she left Liverpool, that she would give no names. Thus the fact of their having brought up such a witness to give such testimony, showed how destitute the petitioners must have been of any evidence more worthy of attention. It was admitted, that the quantity of cases proved was altogether trifling, and insufficient to justify any proceedings thereupon. To what suppositions then had Gentlemen resorted, in order to supply this woeful deficiency in the actual proof! In the first place it was said, that evidence could not easily be got, because the machinery of bribery and corruption was worked under ground in perfect concealment. But what proof was there of this assertion? In support of it, it was said, that applications for money and drink were made to the canvassers of Mr. Thornley. This was contradicted by the evidence on the other side, and it did not amount to the allegation of a general practice, whilst there was a circumstance which went far to explain any casual applications of that kind. It was an admitted fact, that these burgesses were generally in favour of Sir Howard Douglas; and it was common with persons of the lower classes, when solicited by adverse persons of a higher rank on these occasions, partly from bashfulness and respect to their station, and partly from a desire to get rid of their importunities, to say that they could not give any promise. There might have been some direct applications for drink, or even money, the remains of the corrupt practices of 1830; but they were exceedingly partial, and were probably, in many cases, adopted as means merely of getting rid of the importunity of a canvasser against whom they determined to vote. An hon. Member had dwelt upon the organization of the canvassers—a supposition both uncharitable and gratuitous, if it were meant to imply that the organization was for the purposes of bribery. Would the hon. Member inform him how it was possible, with 11,000 voters to canvass effectually, without organizing the canvassers almost like an army? There was one circumstance relied on by the hon. member for Bridport, as favouring the attack made upon the freemen, which, in point of fact, really made for the defence—he alluded to the proposal made in the Committee of Sir Howard Douglas and his (Mr. Gladstone's) noble friend (Lord Sandon), to give the men half a clay's wages. If there had been any separate or organized machinery for the purpose of conducting the bribery of the election (which was the only hypothesis upon which gentlemen could erect their theory of the guilt of the freemen), such a proposal would never have been thus accidentally and casually made in the public and recognised committee of the candidate; so that this very circumstance showed the non-existence of that which the vigorous imaginations of hon. Members had led them to suppose. He would remind the House, that it was upon the evidence collected by the Committee on this last election, that the question of further inquiry was made altogether to depend. The question they had now to determine was, whether such a body of evidence had been collected with respect to the last election, as to warrant the assumption, that bribery and corruption did, during that election, prevail in Liverpool, either systematically or extensively. Could any man say, that such was the case? An hon. Member had quoted the evidence of several witnesses, and among others that of a man named Grogan, who said he had been an agent of Sir Howard Douglas. Now, what was the fact? He was a canvasser, and dismissed for making an extravagant charge of eleven guineas, whereas he was paid only four; and was such a man to be quoted as impartial and unexceptionable testimony? It was very important that the House should consider the remedy proposed, as well as the evil complained of. Had the punishment been inflicted for the election of 1830, at the time the hon. members—for Ipswich (Mr. Wason), and Wilts (Mr. Benett)—proposed it could not have failed to receive the approbation of every right-feeling man in the country. But what was the altered position of the case, and how had its aspect been changed by the lapse of time? These people had been permitted to exercise the functions they had so grossly abused three times, and there was now left nothing but a faint relic of the corruption of that period. A portion of the guilty it was not even proposed to touch, for the corruption of 1830 was not confined to the poor alone. It was notorious, that out of 3,000 persons bribed, a full proportion were of the higher classes of the freemen, up to the wealthier shopkeepers; so that, if any inference at all was to be drawn from that election as to the incompetency of the freemen to exercise the franchise aright, such inference must, in fairness, extend, not only to the lower order—not only to those whose rent amounted to 10l.,—but likewise to those who rented at 100l., and to men in the best ranks of shopkeepers of the town. But these it was not proposed to punish, or to preclude from voting in the character of 10l. householders. Was it fair, then, upon one and the same offence, to exempt the wealthier class, and to disfranchise the poorer? But, besides, were they to let the bribers go unpunished? If there were guilt in bribery, which there undoubtedly was, both moral and political, why were the principal instruments to escape? Why should they let the bribers and those who profited most by the guilt, and who were chargeable with by far the greater shave of it, escape scot-free? He did not wish to cast any imputation upon the motives of the petitioners, but he could not help observing, that when inquiry was first asked for, some of them did their utmost to stifle it; and he had seen in the paper a speech of one of these Gentlemen applauding the hon. member for Liverpool for his skill in stopping Inquiry. When the hon. members for Ipswich and Wiltshire first took up the case, they were prosecutors in a just and righteous cause; but to persevere in it now invested them—he trusted he might say it without offence—with the character of persecutors. He did not mean to say, that their motives were changed, but time had wrought such an alteration in the circumstances and relations of the parties accused, that the greatest injustice might now be the result of a punishment originally just. These Gentlemen keeping their eyes fixed on the object they had had in view, might not be the first to observe the change wrought in their own position, or to discern the time when prosecution became persecution; but the House should watch that change, and see that injustice was not done even in the act of seeking to do justice. If the cases of bribery were so miserably few—if the cases of corruption, of asking for bribes, and of a disposition to receive them were equivocal, and limited to the allegations of one side, and contradicted, as far as the nature of the case admitted, by the other—he implored the House of Commons, in the name of principle, in the name of equity, in the name of common sense, to refuse further inquiry; and not to immolate, on such insufficient pretexts, the rights of the freemen; he implored them not to offer so poor a morsel to appease the hunger of Reform.

contended, that the case for those who insisted upon the necessity of inquiry was completely made out by the evidence which had established the fact, that corruption and bribery had been had recourse to in all elections, not excepting even elections for Magistrates at Liverpool, prior to the period of the election of 1830.

said, that as far as he could discover from the evidence, there was no serious case of delinquency proved against the borough, and he was not, therefore, prepared to give his support to the Motion for inquiry.

might, perhaps, have agreed to punish the delinquency while that delinquency was fresh; but since the Reform Act, the new constituency of every town had been so mixed up with the old, that he thought, in any attempt to punish the really guilty, the innocent might suffer. It did not appear to him, that, with respect to Liverpool, there had been established any amount of corruption beyond that which was generally inseparable from large communities, in which, as must be well known to the Members of that House, it was by no means uncommon for the electors to apply to the agents of candidates to know what they might have to eat or drink; and though they might not always make that demand in perfect seriousness, yet still it was commonly made; and whether it was made in jest or seriously, if the city of Westminster were to be tried by the same test as was proposed with respect to Liverpool, it would be found that it was not much less open to the charge. He would repeat, that the demand to which he alluded was often made in jest, and when so made, he could only say, that the jest was a very bad joke.

supported an extensive and searching inquiry, which he would carry not only into the conduct of elections of Members of Parliament, but (in pursuance of the order of the 6th of March) into the management of elections of Magistrates. In 1830 corruption had been carried to an excessive pitch; and if bribery was not so extensive at the last election, it was because the creation of a new constituency had encouraged candidates to offer themselves who would not resort to the practice. There still remained plenty of bribees, but the bribers were wanting. He conjured the Mouse to take steps to prevent the filthy abomination of bribery from staining the robes of justice, and repeated that the elections of Magistrates, no less than of Members of Parliament, should be placed upon an irreproachable footing. After remarking upon the corruption of the freemen, he observed, that as regarded elections fur Members of Parliament, those individuals might be supposed to be rendered powerless by the infusion of an additional constituency under the Reform Bill; but although they had received a paralytic stroke from that measure, the freemen were not wholly dead even at parliamentary elections, and they were fully alive and as vigorous as ever in the elections of Magistrates. In conclusion, he appealed to the House, in the name of justice which had been disgraced, and public honesty, which was tarnished by the proceedings at Liverpool, to probe the matter to the bottom.

thought it did not become the advocates of popular rights to visit with severity on every occasion the smallest deviation from propriety that might take place on the part of a few of the poorest voters. He asked the House, whether the whole body of electors was to be convicted of bribery and corruption on such meagre evidence, and upon such a trifling accumulation of instances as appeared in the blue book on the Table? The whole amount of bribery (giving credence to the evidence to the fullest extent) was 34l., employed in corrupting a constituency of between 4,000 and 5,000 voters! Was it pretended that the virtuous 10l. householders could be overborne by the freemen, and by 34l. spent in bribery? Was the House told of treating? Why, the treating alleged only amounted to 6l. 12s. Did Gentlemen talk of the assumed general disposition to receive bribes? And were they going to condemn parties on the mere allegations of three individuals, that the voters were willing to be bribed? Two of the persons who alleged this dis- position to bribery against the electors were strong partisans of the defeated parties, and had had no intercourse with the freemen; and the third individual stated that fifteen or twenty persons asked him for half a day's wages. Could such demands be prevented unless recourse were had to a higher constituency than was to be found amongst 10l. householders? The hon. and learned member for Dublin talked of the seat of justice and the robes of the magistracy being defiled by corruption. He would confess that some years ago, two great contests took place for the mayoralty, and he did not deny, that on those occasions bribery might have been resorted to; but there was no ground for saying that the practice had been continued. Besides, even if it had, what had the proceedings at the election of mayor to do with elections for Members of Parliament?

said, that he had known Liverpool for thirty-five years, and had never known but two instances of Magistrates being elected on pure principles. The object at present was not disfranchisement, but inquiry; and although he was an elector of the borough, but never implicated in these transactions, he should be satisfied to be disfranchised amongst the rest, provided the other electors shared the same fate.

opposed the inquiry. He was afraid if the House began it they might never see it brought to a conelusion.

then moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee, that inquiry should be made relative to the two last elections, commencing with that of the year 1831, whether general corruption and bribery did exist at those elections; and also for the names of the persons guilty of corruption, and the amount of the sum given to each of them.

seconded the Motion.

did not see what advantages could result from the Motion, unless it was intended to stifle inquiry. The writ of 1831 was sent down by that House, in order that the noble Lord might have a seat to defend the electors and the interests of the borough.

said, that an inquiry should be instituted as to the corruptions of the sources of justice, and that it was therefore of much more consequence to inquire how the Magistrates were elected, than how Members are elected. He thought the matter should be left to the discretion of the Committee, and that no restrictions be placed on their inquiry.

had observed with regret, that whenever a case affecting freemen or burgesses came under the consideration of the House, it was very far from being an impartial tribunal. The general vagueness of the charges which had been brought against the freemen and electors of Liverpool at the last election, had compelled him to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester. He (Mr. Howard) was disposed to concur in the views of the noble Lord the member for Liverpool. As the House would have afterwards to form a judicial opinion upon the merits of the case, it would advance the ends of justice, that the Committee should be guided in the course of its inquiry by some defined rules, and not receive all kinds of hearsay evidence, which might in future, as be feared it had already, unduly bias the decision of that House.

by knew, from experience, that a Select Committee was a bad mode of inquiring into municipal corruptions.

would withdraw his Motion, with the understanding of bringing it forward at a future period.

said, after the question had been so fully discussed, the noble Lord ought not to be allowed to withdraw his Motion. If there were any Amendments to be proposed, that was the time for putting them.

thought, that the House should treat the noble Lord with common courtesy. As it did not seem disposed to do so, he begged leave to move, that the House do adjourn.

said, that there was no chance that the question could be brought forward again, when there was so much other important business to transact. He should oppose the withdrawal of the Motion; but if the House was called upon to adjourn, that was an evil he should be obliged to submit to.

said, that the Motion for Adjournment was only made in consequence of the lack of courtesy of hon. Gentlemen. His gallant friend would, no doubt, consent to withdraw his Motion for adjournment, if he (Lord Sandon) were allowed to withdraw his own Motion.

said, that the noble Lord should recollect that, when a Motion was allowed to be withdrawn, it was upon an understanding that it was not to be brought forward again. Finally, the Motion for the Adjournment was withdrawn, and Lord Sandon's Motion was put and negatived.