presented a Petition signed by the Minister, Elders, and 315 Parishioners of Wattin, in Caithness, praying for the repeal of the Act of 1712, by which patronage was again imposed on the Church of Scotland, and that the general assembly should be empowered to determine in what manner its pastors should be elected. As this was precisely the object of the Motion which he had brought forward last year, he need scarcely say how entirely he concurred in the prayer of these highly respectable petitioners, than whom none were more devoted to the principles of pure and undefiled religion. He should never cease to contend, that the present system of nomination is unhallowed and inexpedient. St. Paul declares that the love of money is the root of all evil—No, says the advocate for patronage, the possession of money shall be the source of all power. Let any man, whatever be his principles—whatever his objects—whatever his moral conduct—acquire the means of purchasing a presentation, and uno minor est Jove—he is at once endued with such a superabundance of discrimination, that his individual fiat shall supersede and control the wishes of the entire flock, amongst whom his nominee is appointed to minister. Supposing that Mr. Carlile was to realise a few hundred pounds by the sale of blasphemous publications, and should consider a Scotch patronage as an eligible mode of investment, by which he might be enabled, at a cheap rate, to provide for a son or a nephew. The bargain would very easily be concluded—the power of appointing ministers in the Church was often put up for sale—the auctioneer's hammer might soon place some thousands of Christian souls in Mr. Carlile's power, and at his mercy. "Go," he might say to his young relative or protegé—"Go to Glasgow or Edinburgh for a few years—attend certain courses of lectures, or at least take out certain tickets—learn by rote the system of absurdities embodied in the creeds of the Church. You may as easily acquire a knowledge of them, as of the systems of Plato or Confucius. Take heed to your outward conduct, don't get into any palpable scrapes, and I shall then, by the sacrifice of a few hundred pounds, have realised in your favour a handsome provision for life. "The young man would only have to follow out the line of conduct thus prescribed, and in the course of a few years it would be proclaimed to the public in all the solemnity of official announcement, that "Richard Carlile, Esq. has been pleased to appoint the Rev. A. B. to the parish of C, vacant by the death of the Rev. Dr. D." The unanimous voice of all the parishioners, high and low, might be raised against a nomination, dated, perhaps, from Newgate, where the worthy patron might be expiating in confinement the crime of blasphemy. The grey-headed elders might protest and entreat; it might be obvious that ninety-nine out of a hundred would secede from the Church—that more than one dissenting meeting-house would instantly be erected; what, then? All this weighed but a feather in the scale—grave principals of Universities—learned professors of Divinity—the legal sages in our Courts of Law—the venerable leaders of our provincial synods—would all stand forward as one man to maintain the sacred rights of Mr. Carlile and his nominee—whilst the aged and respectable cottage patriarchs, protesting against such an unhallowed usurpation, would be coldly and unceremoniously dismissed from the bar of the assembly. Would any man venture to deny that, during the last 120 years, many persons, to whom the Church had intrusted this high and responsible privilege, have evinced no sense of vital godliness in their own conduct, and no respect for the interests of the people in their appointments? And could the House be surprised that associations should spring up for the overthrow of a Church, which pertinaciously clings to these abuses? He had been accused of being an enemy to the establishment; but he was a steady and zealous friend to its doctrines, its discipline, and its welfare. For years he had been standing forward as the inveterate denouncer of these grievances, which alone could endanger its stability, for years he had been endeavouring to obtain such reforms as might enable orthodox Presbyterian Dissenters to return within its bosom. In confirmation of this assertion, he might invoke the irrefragable authority of the profound and venerable historian of Knox and Melville—the champion of everything that is pure and lovely, and of good report. In a speech at a public meeting in January, 1833, Dr. M'Cree said, in reference to his (Mr. Sinclair's) exertions—" He addressed to me a letter several years ago, in which, after adverting to the marked improvement of the national Church, in point of evangelical doctrine, and to the harmony of views which existed between myself and another person, for whom our love has since, by the sovereign disposal of heaven, been converted into a holy and solemn regret (Dr. Thomson), he proposed the serious question—Can nothing be done to bring into closer connections the friends of religion in the establishment and in the secession? I answered the letter respectfully, and I trust without any of the sour leaven of sectarian jealousy, but with the characteristic caution of a Scotsman, taking due care not to pledge myself deeply—and among other things mentioning that, in my opinion, no improvements which had taken place, and no arrangements which might be made, would heal the breach, so long as that yoke, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear, remained on the necks of the Christian people of Scotland." Thus he had been labouring to heal the divisions in our Zion, and enable Christian brethren to dwell together in unity. But not so the persons who were lauded and confided in as the pillars and the ornaments of our Church. He should illustrate, on the authority of a Scotch newspaper received this day, the system which is resorted to for attaching the Christian people to the Established Church. "On the 30th of last December, died the Rev. Mr. William M'Call, minister of Mulravon-side; and on the 14th of Jan this Gazette announced the appointment by the Crown, of the Rev. James Mac farlane to the vacant parish, just fourteen days having elapsed between the demise of the old and the appointment of the new incumbent." "On the 24th of January, died the Rev. William Woodow, minister of Dreghorn in Ayrshire; and within a little week of Mr. Woodow's death, Lady M. Montgomerie has presented, we understand, the Rev. Mr. Jamieson, preacher of the Gospel, to the vacant parish. The heritors, who, if they do not pay the stipend, at least build and repair the church and manse, and on whose good will the establishment is dependent for its future existence and extension, have not been consulted. The elders, who are expected to help with the minister, and who give their labour without fee or reward, have not been consulted; the parishioners, who are expected to receive the pastor into their families, and to put their spiritual interests and those of their children into his care, have not been consulted." He had no personal knowledge of the facts here stated. He should sincerely rejoice if they could be positively denied, or should be found to admit of a satisfactory explanation. But if patrons were to be left in the uncontrolled possession of their arbitrary jurisdiction, and the spiritual welfare of the Christian people, who seek for a voice in the election of their own pastor, must be sacrificed to the temporal interests of rich men, who love pre-eminence, they would find voluntary Church associations springing up in every quarter, and the Church of Scotland would fall a victim to the obstinacy with which abuses had been adhered to, and reasonable concessions withheld.

took this opportunity of answering a question twice put to him on former days; it was, whether Ministers intended to introduce any measure for the establishment of Local Courts? He was now enabled to state, that such was the intention of the Government, and they thought it best that the Bill for the purpose should originate in that House.

was glad to hear of this determination. No measure was better calculated to give relief to the King's subjects than the establishment of Local Courts. He might, perhaps, be allowed to advert to the new Rules sent to the House by the Judges. However humble might be his opinion, he felt bound to say, that it was very adverse to those regulations. By them an enormous power over a vast amount of property was given to the Judges in matters of costs; and he should be able to demonstrate that some of the rules would tend very much to multiply suits, instead of making one action final. They also left the doctrine of special demurrers, as at present; and special demurrers, or pleadings upon points merely formal, were a disgrace to the law of the land.

would not enter into the discussion until the subject should be regularly brought before the House; but he was satisfied that the Rules would do more to simplify the law, and to facilitate the administration of justice, than any legislative measure that could be adopted.

asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to bring them under the consideration of the House?

replied, that those who, like himself, approved of the Rules, would, of course, not bring them forward. If they remained on the table six weeks without change, they were to have the force of law. It was for those who objected to them to direct the attention of the House to the subject.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Carrickfergus. It would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any length by entering fully into the subject which he rose to bring under its consideration, for he had, on a former occasion, when he obtained leave to bring in a Bill on the same subject, stated at some length the grounds upon which he did so. The Bill, for leave to bring in which he was now about to move, was founded upon the Reports of two Committees. One was the Election Committee, which found that, not only was the last election for the borough of Carrickfergus void, but that bribery and corruption had there taken place, in the course of that election. Upon that Report he had brought in a Bill to disfranchise the borough. In consequence, however, of some gentlemen interested in the fate of the borough in question interfering, the progress of the Bill was stopped, and it was referred to a Select Committee, to make a further Report upon the circumstances connected with the election which had taken place in the borough. The Committee, after hearing further evidence, reported to the House that it was a fit case for a Bill. This being the case, he determined upon bringing in the Bill, which he had now the honour to introduce to the House. He should move upon this occasion, that the Bill be read a first time, and then that ample time should be allowed before the Bill would be read a second, in order to afford the fullest opportunity to investigate every matter connected with it. His Bill was one merely for disfranchising the borough of Carrickfergus. He had not substituted in his Bill any other place for Car rickfergus. He understood, that some other hon. Gentleman intended to propose some other place for Carrickfergus, to return a Member to Parliament. If any other place were proposed, he thought it ought to be in the same province that Carrickfergus was in; and, if a new Member were returned to Parliament, it ought to be from that district in which Carrickfergus was situated. If such a proposition as that were submitted to the House, he would support it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Carrickfergus.

observed, that the hon. and learned member for Dublin had done quite right in giving the parties interested sufficient notice, while at the same time the Bill would be moved forward. He had had some experience in those matters, and the question of the guilt or the innocence of the borough lay in a very small compass. In his opinion, the Bill ought to pass.

reminded the House, that it was one question whether the bribery and corruption alleged to have existed was sustained by the evidence given in; and, another, whether the borough ought to be entirely disfranchised. He was ready to say that it ought not.

was anxious to impress upon the House the importance of the great and vital principle involved in the question thus brought forward. There were no less than five boroughs with which the House would have to deal, if it proceeded to disfranchise Carrickfergus, upon the grounds stated by the hon. and learned member for Dublin,—namely, Liverpool, Hertford, Warwick, Coventry, and Stafford. He was struck with this important question, which all must ask themselves in this House, sooner or later—Were they prepared, as a Legislative Assembly, to take away constitutional rights, upon investigations before Committees, which had no power to examine witnesses on oath? He thought it a most arbitrary proceeding, to take away the constitutional privileges of boroughs, without giving permission for the witnesses called in before Committees of the House to be examined upon oath. Committees had not the power to put oaths to the witnesses, and he thought they should be invested with this power, that they might be enabled to proceed in a more judicial manner. A Special Committee, not having ower to administer an oath to witnesses, had sent in a Report to the House, and the hon. and learned member for Dublin, adopted that Report for the foundation of a Bill, to deprive a borough of its elective franchise. It was stated in that Report, that according to the evidence given before the Committee, bribes had been offered and accepted. What then? That evidence was not given on oath, and, therefore, as far as his humble opinion as a lawyer was concerned, was good for nothing. Were hon. Members prepared to say they could punish those who had received bribes, and that yet, on the same principle, and on the same ground, they could not punish those who had paid the bribes? If the Report of the Stafford Committee was good for one purpose, surely it ought to be good for the other. By that Report, it appeared that one of the hon. Members, at present in the House, for Stafford, had bribed not less than 582 persons; the other, 420; the losing candidate, 301; and yet the two hon. Members for Stafford had still seats in that House. He implored the House to consider the very awkward situation in which it would be placed, if it proceeded in the manner it was doing. Suppose they were to use the Report of the Stafford Committee, as a ground to punish those who had been bribed, what answer could be made to any hon. Gentleman, who might rise in his place, and move for the expulsion of those two gentlemen who had bribed the individuals who were to be punished? The better way would be, not to sweep away, but to extend the franchise, and add new rights to those already existing; but if the House was determined to disfranchise, that disfranchisement ought to be effected by lawful means. He hoped, that upon this occasion, he should not be called an illiberal old Tory. He might, perhaps, more properly, come under the description of a liberal Tory, or loyal Whig; but he cared little what he was called. He was desirous of correcting abuses, wherever they could be proved to exist; but he trusted that the House would proceed upon legal principles, by which means, they would avoid establishing absurd and dangerous precedents. In the case of Liverpool, a new writ was issued, and he saw no reason why a different course should be pursued in the case of Carrickfergus.

said, he had felt it his duty to give notice of a motion for "an account of the sum or sums of money paid into the Exchequer, or otherwise received by the Government, out of the annuity granted by Act of Parliament, to Prince Leopold of Saxe Cobourg, since the accession of His Majesty to the throne of Belgium, specifying the time of such payments." It was well known that his Royal Highness Prince Leopold, previous to leaving this country in order to ascend the throne of Belgium, renounced, with some reservations, to which he would presently more particularly allude, the annuity in question. In the course of last Session, the hon. member for Monmouth asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any sum had been paid into the Exchequer in consequence of his Royal Highness's renunciation; and the noble Lord's answer, though it did not appear to create much surprise in the House, excited astonishment in the country; for, from that answer, it appeared, that, although the Prince had, up to that period, been a year and a half out of England, the public had derived no benefit from his abandonment of the pension. He was anxious now again to call the attention of the House to the subject, because, although another year had elapsed, he was given to understand, that the noble Lord could give no other answer than that which he made to the question formerly put to him, namely,—that the country had not yet received any benefit from King Leopold's renunciation of his pension. It was not his intention to discuss the question of the right of King Leopold to retain the annuity after he quitted this country, and became the sovereign of an independent state; it was, indeed, unnecessary to do so, because King Leopold had, with some reservations, voluntarily abandoned the annuity. It was, however, his decided conviction, that King Leopold could not as an honourable man, according to the honest construction of the Act of Parliament, continue to receive the annuity after he ceased, by accepting the Belgic crown, to owe allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain. He might be told, that the Act simply declared, that Prince Leopold should be entitled to receive 50,000l. a-year during his natural life, without attaching any condition to the grant; but he (Mr. Robinson) contended, that the settlement on his Royal Highness was accompanied by another Act,—an Act of naturalization, by which he was obliged, on the occasion of his marriage with the Princess Charlotte, to take the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign of this country. It would be monstrous to contend, that King Leopold could retain his 50,000l. a-year after he bad ceased to owe allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and had become sovereign of an independent state, having separate, and, it might be, adverse, interests with reference to this country. The right hon. member for Tamworth, and a noble Duke in another place, passed the highest eulogiums on Prince Leopold upon the occasion of his renouncing his annuity; but when those praises were bestowed upon his Royal Highness, was it contemplated that three years should elapse before the country derived any benefit from the transaction? Under existing circumstances, he thought that the House and the country had a right to know what had been done with the money since Prince Leopold left the country. At present, the House had no security that the money had ever been appropriated in the manner suggested by King Leopold. When the Prince Regent sent a message to that House, respecting a settlement for his daughter and the prince of Saxe Coburg, the House consented to grant a sum of 60,000l. for the royal couple, with a reversion of 50,000l. a-year to the prince, in the event of his surviving the Princess Charlotte. So anxious was the country for the marriage of the Princess, that the Bill for the pecuniary arrangement passed through Parliament almost without observation. The noble Lord, who was then Prime Minister, admitted, that the provision was most liberal; and observed, that it would prevent the parties from involving themselves in those embarrassments which had fallen upon other members of the Royal Family. The present Lord Chancellor said, that he had some misgivings as to the reversion of 50,000l. to Prince Leopold, in the event of his surviving the Princess, but consented to waive his scruples, because he thought it might be painful to the Prince to descend from the elevated rank to which he had been raised by his marriage.^* Reverting to the immediate subject of his Motion, he wished to ask the Government, if they had paid the 50,000l.

^* See Hansard, vol. xxxiii. p. 381.

per annum since Prince Leopold ascended the Belgian throne, and if they had paid it, to whom it was paid. He would, however, read the letter which king Leopold wrote to Earl Grey, on the 15th of July, 1831, and which was read in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from which the House would see whether, or not, it had a right to expect any repayment. The letter was as follows:—

Marlborough-house, July 15.

My dear Lord Grey,—Before I quit the country, I am desirous to state, in writing, the intentions and views which I had the pleasure of communicating to you verbally this morning, on the subject of my British annuity.

As sovereign of Belgium, it is not my intention to draw from this country any portion of the income which was settled upon me by Act of Parliament, at the period of my marriage. Your Lordship is, however, well aware, that, up to the very moment of my leaving England, I have maintained my establishments here upon their accustomed footing and that, consequently, there remain to be fulfilled and discharged pecuniary engagements, and outstanding debts, to an amount which it is quite impossible for me to state at the present time with precision. As soon, therefore, as I shall have accomplished the payment of these demands, it is my intention to make over into the hands of trustees, whom I will, without loss of time, appoint, the whole of the annuity which I receive from this country, in trust, for the following purposes:—

I shall require my trustees to maintain, in a state of complete habitation and of repair, the house, gardens, and park, at Claremont: and further, to pay all the salaries, pensions, and allowances, which I shall deem a proper reward to those persons who have claims upon me for their faithful services, during my residence in this country. I shall, in addition, require them to continue ail those charities, and annual donations to charitable institutions, which have been allowed, or subscribed to, either by the Princess Charlotte or by myself, up to the present period.

All these objects having been fulfilled, it is my wish and desire, that the remainder shall be repaid into the British Exchequer. I remain, my dear Lord Grey, most faithfully yours, LEOPOLD.

On the very day that letter was read in the House, he had come down, determined to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the annuity of the Prince; but he was prevented from doing so by the most agreeable announcement of the letter to which he had just referred. He was glad it was so, for he certainly preferred the resignation of the pension as an act of grace, to its re signation as an act of compulsion. Carried away, he would frankly admit, by the heat of the moment, he joined in the general eulogium upon the Prince; but he should now also say, that, since then, his opinion had very materially changed. He did not at all mean to charge the Prince with a breach of faith. For the Prince personally he (Mr. Robinson) felt much respect; and for those connected with him, more particularly for one individual, he entertained the sincerest respect. He felt it was due to the Prince himself, after what had been stated in the public papers, and after what had been reported abroad, that the noble Lord should state if any of the pension had been paid, and, if so, to whom, since the Prince left this country. As to the conditions mentioned in the letter of the Prince, to which he had referred, no one could object to that, and which regarded the charitable bequests made either by the Prince or his Royal Consort; but as to the maintenance of servants, the Prince might have taken them with him to Belgium, and there provided for them, if he were so much attached to them. The Prince required, that Claremont and Marl borough House should be kept in "habit able repair," and the parks and gardens in proper order. But he should like to know, what was meant by habitable repair. For aught he knew, the keeping of these places might swallow up the entire pension. He should be also glad to know, who it was who was intrusted with the payment of the annuity? With respect to the "right" of Prince Leopold to receive the annuity, the hon. Member said, that some persons might, perhaps, be of opinion, that, though the strict letter of the Act of Parliament did not warrant its payment, yet it was in the "spirit" of the Act that it should be paid. Such was the argument by which the payment of the Russian-Dutch Loan was justified; but he trusted, on whatever ground the payment of the Prince's annuity might be defended, it would not be upon that. He would, however, have the House to understand, that he did not mean to attribute blame to any person. He was a great advocate for candour; and he expected to hear something respecting Prince Leopold's annuity—whether, or not, it had been paid, and to whom, and what guarantee the Government had for the appropriation of the money? 'Was the House to believe, that the Prince had contracted debts to the amount of 50,000l., or even to twice that amount?—for it was now three years since his annuity became payable into the Exchequer. For his part, he did not believe, that the Prince had contracted any such amount of debts; and the general impression respecting him was, that he was of rather parsimonious habits. He understood, that the debts which were to be paid, were merely those contracted during the current quarter, or half year, in which he had resigned his pension. When people spoke of generosity, let it be borne in mind, that the generous British nation had paid the Prince no less a sum than a million of money. He would say nothing of the situation of the Prince before he came to this country. He became the husband of the most cherished of England's Princesses; and, if for no other reason, enjoyed the respect of Englishmen. But there was, certainly, under the circumstances of the case, nothing of generosity in his having relinquished his 50,000l. a-year. He thought he had laid before the House sufficient grounds to induce them to acquiesce in his Motion; and would add nothing further, but conclude by moving it, as he had already read it to the House.

seconded the Motion, and expressed a hope, that, if the answer of Ministers should be unsatisfactory, the hon. member for Worcester would follow up his Motion by another; and if not, he would himself bring the subject before the House.

said, that he did not intend to object to the Motion; but, at the same time, after what had passed, it was necessary that he should offer a few observations to the House. The hon. Member had said, that Prince Leopold was supposed, during his residence in this country, to have been a man careful of his money; but the hon. Member must be aware, that, without being guilty of extravagance, his Royal Highness might, from the circumstance of making a purchase, or from other causes, have exceeded his income. The amount of Prince Leopold's incumbrances was not known at the time he wrote the letter to Earl Grey; and, in consequence of that circumstance, the persons whom he had nominated as trustees, refused to act; and, up to the present time, there were, in fact, no acting trustees. Previous to the meeting of Parliament, two letters on this subject had been addressed to him by Baron de Stockmar, the private Secretary to the king of the Belgians. These letters were dated the 2nd of February, and were as follow:—

Marlborough House, February 2.

My Lord,—I am commanded by his Majesty the King of the Belgians, to inform your Lord ship, that the pecuniary engagements and outstanding debts of his Majesty, in this country, are nearly liquidated, and will be entirely so on the 5th of April next; that, after paying the sum yet remaining to be discharged out of the April quarter, and providing for the necessary expenditure until the ensuing quarter becomes payable, according to his Majesty's communication to Earl Grey, previous to his quitting this country, there will be a large surplus, which will be paid into the Exchequer in the course of the month of April.

It has been already communicated to your Lordship, that, in August, 1832, his Majesty was anxious to place the income under the control of the trustees, but that they declined beginning to act in the trust until his Majesty's private affairs in this country had been entirely settled.

As the sum remaining to be liquidated can be now ascertained, it is my intention to address his Majesty's trustees, to induce them immediately to enter upon the trust; but should they decline to do so, until all the incumbrances are discharged,—that is to say, until after the 5th of April next, your Lord ship may be assured, that the first payment into the Exchequer will be made in April next; and from that period no impediment will exist to the trustees commencing their trust.—I have the honour to subscribe myself, my Lord, your obedient and humble servant,

Baron de STOCKMAR,

Controller and Private Secretary.

To the Right Hon. Viscount Althorp, &c.

Marlborough House, Feb. 2.

My Lord.—In addition to the letters which I have had the honour of addressing to your Lordship this day, I think it proper to direct your attention to the circumstance, that the amount of his Majesty the king of the Belgians pecuniary engagements and outstanding debts, due at the time of his quitting this country, could not, as his Majesty then stated to Earl Grey, be ascertained with precision. They have been found to amount to nearly 83,000l. The current expenses of Claremont, Marl borough House, and the other payments re ferred to in his Majesty's letter to Earl Grey, amount to nearly 20,000l. per annum, which two items will account for the application of all the sums accruing from his Majesty's annuity, since his departure from this country. With regard to the annual payments last noticed, they will, in future, be met under the trust treated by his Majesty; and will be reduced in amount at the expiration pf the lease of Marlborough House, in 1835, and by other contingencies, such as the death of annuitants, and the probable diminution in the expenditure for repairs.

How far this communication may be considered requisite on my part, according to the spirit of the letter under which his Majesty's income in this country has been, and is to be, appropriated, I submit entirely to your Lord ship's better judgment; and I have the honour to subscribe myself, your Lordship's most obedient humble servant,

Baron de STOCKMAR

To the Right Hon. the Viscount Althorp, &c.

These letters contained all the information he could then communicate to the House. He would, however, take that opportunity of noticing an observation of the hon. Member, because it was one which, if left uncontradicted, might excite a very erroneous impression, and lead to a false estimate of the character of his royal highness. The hon. Gentleman intimated, that there was a report current—and he would not take upon himself to say, that the remark was not made elsewhere—that some of the annuity went abroad for private purposes, and that his Majesty drew from this country the means of paying his servants in a foreign country. He would distinctly state that such reports were unfounded—that there was not the slightest colour for them. Not one farthing, he was sure, was sent out of the country. It should be borne in mind that the right of Prince Leopold was established by Act of Parliament, that the annuity was his legal property, and that he could dispose of it as he liked; and his resigning it for the purposes which he specified was an act that, so far from deserving severe scrutiny, deserved praise. He was sure his late Majesty would scout the idea that the annuity should be made contingent on the life of the princess; and he was also sure that such a notion was not entertained by the Parliament that sanctioned the grant. He did not see, then, what fair grounds any one could have for attempting to take it away; and it was a proposition, he hoped, that would not be entertained by the House. The conduct of Prince Leopold was on all occasions highly respectable, and on this commendable. It was a natural feeling for him to keep the house in which he resided with the princess in this country. The repairs of it he was bound to pay for, and the expenses consequent on this must be considerable. Was it not, then, he would ask, a good feeling that would appropriate to this object a part of the annuity; and was it not an act of justice to leave him the means? The expenses would in a short time be considerably diminished. The lease of Marlborough House would expire soon, and that would be one considerable deduction from the expenditure. It was the duty of the prince to discharge the incumbrances that he had necessarily contracted in this country, and also to pay the annuities he had engaged to pay; and he could not imagine that the House would deprive him of the means of appropriating his annuity to such purposes. In April next a considerable sum would be paid into the Exchequer, and the trustees promised to act when that was done.

rose: The noble Lord said he hoped the House would not entertain the proposition of taking away the annuity, and said that it was secured to the Prince by law. If there was a law for giving him 50,000l. a year out of the pockets of the English people, there was (and he hoped the House would consider the fact) another law which prevented any one who was not a natural-born subject, or who was not naturalized, from receiving a pension from the country. Oh! but it was said that he was, on his getting the pension, made a denizen, that he became naturalized, and took an oath of allegiance. Granted that it was at one time so, could it be maintained that he was now a subject of the King of England? His allegiance was gone. He was no longer a subject, and the law absolutely prevented him from receiving his pension. It was such a law that gave the King of England his throne. The same principle which gave the one a right to the possession of his crown, took away his pension from the other. The interest of the King of the Belgians was different from that of the King of England. He owed him no allegiance. If there were a war between the two countries to-morrow, could it be said that the King of Belgium was a subject of the King of England, and should not go to war with him? Could Leopold go to war with his own sovereign? As he was no subject, then, he was not entitled, in law or justice, to his pension. And how stood the case as to equity? Prince Leopold had become a sovereign; he owed no allegiance whatever to this country; and how, therefore, could it be said, that this country ought to pay to him a large sum annually for his support? That was one way, but not the only one, of looking at the matter. They were everlastingly hearing of the encroachment and extreme onerousness of the Poor-rates. It was said, that the Poor-rates would eat up all the property of the country. Why, the half of the Poor-rates of a county, on an average, did not exceed in amount this pension, which was to be paid to a foreign Sovereign, and had been granted to him at a period when, and because, he became a subject of this realm. In fact, this pension was more in amount than the whole of the Poor-rates for the county of Huntingdon; and equal to double the amount of the Poor-rates for the county of Westmorland. It was monstrous, therefore, to talk of continuing to pay this pension, and yet to complain so bitterly as to the pressure of the Poor-rates. It would be some relief, certainly, to cut down this pension, as proposed in effect by the noble Lord, some 20,000l., or 30,000l. a-year; but that mode of proceeding would not be, in his opinion, sufficient; it would not be going far enough. Why should it not be abolished altogether? Oh! it was said, there was a house to be kept in repair. He asked for whom? It could not be that that house was to be kept in repair for a foreign king. Such a notion was out of the question, and therefore, he said, if there was a house that required keeping in repair, let the repairs be paid for out of the rent. Another point of view in which the matter ought to be considered was this:—The pension, at the present moment, amounted in reality to nearly twice as much as the Parliament which granted it had ever contemplated. That, in his consideration, looking at the equity view of the case, was a very important point. Then came the peculiarity of the time at which they were called upon to continue the payment of this immense pension. From one end of the country to the other, there were cries of distress; and the people required a reduction of taxation. The Ministers themselves, in the King's Speech, vouched for the distress of the agriculturists; and the noble Lord, when he was asked to relieve the farmer of the tax imposed on him for keeping a boy or a man who put a saddle on his horse, shook his head, and said, the exigences of the public would not justify the relief, however desirable; and it was most desirable. Indeed, the oppressive and vexatious character of that tax could not be appreciated except by those who were practically familiar with a farmer's life. And yet the whole amount produced by that tax, was not equal to that of this pension. Then abolish the pension, and the tax might be abolished too; and so some relief would be afforded to a class of the community now struggling with fearful difficulties. Surely, no person would longer contend, that this pension ought to be paid. He saw no ground for such a waste of public money; and he felt very much inclined to move an Amendment to that effect. He would not do so; but the Reformed House of Commons would not do its duty by its constituents, if it did not take measures to discontinue a payment that was not required or justified either by law or equity. Indeed so completely made up was his mind, that he hoped some hon. Member would move an Amendment to the effect he had stated, and it should have his support.

hoped, that, in offering a few remarks, it would not be supposed that he meant the slightest disrespect to the king of Belgium, because he would say, that as far as he knew of his Majesty's public character, he was entitled to the highest respect. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated, that this pension was granted by Act of Parliament. But he (Colonel Evans) believed, that this was an unprecedented case, for it was that of a foreign Sovereign receiving a pension from this country. He should, therefore, think, that if a new Act of Parliament were framed (as in the instance of the payment to Russia, in the case of the Russian-Belgic loan) the subject should be submitted to the opinion of the Crown lawyers with a view to know from them, whether, by the existing law of England, there was any such person as the Prince Leopold? He merely threw out this suggestion, because he thought it was a fair question to be raised, whether it was lawful to issue the money under the circumstances. Now, in respect to certain Hanoverians, who were pensioned by this country, he thought that there was a wide difference in their situation from that of many French officers who were still receiving pensions from England. Looking to the fact, that in the latter case many of the French officers were now employed by the king of the French, it might be subject for future discussion, whether their pensions should be continued any longer.

observed, that he had already given notice of a motion on this subject to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the application of this annuity of 50,000l., graciously restored to the people of England by the king of the Belgians; for, as it had been in effect surrendered to the country, the people ought to know what was the extent of the claims upon it. He was glad to learn from what had been said, that a large portion of the annuity, would at length go into the public Exchequer; but still he did not think that he ought to give up his Motion; and he would therefore move it as an Amendment to that then before the House. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had said, that the House of Commons would not, at the time of making the grant, have listened to any attempt to take it away on any contingency; but he would beg to ask whether, if such a contingency as that which had since happened, of Prince Leopold becoming the king of the Belgians, had, at that time, been anticipated, the House of Commons would not have limited the duration of the pension to the occurrence of that event; and if that would have been done, then, could there be any injustice in seeking the discontinuance of the pension, as that event had occurred? In the letter of Prince Leopold to Earl Grey, in 1831, his Royal Highness expressed his intention of retaining the annuity in his own hands, until all demands on it were paid off. But what demands could there have been on the annuity of his Royal Highness? It was well known, that the Prince had lived in that state, and had managed his income in that way which the natives of Scotland would call prudent; but according to the letters just read by the noble Lord, it would appear that, at the time of his leaving this country, his Royal Highness was much involved in debt, and that if he had not been raised to the throne of Belgium, he would, supposing that the debt were to go on at the same rate, be very deeply involved; thus adding another instance to that of a late Royal Duke, whose creditors had been defrauded of their just claims, by which a sort of stain was cast on the character of the whole Royal Family. The noble Earl, who had so warmly eulogized the conduct of the king of the Belgians, ought to see that the public should have the full benefit of his grant. He would now beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester, the substitution of the words of his Motion of which he had given notice for the 27th of March.

If I understand the hon. Member, it is his intention to substitute the words of his notice of Motion for the 27th of March for those of the Motion now before the House?

answered in the affirmative.

I apprehend, that, according to the rules of the House, the hon. Member cannot bring forward his Motion before the time fixed by his notice; he cannot, therefore, bring that forward as an Amendment which he could not submit as an original Motion.

had great doubts as to whether any person not a subject of the British Crown, was entitled to receive a pension from this country. The House, at the time the pension was originally granted, could never have entertained the remotest conception of the possibility of the contingency which had since then arisen. The House, therefore, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, ought most certainly to reconsider what had then been done. This would be only doing justice to all parties concerned in the matter.

did not rise for the purpose of taking any part in the discussion; but merely to say, that if doubts were entertained as to the legality of continuing to pay the pension, the hon. member for Middlesex would have an opportunity of raising the question on a future occasion. Although no direct charge had been made against the character of the king of Belgium, so much had been said on the subject of his expenditure, in the way of sneers and insinuations, that he (Lord John Russell) thought it necessary to say, that when he had relinquished his claim for 30,000l. out of the 50,000l., granted him by Parliament, it was unfair to refuse him the remaining 20,000l. He was sure, that when a regular Motion was made to withdraw this part of Prince Leopold's pension, the House would refuse to accede to it, and would take that opportunity of expressing its approbation of his honourable proceeding.

was much surprised to learn from the statement which had that evening been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the debts of the king of Belgium should amount to so large a sum, and he was sure the statement would excite great dissatisfaction in the country. He hoped, that when the matter came regularly before the House for its consideration, the question would then be decided, whether or not the pension to Prince Leopold should continue to be paid by this country.

could not omit taking that opportunity of saying, that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anything but satisfactory. He should like to know who were the parties responsible for the 135,000l. which had been expended in the manner pointed out. The noble Lord had said, that any proposition, if made, to deprive Prince Leopold of his pension, would be scouted by the House. He must admit, that many things were scouted by that House which were nevertheless just and proper in themselves. But, were they to be told, that such a proposition as that he had referred to, would, if made, be scouted by the House. He would ask hon. Members, whether, if such a circumstance, as the elevation of Prince Leopold to the throne of Belgium had been anticipated at the time the pension was originally granted, such a grant would ever have been made with the intention of its being continued after such elevation had taken place? A proposition to discontinue that pension when Prince Leopold was raised to the Belgian throne, had that elevation been foreseen, would never have been scouted by the House. If the country should be satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord, he was not satisfied, and he hoped the question would soon be taken up by the House. Before sitting down, he must take the opportunity of saying, that as the trustees had refused to act, others ought to be appointed in their place, with security that the money should be duly appropriated to its destined purposes. The money might all have been pocketed. He begged, in conclusion, to disclaim all intention of using any unbecoming expression towards the king of Belgium in the remarks he had thought it his duty to make.

was inclined to doubt, whether, according to the wording of the Act of Parliament, the annuity was payable after Prince Leopold became the Sovereign of a foreign State, in which he resided. By the first clause of the Act, the sum of 60,000l. a-year was settled on the Prince and Princess, but it was clear that that was intended to be given only while they remained in England. By the 2nd clause of the Act, the sum of 50,000l. a-year, which was part of the former sum, was to be continued to the Prince, but he presumed, not on terms different from those of the previous clause.

rose, to move to refer to a Select Committee, the Return of Expenses charged by Returning Officers at the Election of Members for Counties and Boroughs in England and Wales, at the last General Election, with the view of fixing an uniform rate of charge at every Election, and of considering by whom the charges should be paid. One of the great objects of the Reform Bill was to limit the expenses of elections, and for that purpose many propositions were made at the discussion on the Bill. The 71st clause of the Reform Act related to the subject; but it was not sufficiently explicit. He was, therefore, desirous to have the matter referred to a Committee; and he was the more desirous to see that course pursued, as the Returns were imperfect, and required amendment. His own opinion with respect to election expenses, had been, and was, that the candidate ought to pay nothing; that the county ought to bear the burthen; for a Member ought to be elected for the good of the constituents electing him, and not for his own interest, and therefore the public ought to bear the expense. And that feeling was in accordance with the old principle of election, which threw the charges of the election, and even the support of the elected on the electors. That some uniform charge ought to be adopted appeared to him to be quite evident. In his own case he knew that the Sheriff construed the law as to what were legal expenses differently from what some other Sheriffs did, and, therefore, it was plain the law required fixing. By the Returns which he wished to be referred to a Committee, it appeared, that the actual constituency had fallen greatly short of the number anticipated at the period of the passing of the Reform Bill. It appeared, that in the 128 counties in England and Wales, there were registered 317,594 electors, and that in the 255 boroughs there were 274,620; making a total of 592,214 registered electors. That, however, was not the actual number of voters. He, himself, knew of several instances in which an elector was registered in two or even three places; so that when the list was reduced, it would probably be found, that in all England and Wales, there were not more than 500,000 voters, whereas, at the period of the Reform Bill, it was confidently anticipated, that the number would be above 1,000,000. The Returns, too, were imperfect. From Marlborough, although the Returning Officer had received four letters, there had been no communication; and it would be the duty of the Committee to investigate the cause, and to remedy that neglect. Again, there had been no Return from Oxford or Cambridge Universities, on the plea that they did not come under the term "place." He had thought they did, but the matter would be easily rectified by a Committee. From the Returns, it appeared, that the aggregate expense of candidates for counties, amounted to 21,937l., and that of candidates for boroughs to 21,624l.; giving a general aggregate expense of 43,561l. These were the legal charges under the 41st section of the Reform Bill. Some of the boroughs had made no Returns, though called on to do so more than once; and it would be necessary to have some of the Returning Officers called to the Bar of the House to answer for their neglect. But it appeared to him that many of the Returns were quite evasive, and, to correct this, he moved for Returns of additional expenses. The whole were so irregular and inconsistent, that it was impossible the House should allow another general election, or even one single election, to come on, before they took some step to define what the expenses ought to be. In some of the counties the Returns were greatly deficient. There was also a great difference in the amount of the legal charges by the Returning Officers. Thus, in the district of Lindsey, in Lincolnshire, where the voters were 9,134, and where there were three candidates, the expenses charged by the Returning Officer, amounted to 1,065l. In the northern division of Lancashire, the voters were 10,000, and the expenses were 546l. In one division of Surrey, the expenses were only 187l. In Berkshire there were three Members, four candidates, the voters exceeded 5,500, and the expenses were 752l. In West Norfolk, there were no expenses charged. In Brecon, only 20l. In Cardigan, with 1,154 voters, the expenses were 292l. In the boroughs, again, the same fact of extravagance, and disparity, was also illustrated. In the borough of Abingdon, with 300 electors, and three candidates, there was no charge at all. In Buckingham, with the same number of electors, and the same number of candidates, the expense was 33l. In Bristol, the electors were 10,000, the candidates four, and the expense 8741l. In Finsbury, where the electors were 10,309, and the candidates five, the expense amounted to 484l. In the City of London, with a constituency of 18,584, and six candidates, the expense amounted to 522l. In Westminster, with its 11,576, and three candidates, the expense was 362l. In Plymouth, where there was no contest, the expense incurred was 130l. In another borough, where there was no contest, the expense was 109l.; while, in Andover, Cardigan, Dartmouth, Ludlow, and another borough, there was no expense at all. He must again express a hope, that the House would compel those places that had not complied with its orders, to make the desired Returns of the expenses incurred in the way referred to at the last election, to do so forthwith. Another point worthy of consideration, was the way in which these expenses were incurred. There were Sheriffs, Under Sheriffs, Clerks, &c, all of whom made charges on the different candidates for their labours on the occasion of" an election. The charges made by Under Sheriffs, were often very great. He (Mr. Hume) questioned very much, whether they should be allowed to make any charge at all. They were appointed for the performance of duties connected with their several counties; and that of attending at elections, and regulating their proceedings, he conceived, was one. Assessors were, in some instances, allowed large sums, and Constables, or Policemen, were paid for keeping the peace. In the county of Cardigan, the Sheriffs actually charged the candidates 20l. forsilver thrown among the people. In Bedford, all the irregularities he had mentioned had occurred; they were all contrary to law. The 71st section of the Reform Act limited the expense of elections in each parish to 23l. The Sheriff was to be allowed 2l. 2s. per day for his labours, and the Clerk 1l. 1s. The enormous expenses which had been charged against candidates in certain cases, were claimed by the Returning Officers on the ground of some previous Act of Parliament, just as if all former Acts of Parliament were not, in the question of electioneering expenses, set aside by the Reform Act. He trusted, that, under the circumstances he had stated, the House would consent to the appointment of a Committee on the subject. It was highly desirable, that every man who became a candidate, should know, in the first instance, the extent of his liabilities; and that he might not, consequently, be imposed upon by other persons after the election was over. The expense attending elections, must, it was clear, be at all events reduced. It was not necessary, for example, to have new booths at every successive election, for they could be made at the present expense to last a lifetime. Let the House only decree, that the different counties ought to be at the expense of fitting up these booths and the other things necessary at elections, and there would be no unnecessary expenditure in such cases in future. In Middlesex alone, the booths had cost the candidates 600l. He hoped the few hints he had thrown out to the House would not be lost on hon. Members, but be committed to memory, against the time for formally deliberating on the subject. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That the House refer to a Select Committee, the Returns of Expenses charged by Returning Officers at the Election of Members for Counties and Boroughs in England and Wales, and in Scotland and Ireland, at the last General Election, with the view of fixing a uniform rate of charge; and also to inquire into all other Expenses attendant on the Registration of Votes, and at the Elections."

seconded the Motion. A great many individuals, well fitted, both by their talents and integrity, for a seat in that House, would come forward as candidates, if the expenses at elections were fixed and limited. He most cordially agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that the expenses of elections should be defrayed by the country at large. The conclusion among the people, or, at least, among a large portion of the people, was, that when Members paid such large sums, in the shape of election expenses, for a seat in that House, they would take care of themselves when the public money was voted away. They thought that hon. Members would not scruple to appropriate part of that money to their own purpose. It was expected that the 71st Section of the Reform Act would have limited the expenses of elections; but the Returns, which the hon. member for Middlesex had read to the House, showed, that the provisions of that Bill were quite inefficient for keeping such expenses within their proper limits. The expenses attending elections was a question of paramount importance to the country at large. His only regret was, that, instead of moving for a Select Committee to examine the expenses charged by Returning Officers at the last General Election, he did not at once move for leave to bring in a Bill on the subject.

would mention, as an instance of the imposition to which persons seeking to be returned to that House were subjected, that, at a recent election, where there were three candidates, letters were received from the Returning Officer some time before the day of nomination, calling on each of them to pay a sum of 200l. for expenses, on an understanding that if there was any surplus after they were defrayed, it should be handed over. This demand was at first refused, but subsequently complied with. Some days after the election the Returning Officer sent in a bill of 160l. to each of the candidates, accompanied by a memorandum, in which he stated that he expected a present of 20l for himself, 10l. for one deputy, 5l. for another, and so on until the whole surplus of 40l. was swallowed up. The bill was disputed by the Committee, who succeeded not only in having it reduced by 30l. or 40l., but refused making any presents whatever. Shortly after another election took place, and a similar demand for 200l. was made. At first the Committee, having reason to believe the demand was illegal, altogether refused compliance, but the Returning Officer stating, that if they did not, he would run up his bill for expenses much beyond it, they became alarmed, and lodged the money. He stated that circumstance to show the necessity of some specific enactment to settle the amount of those election expenses, and thus prevent a recurrence of that annoyance of which so many Members had reason to complain. The Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex met his views, and he had great pleasure in supporting it.

expressed his satisfaction at the hon. member for Middlesex directing his attention to the present subject, and, on the part of Government, promised no assistance should be withheld which could, in anywise, facilitate the object he had in view. He could not, however, agree with him in thinking that the expenses of candidates ought to be defrayed by the country, because he was convinced such an alteration in the existing system would lead to innumerable vexatious contests. Had such a law, for instance, been in force, there would have been no lack of candidates for the representation of the county of Somerset, although it was improbable a return different from that which had been made would have occurred. Before he sat down, he could not avoid observing, that the demand made by the Returning Officer at the election to which the hon. and gallant member for Westminster referred, was, in every sense, illegal, and the successful Member, whosoever he might be, would only be doing his duty to the public if he brought the party to the bar of the House to answer for his conduct.

hoped his hon. friend would so frame his Motion that it should become part of the business of the Committee to inquire, whether, both in counties and boroughs, but especially in the latter, the poll might not be taken in one day. For his part, he thought it would be very practicable, in all cases, to take the poll within a day; and it was therefore his intention, when the House came to consider the cases of those boroughs about to undergo revision, to move a clause to that effect.

would not pledge himself to support such a motion, should it be made; but he did not hesitate to say the alteration to which it referred was most feasible. During the discussion upon the Reform Bill he had more than once stated his intention to be, that the poll should terminate within twenty-four hours, and he had only extended the period to forty-eight hours, in compliance with the suggestions of some hon. Members, who feared that, at the outset, one day would not be sufficient.

was confident one day would be sufficient to take the poll whether in a county or a borough, and therefore urged the hon. Member so to frame his motion as to bring the subject under the consideration of the Committee.

thought it was a fair question whether the suggested alteration might not hereafter be carried into effect, but it could not properly come within the scope of the inquiry which it was proposed the present Committee should institute.

differed from the Noble Lord, for he thought the subject would fairly come before the Committee as a matter of expense to the candidate. He would not, however, make any alteration in the terms of his Motion with a view of bringing it within the inquiry more immediately than as a matter of expense.

was sure, that if the Committee looked upon the subject in the light of the expense it caused candidates, they would, without hesitation, recommend the alteration he suggested. He could adduce many instances in which large bodies of electors purposely avoided voting on the first day of polling, in the hope that, if in the exercise of that Scotch art, called prudence, they held back until the second, they might be able, not only to boast of having turned the election in favour of a particular candidate, but to turn something substantial into their own pockets.

rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the various branches of the medical profession. He would content himself by simply stating a few of the grounds on which, in his opinion, it now became imperative for the House, in the exercise of their legislative capacity, to interfere, and accommodate, if possible, the dissensions well known to exist among the several branches of the profession. The by-laws of the College of Physicians had been long the cause of variance between the Licentiates and the Fellows of that body. The House would recollect, that in the last year a Bill had been brought in to alter the laws respecting the Apothecaries' Company, and that Petitions praying for alterations were poured in from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and other towns of Scotland. No complaints had been made against that Bill, except on the ground, that it did not carry alterations far enough. The laws, as they now stood, were subject to general and well-founded complaints; he would not, however, detain the House, but content himself with moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the laws and regulations, regarding the education and practice of the various branches of the medical profession, in the United Kingdom."

felt great objections to the appointment of a Committee; and although a Bill had been brought into the House last Session, to alter the Apothecaries' Act, it was to be remembered, that it was the production of the hon. Member himself who made the present Motion. The present law did not prevent men educated in Scotland or Ireland, from passing examinations in England; after which, they were at liberty to set up as practitioners in any part of the United Kingdom. The Colleges of Surgeons and of Physicians were regulated by Royal Charters; and he did not see how they were to be violated. The last Apothecaries' Act was passed in 1815, and he deemed it to be the poor man's protection. The rich could always procure the best of medical aid, but the poor man must put up with whoever the parish might provide for him; and if the law had not enforced a strict education, and rigid examination of medical students, incompetent persons would be introduced into the profession, and parishes would take the cheapest practitioners for the service of the poor. The Act of 1815 was, therefore, the poor man's protection, and he should be very sorry to see it altered. The Committee would lead to a very wide inquiry, and, in his opinion, would only waste the public time, and produce no beneficial results.

would vote for the appointment of the Committee. He complained that the Apothecaries' Act, as it now stood, prevented the Licentiates of Scotland and Ireland practising in the Sister Kingdom. They had to undergo a five years' apprenticeship to learn what they already knew; and, in fact, the Act operated only as a most injurious monopoly. At a period when Government was putting an end to all monopolies, it was singular, that the monopoly of mind alone should remain. The monopoly of the Apothecaries' Company was injurious to the country at large, and particularly so to the teachers of the medical art. He had heard complaints against the law from every part of the kingdom.

could assure the House, that the investigation would be popular in Ireland. He had discoursed with many professional persons upon the subject in Dublin, and there was not one that did not acquiesce in the propriety of some arrangements, by which the privileges of the profession in the two kingdoms would be equalized.

hoped the House would permit him to say, that the medical and surgical profession in Ireland, especially the latter, had arrived at that eminence and perfection, as to make it most expedient to guard against any ill-advised interference with the regulation of these bodies. The School of Surgery of Ireland, held at this moment the highest reputation for practical science, and, from what he knew and had heard, he would undertake to say, that any alteration with it would be most detrimental. He would say, however, with respect to the Apothecaries' Company of Ireland, that it much required investigation. A body such as that, which controlled and directed that branch of the profession, should be open to the competition of talent, and should be exclusively professional in its duties and objects. The Apothecaries' Company, however, had not objects exclusively professional; it was a trading company; and the qualification for its most important offices depended on the amount of capital invested in the stock of the Company that the candidate was so lucky as to possess. He was sure the House would agree, that the honors and offices of this body should be entirely open to competition. He had lately been informed, that this company had instituted proceedings against physicians regularly educated, and treated them as if they were ignorant practitioners, for having compounded medicines. He was of opinion that a person authorised to prescribe medicine should know how to compound it; and he would, therefore, support any proposition to overthrow this monopoly; at the same time that he would take care to guard against incapacity, by establishing an examination in pharmacy, before a court properly constituted. He was of opinion, too, that the monopoly of the College of Physicians of London should be destroyed. He thought that there could be no reason why a physician of the universities of these countries, or of the schools of the Continent, whose works enriched the science of medicine, and who were the founders of the most important discoveries, should be excluded from the reward of their talents, by an ungenerous and selfish monopoly. At all events, he hoped the Committee would endeavour to elevate every branch of the profession, by arranging an even system of medical education, founded upon that model of severe study, and intense practical application, which, he was proud to say, had gained for the Irish colleges the high reputation they enjoyed.

said, that he thought it highly absurd, that surgeons who had passed through severe examinations were not allowed to dispense medicines in this country. He had himself gone through all his examinations, yet he dared not compound medicines for sale, though he considered himself as capable to do so as any apothecary in the land. It was highly necessary that surgeons should possess the power of dispensing drugs; for, in small country towns, the medical practitioner was generally physician, surgeon, and apothecary, at once. He should like to see the examination of medical men conducted in open Court, as was the practice on the Continent; but he was sorry to say, that with respect to medical science, this country was in a state of barbarism as compared with France. He should vote for the proposed inquiry.

said, that at present, the certificate of qualification, from the College of Surgeons, or from the Apothecaries' Company, was not always sufficient for practice, even in England, for the army and navy Medical Boards instituted strict inquiries into the acquirements of all gentlemen, before they were allowed to receive commissions. The same caution was exercised by the East India Company. The Commissioners of Inquiry into the Scotch Universities had complained, that men of medical science, as physicians, should be compelled to undergo five years' service, merely to learn the menial duties of the Apothecaries' shop. He did not complain of the Apothecaries' Company. The members of it had endeavoured to raise the standard of medical science and reputation; and had done all that men could do, under the difficult circumstances in which they were placed.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, on the ground of the gross bribery and corruption which had been practised at that place at the last election. The House was aware, that his Motion was founded upon the Report of the Committee, that had sat in the last Session, to inquire into the practices of that borough. The Committee had directed its Chairman to move for leave to bring in a Bill of disfranchisement; and, as he had the honour of filling the chair, he now made his Motion, in obedience to the Report. The evidence before the Committee established the fact, of the prevalence of gross and systematic bribery, to such an extent, as to call for the disfranchisement of the borough. He did not feel that it was necessary to trouble the House with many observations at that early stage of the proceedings, as he would allow a sufficient interval to elapse, between the first and second reading of the Bill, for hon. Members to consider all the facts of the case. The elective franchise ought not to be taken from any individual, much less from a body of individuals, without a most satisfactory cause; but he was convinced that, in the case of Stafford, the necessity was imperative, and he would not shrink from the performance of his duty. During the election for Stafford, there had been opened, by each candidate, houses, at which the voters went to receive their money. Every man that received his pay had his name put down in writing, and these documents had been put into the hands of the Committee. Four-fifths of the voters had received money, so that the ends of justice would not be answered by any partial disfranchisement. The Committee had found, that the voters that had been introduced under the Reform Bill, had been as guilty as the rest. Of 167 of the newly-created 10l. householders, 85 had received bribes. Two-thirds of the old burgesses, who were 10l. householders, were likewise bribed. In fact, corruption was so general, so systematic and inveterate, that it was impossible to put a stop to it, except by the severe remedy which the Committee had recommended. It would be for the House to consider whether the franchise should be transferred to any other place, and, in the meantime, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill.

objected, that the evidence had not been taken upon oath, and that it was publicly boasted of in Stafford, that the witnesses had told the Committee a parcel of lies. The House could not take away the most valuable rights from the people, without being able to punish for perjury the witnesses that had misled the Committee. He should give his strenuous opposition to the Motion.

complained, that the hon. Baronet who had brought the Motion, had not been made aware of the circumstances that had lately transpired in Stafford. Within a few days, it had been made known to him, that the witness who had given the list of bribed voters to the Committee, had publicly declared, that from the beginning to the end, it was a forgery. He would, therefore, entreat the House to suspend its judgment.

said, that when notorious corruption was proved, it would be the duty of the House to disfranchise the borough. All must admit that, from the reform which had taken place in the representation, such practices could not continue, and the system of corrupt boroughs must be put an end to. Leave given, Bill brought in and read a first time.

rose, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill, to vender more effectual proceedings before Justices of the Peace. The measure he should have the honour to introduce, was almost precisely similar to that which had been brought forward last Session, but which the multifarious business of pressing importance had prevented from being passed into law. He would not, therefore, trouble the House with any observations explanatory of its objects, further than to say, that it was principally proposed by it to remove those technical difficulties which at present prevented the satisfactory administration of justice, in certain cases, before Justices of the Peace. By one of its most important clauses, the public would also be relieved from the very oppressive use, which was sometimes made, by common informers, of penal Acts of Parliament, by which minimum penalties were imposed on various classes of defaulters; it being intended to vest in the Magistrates a discretionary power to lessen such minimum penalties, as they should think the nature and circumstances of the case might require. The only other object of the Bill he would mention was the important and desirable one, as it appeared to him, of putting an end to the gaming houses in this town, which every body-felt was an increasing and alarming evil. He did not anticipate any objection being urged against its introduction, and he would postpone all further discussion until hon. Members were in possession of the details of the Bill.

regarded the Bill of the noble Lord, if similar to that which had been introduced last Session, as one whose object was not to remove technical difficulties, but to confer on the Magistrates, who already possessed too much influence, an increase of power to an alarming extent.

said, there was one principle in the Bill, which he totally disapproved of, although, as stated by the noble Lord (Howick) and under proper circumstances, it seemed in itself to be perfectly fair—he meant, the doing away of all technical objections. The misfortune was, that in proceedings before the Magistrates, the statutes excluded all consideration of the merits; whereas, if the evidence on the merits were set forth on a conviction, a Court of Appeal would be enabled to proceed much more satisfactorily.

suggested, that the system of having unpaid Magistrates should be done away with altogether. He believed, that such Magistrates thought more of preserving game than any thing else, and so administered the laws, as to provoke rather than prevent crime. Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

rose to bring on his Motion for giving greater publicity to the Divisions of the House. He had undertaken this subject with the permission of the hon. member for Colchester, who had had the merit of introducing it during the last Session of Parliament; and in doing so, he requested the indulgence of the House, for bringing the question so early under its reconsideration. One reason for doing this was, that he believed justice was not done to the Motion on the former occasion,—he did not mean by the hon. member for Colchester, whose talents he admired, but by the House, whose attention was then occupied by the consideration of many other, and apparently more imme diately important changes. They now stood in a very different situation, and he trusted that the present Motion would meet with the attention which it deserved. In his opinion, its adoption or rejection would have a very material influence on the character and prospects of the House. In calling upon the House to give publicity to its Divisions, he did not call on it to place itself in communication with the Press, but merely this—that there should be daily placed on the Table of the House an accurate record of the votes of every Member for and against every question. On referring to the debate which took place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Colchester, he found that the objections made to the proposition might be reduced to three. First, the impracticability of the plan proposed by the hon. Member: that objection was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the sole reason of his opposition. The second was, the inexpediency of enforcing any responsibility at all, which was made by the noble Lord, the member for Norwich (Lord Stormont). The third was, that there was already a sufficient degree of practical publicity and responsibility, which was the argument of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth. The Noble Lord on the Treasury Bench did not object to the publication of the divisions generally, but objected merely to the specific plan proposed by the hon. Member as impracticable. This objection could not apply to the present Motion, because he meant to propose no specific plan. He would not draw off the attention of the House from the great principle on which his Motion was founded by the consideration of minor particulars. At the same time, he thought it right to say, that he would not have occupied their time by the consideration of a Motion of which he did not firmly believe that he could suggest a plan which could be reduced to practice. He had a plan by which he did not doubt that an accurate list of every Gentleman's votes might be taken without the loss of five minutes time. Some hon. Gentlemen appeared to doubt the possibility of this. He was perfectly willing to suggest the method. The reason why he mentioned this was, because he had been told, that to bring forward this Motion without stating any plan, would be as bad as to bring forward and state an impracticable one. He would, therefore, if the House wished it, relate his plan [Loud cries of "No, no!"]. As it rather appeared to be the feeling of the House that he should not enter into detail, he would refrain from doing so. The principle on which he based his Motion, was the incontestible, unalienable rights of those who sent them there to receive from them an authentic account of their transactions, and to know, on the authority of their own minutes, the way in which they discharged the duties which they had undertaken. On the last occasion this principle was impugned by the noble Lord, the member for Norwich, whom he was sorry not to see in his place. The noble Lord said, that every member of that House ought to represent his own opinions. That no man appointed to that House ought to be influenced in his votes by the actions of others. That no member of the House ought to be pulled up the next morning for giving a certain vote overnight; and that, in short, he ought not to be responsible for his vote. He would thus far agree with the noble Lord, that every member of that House ought to have the most perfect freedom of agency, but he differed from him, toto cælo, as to the question of responsibility. He looked on responsibility as the very essence of Representative Government, and without publicity, responsibility could not exist. It was publicity alone, as Mr. Jefferson justly said, that supplied the check which prevented society from being divided into two extreme classes, the wolves and the sheep. Fortunately for us the wolves were at present at a discount, and the sheep were too wise to part with their fleece, unless something like good cause were first shown. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, said, that we already had responsibility, or publicity (for the two words were synonymous) enough. That, on every occasion of interest to the constituents, the votes of Members were perfectly well known; and, consequently, that there was no necessity for departing from the established practice. To a certain extent this argument might be good. There was indeed a sort of half-and-half responsibility. Their respect for public opinion compelled them to take some measures of publicity, which, to a certain extent, compromised the character and dignity of the House. He had, after an important division, seen no less than nineteen letters in a Morning Paper on the same day—some explanatory, some exculpatory, some accounting for absence, but all calling on the editor to correct some inaccuracy—an inaccuracy not only unintentional, but, considering the manner in which the lists were now obtained, altogether unavoidable. Another objection of the right hon. Baronet to further publicity, was, that a very erroneous opinion might be formed of a public man, by founding it only on one particular vote. Those who read the Debates would not be deceived, but would understand them better in consequence of having an accurate list of votes, whilst those who looked only at the list of votes would be prevented from forming many very untrue conclusions. Besides, however well a Member of that House might speak, it was by his votes he must be judged at last. It was to his votes that he must appeal for public confidence; and whilst speeches were forgotten, votes were always accessible. There was one class of Members to whom he would take the liberty of addressing a few observations; he alluded to the old Members—to those who were attached to old forms, who were reluctant to see any change introduced, and who still clung to the strict privacy of divisions. He, however, should be the first to resist any proposition for permitting strangers to be present during a division, since, on questions of deep interest, it might be impossible to restrain some expressions of public feeling calculated, perhaps, in some measure, to influence their decisions. All that he sought was, to remove the anomalies which at present existed, and to correct a point where theory and practice were at variance. He could conceive no reason why a record should not be preserved of so important a portion of their proceedings—in which, indeed, their characters were concerned—when all other parts of their proceedings were recorded and published without scruple. More especially did this argument apply, when it was remembered that strict secrecy was impossible. They were not in the French Chambers, where votes were taken by ballot. Secrecy here was impossible; and, if it were possible, it would be most pernicious. There was only one class of Members whom he would believe to be sincere in their opposition to the publication—he meant the habitual absentees. He could conceive their dislike to their frequent absences being placed on record, but he was sure that those (by far the majority) who were impressed with a due sense of the important duties of their situation, would not, for a moment, entertain so unworthy an objection. To such he would say, grant a Committee; if, on investigation, the scheme should be found impracticable, without incurring too great a loss of time, let the Committee so report, and there would be an end of the question. But if, as he believed, publicity could be obtained at a very trifling sacrifice of time, then he hoped they would not permit such a sacrifice to interfere with so great a good as the publication of an authentic list of their divisions. He should, therefore, move the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the best mode of obtaining correct and authentic lists of the divisions in that House; and that such Committee should be instructed to report thereon without delay.

seconded the Motion, which, he observed, was, in some respects, different from that of the hon. member for Colchester. He was most anxious that the lists of the votes should be published, with the authority and sanction of that House; that was almost the only mode in which he could show to his constituents the part which he took in the Debates. If the divisions were published, it was important that they should be published with all the authority which they would carry with them from having the name of the Speaker attached to them. His hon. friend had rightly observed, that it might be found in the Committee, that any plan proposed for that purpose would be impracticable. If that were so, then this question would be set at rest for ever. In opposing this Motion, let no man say that he was not opposing publicity being given to his votes on public questions; for, it must be evi dent to every thinking man, that every Member who opposed this Motion, must dislike the nature of his votes being disclosed to his constituents.

said, his hon. friend had done him justice in saying, that he had merely opposed the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester on the question of its practicability. He never objected to the publication of divisions; and he certainly thought that, if they were published, the more correctly, the better. He certainly felt great doubt that his hon. friend would be able to produce a plan that was likely to be practicable. His hon. friend had not stated his plan to the House; and he believed, had the question been put, there would have been a very near division whether he should have done so or not. He confessed, that he should have been glad to have heard what it was, for he had a great opinion of the ability of his hon. friend, and he had no doubt it was a very ingenious one. With respect to the Motion itself, he could have no objection to it, and he should be happy if the Resolutions of the Committee should be such as to lead to any practical result. He certainly thought, that every Member must be responsible for the way in which he voted, and as to the argument that a man on a certain occasion might vote differently from his general opinions, in order to support some particular line of policy, he did not consider it a sufficient objection, because such a circumstance could not occur frequently; and when it did, was susceptible of explanation, and would always meet with due allowance and consideration. He did not, however, think the present mode so objectionable as Gentlemen seemed to imagine. He did not believe the lists now published were very inaccurate. He was aware that during the last Session they were so; but the great number of new Members whose faces were not known, very naturally accounted for that circumstance. But whether they were accurate or not, he certainly could have no objection to means being taken to make them as accurate as possible. If, however, it should appear, that this could not be done without incurring a great loss of time, then he should certainly say, that the object to be attained was not worth such a sacrifice. Having made this statement, he should not object to the Motion.

expressed his great gratification at the way in which the Motion had been met by the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord had said that the present system furnished correct lists; but he had not taken into consideration the great labour which it threw on certain individuals. His noble friend knew how difficult it was to count both sides of the House. For his own part, he did not like to go on both sides. He would refer only to what had taken place during the present Session. There had been only two divisions published yet. The first of these was so incorrect, that he believed half the Members put down in it on one side were not in the House that evening; and it had required the greatest labour and trouble on the part of five Members to make it correct; but the first evil had been done, for the inaccurate list had gone throughout the country. As to time, he thought the plan that ought to be adopted would save time, whilst it would give the greatest satisfaction to the country. And as to the absentees, he thought it one of the greatest advantages of the system now proposed, that it would expose to the country those who neglected their duty.

defended the way in which he dropped his Motion last Session, and said, that unless a man belonged to one of the great parties in that House, he could not, had he even the tongue of an angel, expect his proposition to meet with the attention which its intrinsic merits might deserve.

regarded this Motion as most important, and he hoped he should have to congratulate the House on its success. He looked upon it as one of the most important results of the Reform Bill; indeed, he was not sure that it was not the most important, as regarded the good conduct of the Members. He remembered, that when a meeting was held at the chambers of a certain person, a great and important meeting, for the purpose of arranging a plan that was expected to terminate in the defeat of the Tory Ministry—he remembered, that the greatest importance was attached to securing accurate lists of the division, and the individuals who undertook the task of obtaining them, were over and over again charged to spare no pains to make them correct. If this were felt so important to the Reforming Interest on the eve of such a division—if all great parties in private admitted the importance of accuracy in these particulars, how was it that they had so long delayed obtaining that to which the public, as well as themselves, attached the greatest importance. But then it was urged that this great result could not be accomplished. Where was the difficulty? It was most mechanical. Could not clerks go from bench to bench, and take down the names; and if these clerks were not sufficiently numerous, let them pay another; if one were not enough, let them get two, three, or even four. Where was the difficulty?