rose to present a Petition from certain Maritime Officers of the East India Company, who were excluded from the compensation granted by the Act 3 and 4 of William IV., cap. 85. He begged to call the attention of the House to the Act passed last Session, which was commonly called the East India Act. In it there was introduced a clause enabling the East India Company to grant Compensations to Officers for the loss they sustained by the cessation of the trading privileges of the Company. The Act did not determine the precise rule by which compensation was to be granted, but it left it in the power of the East India Company to deal as they thought proper with their own servants in matters of compensation. But while Parliament gave to the East India Company the power of apportioning the compensation which was to be given to the individuals engaged in their service, it reserved to itself the right of revising, and, if necessary, reconsidering, any scale of remuneration which the Board of Directors might make, which he thought must be apparent to every one who read the seventh section of the East India Company's Act, passed in the last Session. After reciting the nature of this compensation, the Clause went on to say, "Provided always that no such compensation, superannuation, or allowance whatsoever shall be granted until two months after the particulars of such compensation, superannuation, or allowance shall have been laid before the two Houses of Parliament." Such was the language of the Act, and he would therefore ask every hon. Member who listened to him whether any scale the Directors, even with the sanction of the Board of Control, might think fit to make, could be considered as final and conclusive? If it were, what was the object in providing that it should be laid before Parliament, or could any man doubt that such a provision as the one to which he had alluded was inserted for the express purpose of enabling that House to see that justice was done to the parties entitled to the benefit of the law? Under the Clause to which he had referred it was, in his opinion, clear that Parliament had the power of sending this scale back to the Directors for revision and reconsideration, and this being also the impression of the Gentlemen from whom the petition proceeded, they had, when refused redress elsewhere, determined on having their case brought before that House. From the statement of the petition it appeared that the East India Company had formed a most unjust and arbitrary rule with respect to the manner in which they awarded compensation to the Officers of their Maritime service. They drew a line of demarcation by which every Officer who had been on shore, no matter from what cause, prior to the 28th of August, 1828, and had not been afloat subsequently, was altogether excluded from receiving any compensation under this Act, but by what authority such an arbitrary line was drawn he was wholly at a loss to conjecture.—This rule, however, had inflicted great hardship on a number of highly meritorious individuals, and from what he knew of them he must say that their exclusion was alike injurious to the feelings of honourable men and unjust as far as principle was concerned. Before such a rule could be applied it should be shown that these individuals had actually quitted the service; but if an Officer had not quitted the service surely it was going a little too far to say, that because he had not been afloat within the time specified, he was, therefore, to be deprived of his right to compensation, and that too, although his remaining on shore was no fault of his own, but arose out of circumstances over which he could have no control? for instance, in health, the loss of his ship, or a preference given to another Officer. Now he did not think that there was any person in that House who would be prepared to defend such a rale as this. The rule he was prepared to assert was a bad one, and he would lay it down as a proposition that the non-employment for five years of men who had devoted their lives to the service of the Company never could have been intended by the Legislature to operate in such a way as to exclude them from that fair compensation to which they were entitled. He found on looking over the minutes of the proceedings of the Board of Directors that a much wider space was originally intended to be taken as the criterion for awarding compensation. It was originally proposed, that if an Officer had not been afloat for ten years prior to the passing of the Act, he ought to be excluded from receiving compensation; and had that course been taken, he verily believed that not one of those petitioners would have been passed over. It was neither his duty nor inclination to complain either of the East India Directors or the Board of Control; but it was his province to show that the gentlemen whom this arbitrary rule had excluded, had as strong, if not in many instances much stronger, claims to compensation than a great many of the Officers who had been included in the arrangement. He was fully satisfied, from what he knew and had heard of the services of the meritorious individuals, on whose behalf he appeared, that they were entitled to the relief which they now sought at the hands of that House; but, although such was his conviction, he hardly knew what course to pursue in order to obtain for them redress. He might, perhaps, be at liberty to move that the scale should be sent back to the Directors for revision, or that the matter should be referred to a Committee of that House; but, before he took any step upon the subject he wished to have the opinion of more experienced persons than himself; and the discussion which was likely to ensue on the present occasion would, he anticipated, furnish him with all the information in this respect which he required. All he now proposed doing was, to have the petition placed upon the Table of that House; but unless he heard some suggestion from an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who was officially connected with the Board of Control, from which he could infer that there was no indisposition on the part of that Board to entertain the case of these petitioners, he certainly should feel it his duty to bring the subject forward in another shape on some future day. By the rule to which he had alluded no less than 100 officers were excluded from all hope of compensation, although many of them had spent fifty years in the service. Most, if not all of them, had participated in those brilliant exploits which had rendered the navy of the Company second only to the naval service of the mother country; and, therefore, these petitioners had strong claims upon the Company, both on public and commercial grounds. It was clearly the object of Parliament that such services should be rewarded as they deserved to be, and the East India Directors were not warranted in adopting a rule that amounted almost to a denial of justice. He could cite many instances in which persons, less deserving, had been declared entitled to compensation; but he would not, because he felt assured that there was every inclination on the part of that House to see that justice was done to these parties. It might, however, be said that Parliament had no power to interfere with the decision of the Board of Control; but if that were so, why was the clause that no scale should be finally adopted until it had been laid for a given time upon the Table of that House introduced into the Act? The right of that House to interfere was incontrovertible, and he could not see why the claims of the maritime servants of the Company should not be as strong as those of the civil and military servants, when the maritime service was coeval with the Company itself. All these petitioners, it should be borne in mind, had entered the service in early life, and had pursued it for many years as their profession; and, that being the case, had they not a right to say, that any rule was unjust which went to deprive one-fifth of the whole number of the officers employed in the Company's navy of any remuneration for the loss of their profession? Without intending anything like disparagement, he must say, that the merits of the officers who were thus left unprovided for, were, at all events, equal to those of their more fortunate brethren; and by the great measure consummated last year, it could not have been intended that mere youngsters should receive compensation, while men who had served for a period of fifty years were denied it. But he would not believe that the House would give its sanction to such a proceeding. He could assure hon. Members that it was not until those Gentlemen had exhausted all other means of obtaining redress that they determined on seeking relief of that House. It was impossible that the rule to which he had referred could be final; and this, he thought, might be inferred from a letter which Lord Ellenborough, the President of the Board of Control, had lately written to the pe- titioners, in reply to an application which they had made to him. In that letter the noble Lord said, that the plan or scale of compensation which had been adopted appeared to him to be as binding as the law itself, and that no power but that of Parliament could alter or modify it. That was, in fact, an admission that Parliament had such a power, in which opinion he (Mr. Robinson) entirely concurred. Indeed, the matter was incapable of a doubt. The petitioners, he could assure the House, were not actuated by any feelings of jealousy against their more fortunate brother officers. They utterly disclaimed anything of the kind; and all they asked for was to have justice done to them without wishing in any way to prejudice any other party. He hoped their claims would receive the favourable attention of that House; and, as there was no limit to the sum out of which the compensation was to come, he could see no reason why these petitioners should not now be included in the arrangement. It was thought originally that a million of money would be required to cover the engagements of the Company with their servants; but, as less than half that amount had been found sufficient for the purpose of awarding them the necessary compensation, there would be no occasion to disturb the present scale, even if these petitioners were included in it, as the addition would not exceed from 100,000l. to 120,000l. He trusted that the Board of Control would reconsider this matter; but if they did not, all he could say was, that he should take an early opportunity of bringing the subject forward again. He should then probably move to have it referred to a Select Committee to say, whether the rule established by the Directors was conformable, or at variance, with the spirit of the Act. The hon. Gentleman then read the prayer of the petition, and moved for leave to bring it up.

supported the petition, and said, that if the petitioners were really entitled to compensation, they ought to receive it, especially if their services were long and meritorious.

admitted, that the question deserved serious attention, and that the petitioners were highly meritorious individuals. The hon. Member was mistaken if he supposed that the India Board had had any share in fixing or sanctioning the rule laid clown by the Directors of the East India Company; he was mistaken, also, in representing that a wider line bad once been contemplated by that body; on the contrary, the proposition was once entertained by them, that no officer should receive compensation who had not been on board within the last three years and a half. The fact was, that compensation had been granted by the Act, not for past services, but for prospective losses, on the supposition that the claimants would have continued employed, but for the passing of the Act. Past services he hoped had been duly remunerated by the pay the officers had received while performing those services. It ought to be recollected, also, that the officers of ships chartered by the East-India Company were not selected by that body, but by the owners, so that, under no circumstances, could they have any just right to compensation. The case of the civil servants of the Company was widely different, as they were entitled to retired allowances after a certain period. He trusted that the distinguished abilities of the petitioners would render the loss of which they spoke less serious than they anticipated.

would instance a case of severe grievance under the present regulation. A very deserving and highly-meritorious officer, who had served for nineteen years in the maritime service of the Company, happened to be for the last six years out of employment; and, in consequence of the late regulation, by the mere accident of losing one year in the period so arbitrarily provided, he, together with a large family, had been deprived of all allowance, notwithstanding his long previous servitude.

begged to direct the attention of the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to the situation in which the house was placed. The Question was whether the House, in the discretionary power which the House had granted to the Board of Directors to make compensation to persons claiming for injury done to them by the Act of last Session, had reserved to itself a power to alter or rescind the regulations made by the Board? The Question was an important one, and he thought ought to be allowed to stand over until that day week, when the House would be better prepared to take it up.

regretted that the discussion had been pro- tracted so long in the absence of the late President of the Board of Control, and of the hon. and learned Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson), who, in all probability, could have stated to the House the principles on which the Board of Directors had acted in awarding the compensations, while the late President of the Board of Control would have been enabled to explain the ground on which he was induced to confirm the order. He could also have stated the precise object of the words to which reference had been made. He confessed he did not know what was the object of laying on the Table the award of the Court of Directors, and afterwards inserting those words in the Act, if it had been intended to reserve to Parliament the power of reviving and revising all these questions. He certainly thought that Parliament had intrusted to the Court of Directors and Board of Control the joint authority of making this arrangement, and, in his opinion, it ought to be a very strong case indeed, to induce Parliament to set their judgment aside, and admit new claims to compensation. Hon. Members of that House very often laid down the strictest principles of economy, but when private claims were to be considered, they at once set aside their own opinions, and thus gave the country some ground for supposing, that when party questions were agitated, they were extremely anxious to enforce economy, but merely for the purpose of annoying or prejudicing the Government. Every Gentleman had admitted that private applications had been made to him on this subject. He was quite satisfied that no body in existence was so liberal as the House of Commons when there was no party question at stake. Why, there was scarcely a case which the late Government had decided on, which he had not been called upon to review since he entered office. It had been represented to him again and again, "Here is an act of injustice; now is the opportunity, set it right." The principle on which he had acted was this—"The decision was given by a competent authority. I do not believe they intended to do injustice; there must be an end to litigation on these points; and the time of the public departments would be wholly and entirely consumed in revising the acts of their predecessors, if the presumption were not to be adopted that justice has been done." He had refused, in every case, to re-open claims to compensation which had been settled by the late Government; and, on the same ground, he would advise the House—having given the Court of Directors and the Board of Control authority to award these compensations—to presume that they had acted honestly, and not (without a very strong case) to discourage the public departments in their attempts to enforce economy, by opposing their proceedings, and showing them that they had not acted in accordance with the sense of the House of Commons, if they had adhered to the strictest principles of economy.

would not disturb the awards of the Directors, except in cases where sufficient ground was given for so doing. He did not wish to trespass on the patience of the House. He had given notice of his intention to the late President of the Board of Control, and also to the hon. and learned Member for Kirkcudbright, who concurred with him in thinking that the cases were open for the consideration of Parliament.

insisted that the distinction drawn with regard to the compensation was both arbitrary and capricious. The Directors' reading of the words, "now, or heretofore," in the Act was curious indeed. This wording they, by a monstrous construction, made to signify "since the 1st of August, 1828." There was no reason whatsoever for this arbitrary selection. Petition to be laid on the Table.

rose to move that the Speaker should direct a new Writ to issue for the North Division of the County of Nottingham, in the room of Lord Lumley, now Earl of Scarborough. The circumstances under which he submitted the Motion to the House, were unusual, but by no means unprecedented, and he believed that, in the course he was about to pursue, he should follow strictly what had been the ordinary practice in similar cases. Lord Lumley, now Earl of Scarborough by descent, his father having recently died, had not yet received the writ of summons to take his seat in the House of Peers. In Hatsell, a conversation was recorded, which took place between Mr. Speaker Onslow and Lord Egmont, upon the occasion of the latter, on the 20th of May, 1760, applying to the Speaker "before the House sat, to acquaint him, that he intended to move the House for a new writ for the county of Kent, in the room of Mr. Watson, who was made a Peer. Mr. Onslow told him, that the form of his Motion must be 'in the room of Lewis Monson Watson, Esq., called up to the House of Peers,' and that the House received the Motion, upon the authority of the hon. Member who made it. Lord Egmont said, that Mr. Watson had kissed the King's hand, and he supposed that was sufficient.^****Mr. Onslow said, it was therefore Lord Egmont's duty to consider, whether he would take upon himself to inform the House that Mr. Watson was called up to the House of Peers, and to assist him in that determination, he would acquaint his Lordship with some points to ground his judgment upon. A person becomes a Peer either by descent or by creation. When by the former, the instant the ancestor dies, the heir becomes a Peer, and his seat in the House of Commons is immediately vacant, and there is no necessity to wait for the issuing of the writ to call such heir to the House of Peers, for it is only a writ of summons to attend his service there, and without it, or though he should never take his seat there, he is, to all intents and purposes, whatsoever, a Peer of the realm. And if, in some particular case, or to answer any particular purpose, this writ of summons should be delayed to be issued, the House of Commons would, nevertheless consider his seat amongst them as vacated, and would order a new writ. In the case of the late Lord Carlisle, when upon the death of his father a new writ was moved, the Speaker said he had asked the mover of it whether the writ of summons had been issued, but that this proceeded merely from curiosity, his seat in the House of Commons being vacant, whether it had issued or not." The House would perceive from this extract, that Mr. Onslow was decidedly of opinion that it was not necessary to wait for the issuing of the writ of summons, before a new writ could be moved for. Whether the present Speaker was disposed to exercise the same species of curiosity as his predecessor, he knew not, but, at all events, he would inform the House, that the Earl of Scarborough had authorized him to move for the new writ, he having applied for the writ of summons ten days ago, but in consequence of his father not having taken his seat in the House of Lords, there was some difficulty in proving his succession, and therefore the writ of summons had not been issued. He might, perhaps, be allowed to call the attention of the House to another precedent, which he found in the note to the text in Hatsell, which he had just read to the House. It was as follows:—" On the 10th of January, 1811, a motion was made for a new writ in the room of Lord Viscount Dursley, now Lord Berkeley, and the House granted it, although the mover declined to allege that he was called up to the House of Peers, upon a distinction between the case of an heir-apparent (like this case) and the case of collateral descent like General Bertie's." He thought that seats in that House ought not to depend upon circumstances which might prevent an individual from taking his seat in the other House of Parliament, and that a constituency should not be deprived of its Representative by circumstances so entirely collateral as those which operated in the present case. The hon. Member concluded by moving that "the Speaker should issue a new writ for the North Division of the County of Nottingham, in the room of Lord Lumley, now a Peer of the United Kingdom." The Speaker, after having heard the statement made by the hon. Member, and the Motion which he had submitted to the House, felt himself called on to declare, that in his opinion, it would be highly inexpedient for the House to direct that the writ should be issued. The only safe and certain evidence on which the House could act was, that a Member had received his writ of summons, and had been called up to the House of Peers. If there were any doubt as to the fact of a Member of this House being entitled to be a Peer, that was a question which the House could not decide, and therefore the safest course was to act only when the Member had received his writ of summons. What occurred in the case of Lord Dursley, to which the hon. Member alluded, was, as it appeared to him, only an additional reason for adopting the course which he had ventured to recommend, and ought to make the House exceedingly cautious of acting on any other than the most conclusive evidence.

thought that the view which the Speaker took of the question, was conformable to the dictates of both justice and common sense. The House would do well to act upon the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, and abstain from issuing the writ for the election of a new Member, until they ascertained that the writ of summons had been issued. It would not be right for the House, in the present state of its information upon the question, to subject a county to the inconvenience of a new election. There was another point of view in which the question ought to be considered. Suppose, in the case of a contested Peerage, the House of Commons should issue a new writ, on the allegation that one of its Members had succeeded to the title, would not that be prejudicial to the interest of his opponent? If the party should not, after all, establish his claim, he world have been deprived of his seat in that House.

said, that with reference to what had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet, it appeared to him, that if a Member voluntarily vacated his seat, he could have nothing to complain of, even though he should fail to establish his title to a Peerage. The doctrine of the right hon. Baronet might, in practice, operate unjustly upon a constituency. The late Earl of Scarborough never would take his seat in the House of Lords, and, therefore, if he had been a Member of the House of Commons at the time he succeeded to the title, the county of Nottingham might practically have been without a Representative for many years. With respect to the Motion, he certainly would not press it, since the Speaker's opinion was against him.

would be sorry to have it understood that he had laid down ally fixed rule in a matter with respect to which he had never heard a word before that moment. He was indeed sorry to be forced to come to a decision on a question of so much importance without previous notice. It did, however, appear to him that it would establish a most improper precedent if the House should consent to the present Motion. Suppose the noble Lord should fail to establish his claim, would it be proper in the mean time to deprive him of his seat, and the county of Nottingham of its right to his services? He apprehended that, until the writ of summons should be issued, the noble Lord would be entitled to exercise the privileges of a Member of the House of Commons.

said, he divided in the minority on the question of issuing the writ for the election of a new Member in Lord Dursley's case. The House of Lords afterwards rejected his claim to the Peerage and he (Mr. Wynn) had no doubt that the issuing of the writ for the Election of a Member having been founded on false representations was altogether void. The House would do well to avoid the possibility of such an occurrence happening again.

concurred in the objections which had been taken to the Motion. To issue a new writ on the allegation that a Member was a Peer, before he had been so declared by the Lords, would be prejudging the judgment of that assembly. No inconvenience could possibly arise from delaying the issue of the writ, whilst a contrary course might be attended with great danger. Under these circumstances there was no safety except in adhering rigidly to the rule laid down by the chair.

regretted, that the Question had been brought before the House without notice. He would vote against the Motion, on the ground that there was no imperious necessity for issuing the writ at the present moment. If circumstances should arise to alter the state of the case, he should feel himself at liberty to change his opinion. Motion withdrawn.

put it to the hon. Member for Liverpool, (Mr. Ewart), whether it would not be better to reserve to the House on each evening a discretionary power of determining as to the importance of attending to the business which they had before them, rather than fetter themselves by a general resolution like that now proposed. There were some matters, for instance, which he (Sir R. Peel) thought should not be brought on later than ten o'clock. On the other hand, and especially towards the close of the Session, there were very necessary forms to be gone through, upon which there could be no doubt of the sentiments of the House; such as the third readings of Bills, to which the House had already consented, which he thought would be very inconvenient to postpone, and which very often must be postponed if this Motion were agreed to. If the House were fit to legislate at all, it surely might at all times determine at what hours it would be proper to do so. If this resolution were agreed to by the House, it would imply a diffidence of their own discretion which was not at all called for.

said, that on this subject he did feel great diffidence of trusting to the discretion of the House. He would ask, whether it was decent that after midnight, a score of important Acts should be passed through different stages, as he, during his own experience had seen take place. It was this course of proceeding which brought discredit upon the Legislature, and created much mischief and confusion in the administration of the law. Much of the business of the House consisted in repairing the errors into which they had fallen in this way. As a man of business, he knew that when Gentlemen had unlimited time to do any business in, much of that time was occupied very unprofitably; and he was inclined to think that if the House of Commons were in some measure limited in their hours, they would get through more business than they did at present, and that some hon. Gentlemen, in consideration of the important business that was to be done, would occupy less time in long speeches and useless discussions.

said, he had seen most important questions brought on in that House after twelve o'clock at night, ay, after one and two o'clock in the morning. He had seen Bills going through their second readings on such occasions, especially Bills relating to Scotland. He did not think that such a general rule as that proposed by the hon. Member for Tynemouth would be practicable, but he questioned, whet her a regulation might not be adopted by which it should be laid down as a rule that the important stages of Bills should not be brought on after a certain hour.

feared that if they were to lay down a general rule of the kind proposed it would not conduce to the convenience of the House, nor to the furtherance of public business. Nevertheless, he thought some course might be adopted to remedy the evil which un- doubtedly existed at present. For instance, if before going into the first Order of the Day all the Orders of the Day should be read over, and their respective advocates called upon to declare whether they intended to proceed with them or not, Members who had proposed to themselves to take part in them would know whether and when they would be likely to be wanted.

said, that he conceived it to be absolutely impracticable to limit the time in which the House would find it possible to get through the business of the Session. The business ought to be done, however, and they must have sufficient time to do it in, either by beginning at an earlier hour in the day, or by encroaching upon the hours of the night.

thought, the House ought to come to some conclusion on the subject; it was improper to do important business of such unseasonable hours as one and two o'clock in the morning. It frequently happened that Members, exhausted by the business of the day, were obliged to leave the House, and, in their absence, measures in which they were deeply interested, were carried. He admitted that every plan of arrangement was full of great difficulties, but any plan was better than the plan now acted on. He would rather meet at ten in the morning than continue after twelve at night. If the present system was persevered in there would be an accumulation of Bills which must be disposed of at a late hour, in a thin House.

agreed with the hon. Member opposite that business should be well done; but when the time of the House was wasted by long and often idle discussion, they should not get over important Bills on the ground that the time for their consideration was too late.

had always understood the rule to be, that the paper having been gone through, no new business could be brought forward, and that those names in the printed paper should have priority over other business; and he thought it would be better to adhere to this rule. No Motion of form ought to interfere. He would ask, whether it was not the general sense of the House that the Speaker should proceed with the notices and Orders of the Day in the succession in which they stood, it being settled that no person should interpose any Motion?

thought, the Motions and Orders should be regularly set down; that the Motions should come first, and the Orders follow.

said, if they stopped at a certain hour they must begin earlier. When the Debates were carried on by day they were shorter and more effective, and more business was done. He had no objection, if the House pleased, to change the hour from eleven to twelve.

said, that the Motions represented as matters of form were often of a substantive nature. Bills relating to capital felonies were often considered as matters of form after midnight. In 1792, they went to business at three o'clock, and it was then considered a late hour. The present House was inconvenient. In most places it was too hot, and when not too hot it was too cold, and it was highly prejudicial to the health of Members to sit up these to a late hour. One great corrective of the misdeeds of the Members was public opinion, which was influenced by the fourth estate, as it was called, the press. At a late hour the reporters were worn out, morning was approaching, there was a necessity for an early publication, there might not be space for a full report, and the consequence was that the late Debates were seldom given. The House divided on the Motion, Ayes 61: Noes 121; Majority 60.

moved the second reading of the Execution of Wills Bill.

did not mean to oppose the principle of the Bill; it was only his intention, at present, to make a few suggestions for the future consideration of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, and those should be with respect rather to some of the details of the Bill. For instance, he thought it important that an infant under twenty-one years of age should be allowed under this Bill to exercise any power he had under the law as it at present stood in making a testamentary disposition. He saw no occasion whatever, for confining, as it was now proposed, the power of making a will to an individual only who had arrived at the age of twenty-one. By the proposal now before the House, a woman who had married and become a widow before she had attained the age of twenty-one—not an unfrequent occurrence, would be rendered incapable of making a will in favour of her children if she died before twenty-one. Another provision in the Bill was, that a Court of Equity should have jurisdiction to make void any Bill of personality upon certain grounds. He thought it extremely objectionable that this power should be altogether taken from the Ecclesiastical Court, and wished that that Court and the Court of Chancery should have a concurrent jurisdiction. In his opinion, the Ecclesiastical Court should retain the power it at present had. As to another provision, he did not understand at all why a female's will should be revoked by her marriage, and a man's not, as was proposed.

rose to order. There had been a discussion about the loss of time already. The hon. and learned Gentleman had avowed that it was not his intention to object to the principle of the Bill, and the course he was now adopting, of entering into the details of the measure, was only proper in the Committee.

could not agree with the hon. Member for Middlesex. It was true, that the only thing which at that moment could be discussed was the principle of the Bill, but it was impossible to collect the principle except from the details; and it was not only exceedingly convenient for the House to have the details of the Bill brought before its notice in this way; but it was calculated to be of great use hereafter to the Members who should sit in Committee upon this measure.

said, that even if the decision upon the question of a breach of the rule should be against the hon. and learned Gentleman, he hoped the House would indulge the hon. and learned Gentleman with permission to proceed with the observations he was making upon a Bill of such vital importance as that under discussion.

said, that the rule was undoubtedly for the hon. and learned Gentleman to confine himself to the principle. The principle could only be, as had already been stated, known from the details, and according to one or two decisions of the House, it did not appear that the learned Attorney General was out of order.

could assure the House, that in his judgment, every detail to which he had adverted embodied within itself a distinct principle. He would then suggest the propriety of making marriage alone a revocation of a will, and so with respect to a birth, for it never could be the intention of any one that children begotten after the making of a will should have been intended to be disinherited. He was not prepared to go along with his hon. and learned Friend in diminishing the principle of security required by the law as it now stood affecting land; he would rather add one to the three witnesses of the will now required than take one from those three, as the Bill proposed. Every one that was added to a number of persons in a fraudulent combination rendered the combination the more difficult and the more easy of exposure. He was not aware, that many practical inconveniences had arisen from requiring three witnesses to a will giving lands, but much mischief might be the result of having only two. Indeed, he thought that a will written throughout by a party himself, and signed and dated by him at the foot, would be much safer to go upon without a witness at all, than to have a will merely signed by the individual whose will it purported to be, and attested by two witnesses. Upon the whole, he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend, whether it would not be better for him, when there already existed a law with respect to real property which had subsisted for a great succession of years, and had been reduced almost to a state of certainty, the disturbing of which might be very inconvenient—it would not be better for him to bring in his measure in terms calculated to clear up some doubts, and alter some decisions respecting which, he believed, there was but one opinion both in Westminster-hall, and in Doctors'-commons, rather than break in upon the law as at present known and established. When once the law became unsettled, there could be no doubt that that would lead to a series of discussions upon different points of it, perhaps to discussions upon contrary judicial decisions, and there could be no doubt that it would be a long time before it got into the Established State in which it was now. It would be recollected, as a proof of this, that a Bill which had been drawn and prepared by one of the most enlightened and cautious Judges who had ever sat on the Bench (Lord Tenterden) had given rise to almost endless difficulties when its provisions came into operation. He had thought it thus right to point out the principles of the Bill as they occurred to him. There were provisions in it which were above all praise—provisions that would entitle the hon. and learned Gentleman to the gratitude of the House and of the public; those should have his full support, but as to some others, if not altered, he would give his reasons against adopting them at the proper time.

said, that as to one of Lord Tenterden's acts in particular, it had been drawn with such a degree of looseness, that it was left uncertain when the provisions in it were to commence, and whether they were to take effect upon bygone transactions. He objected to decision-law,—he objected to judge-making law; he considered that the law should be made by the Legislature, legislators availing themselves in the making of it of law decisions, just as philosophers availed themselves of experiments to bring principles into operation. He entertained a different notion of this Bill now to what he had done before, and considered the proposed scheme one that merited the entire approbation of the House. The Bill was intended to do away with anomalies and with fictions that had no existence. In a degree, however, he agreed with some of the observations that had fallen from the learned and hon. Attorney General. He approved highly of the idea of making a uniform rule as to wills; that would prevent litigation, and be the greatest blessing that could be conferred on any nation. He altogether objected to having three or four different forms of proceeding. Let simplification be the rule, and then there would be system, and a stop put to litigation. With respect to the witnessing of wills, there was a great absurdity in that. As regarded personal and leasehold property and even chattel interest, to determine at the expiration of ninety-nine years, no witness was required to the will; yet three witnesses were required to a will to pass freehold property to the amount of 40s. If witnesses were to be required at all, he would say, let the necessity of them be extended to all testamentary documents, and let wills be uniform. For his own part, he had always a great doubt of the propriety of allowing a man, under any circumstances, in extremis, to make a will. He thought it absolutely necessary that in wills especially, giving property to charities, and away from a testator's family, the state of his mind should be unimpeachable.

held it to be the duty of Parliament, in making any alteration in the state of the law, clearly and distinctly to lay down what should be its future intention. If a single loophole was left for application to the discretion of the Judges, the inevitable consequence must be discussion that would involve the meaning of the whole of the enactment, and bring the minds of the country into doubt. His great anxiety was to impress the House with a sense of the high importance there was in providing that whatever might be the form to be prescribed for a will, there should be but one form for all. Be the number of witnesses required what it might, it was vitally essential that it should be the same with respect to all sorts of property given by wills. With respect to the observation that had fallen from the learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General), that if the number of witnesses required to a will were dimi- nished there would be less chance of detecting fraud, he could only say, that in all cases of fraud in which he had been concerned, and that had been in almost all affecting personal property that had come before the public for the last twenty years, the detection had almost invariably been in cases where there had been three attesting witnesses. Then as to the point of handwriting. It was so easily forged, that in his opinion mere handwriting should in no circumstances at all be considered as proof of the validity of a will. Then, again, as to the construction to be put upon a will. It was his wish to do away with that necessity for adhering to the strict letter of the law, which had been so beautifully exemplified by Lord Eldon in one of his decisions, in which he said, "I am bound by the principles of law to disappoint every intention which the testator had in making this will." With regard to the execution and the revocation of wills, he thought it was not of much consequence to the subject whether wills, might be revoked by parole declaration or not, but he thought the time was come when the law should be settled by legislative interference, and not leave it to the discretion of Judges to decide in directly different ways. He supported this Bill, because he thought it likely to diminish the business in all the Courts, which could not do otherwise than benefit the country at large.

said, that he could not express too strongly the obligations of the House to his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, not only for the Bill which was then before it, but for many others which he had brought in, and successfully carried through it. It was highly necessary to do away with the difficulties attending the construction of wills of testators of estates. As to their attestation, he was of opinion that every sanction which was given to wills by the signature of three witnesses would be amply supplied by two signatures. In Scotland two witnesses were considered sufficient for the validity of every will. If the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon was not satisfied with two, he was sure that twenty would not be sufficient. As to the question of handwriting, in all the countries of Europe, the hand writing of a testator was sufficient to dispense with all notarial attestation, and the only objection which had been brought against its reception was, that forgeries might, and would be frequenly committed. Now, this was a question on which he had very considerable doubt, whether, after all, it was not one of the best modes of proving the validity of a will. He agreed with those hon. and learned Members who had spoken, that there ought to be no difference in wills of real and personal estate: but with regard to the revocation of a will, he was of opinion that it ought not to be presumed that a man intended to do what he had not done. He thought, therefore, that marriage and the birth of a child ought not to be held to be a revocation of a will in the case of a man: when a lady married, matters differed, as she then had no will of her own. He was glad that the Bill had been introduced, as it was of the greatest consequence to the public.

was glad, that the lawyers had no objection to improvement. He thought that personal should have the same safeguards as real property, and to effect this it was necessary to give increased security to personal property, by an uniform execution of wills of all kinds.

thought a difference ought to be made, with respect to attestation, between real and personal property. It seldom happened that the heir-at-law attended the sick bed of the testator, therefore it was advisable that he should have protection; but, on the other hand, the testator was generally in his sickness surrounded by his kindred, which made an equal amount of protection as regarded personal property unnecessary. He was of opinion, that not less than three witnesses ought to be required to attest a will of real property. When parties confederated, though they might agree as to important particulars, it seldom happened that they did not disagree as to minor matters—they were rarely proof against a searching examination in a Court of Justice. He knew a case in which a female servant, who was one of the witnesses, had exactly confirmed the previous statement of the professional man in all that was material, but on examination, she declared the will to have been signed at midnight, whereas the professional man had said it was signed in the forenoon.

observed, that Lord Mansfield had said, that the Judges were some- times the authorised interpreters of nonsense; for they were bound to give a meaning to what ignorant persons intended, by the modes of expression which they used. He objected to the 34th, 35th, and 36th Clauses, their object being to affix an arbitrary meaning to certain terms. This, he thought, might lead to great difficulties; perhaps, it would be twelve months hence before the interpretation, as provided by the Act, was generally known. He would give one instance of the difficulties that might arise. If a will made a provision in case a person died without issue, the question was, whether the testator meant if the person was without issue at his death, or indefinitely without issue. The Court generally interpreted the meaning to be, without issue at any time.

said, that the subject had been so ably treated by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, that there was but little left for him to remark upon. One great principle of the Bill was, that all property should be devisable. To that no objection had been made. He was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, should oppose the uniformity proposed for the execution of wills. He had, however, the satisfaction to know, that all the Members of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the present Lord Chancellor, were favourable to that principle. The distinction between real and personal property, had led to the most pernicious consequences. It often happened, that the same will was partially void, and partially valid—void as to the realty, and valid as to the personalty devised. As to the execution of wills, he was afraid that if the Legislature were to say that a man's handwriting should be a sufficient evidence of the validity of a will, no man would take professional advice, and he would be his own lawyer, by which the intentions of the testator would be often defeated; for where he intended to give a fee simple, he would give an estate for life, and where he intended to give a life estate, he would give a fee simple or an estate tail, which might be easily converted into a fee simple. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon Member for Falmouth, he hoped for his support to the Bill, and, as no objections were made to its general principle, he should now move that it be read a second time. Bill read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

said, he should detain the House as short a time as possible. A measure similar to that he now had the pleasure of introducing had been honoured by no less than twelve divisions, and hence a majority of that House had sanctioned a Bill of a like tendency on one occasion by a majority of five to one; and on another, by a majority of two to one, although ultimately lost, in consequence of a misconception that had been entertained with regard to it. He should be able to prove, however, when the proper time came, that the present Bill was only intended to restrain trade on the Sabbath, and correct some gross evasions of the law. He was sorry that the Bill had not fallen into the hands of other hon. Gentlemen more capable of doing justice to the subject; but, he believed, that upon examination, the House would agree with him, that in the present instance extremes had been avoided, and all parties might be furnished with good reasons for supporting it. There were among them who thought that legislation ought not to be extended to every part of our social and political lives, and that we could not have a specific legal remedy for every evil. But even they would find that there was no desire betrayed in the present measure to do anything but promote rational liberty. The moderation of its aim was sufficiently proved by the assistance that had been voluntarily afforded by Members of both Houses, who were previously hostile to its introduction, but, upon becoming acquainted with the moderation of its tone and the general mildness of his character, had foregone their hostility. The anxiety of the public on the subject was sufficiently displayed by the number of petitions that had been presented to this House, and from the number of societies now in existence which were instituted for the furtherance of the object he had now in view. No less than 1,065 petitions had been presented, containing in the whole 20,000 signatures. No fair and reasonable man would suppose that he had any other object in view than the good of the people, and not, as had been falsely asserted, their oppression. He would gladly, however, take the blame of every defect that might be discovered in his Bill; all he wished was the attention of the House to the subject, being convinced that it would have the effect of promoting the cause of morality and religion in the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the better observance of the Lord's day.

did not mean to oppose the bringing in of the Bill, particularly as the hon. Member, who moved for its introduction, had been allowed not alone to bring it in, but to advance it almost to the final stage in the last Session of Parliament. But he should reserve to himself a right of opposing it in any stage he thought proper, if he saw that it was of such a nature as trenched upon the enjoyments of the poorer portion of the community. The conduct of several hon. Members at various periods during the last Parliament, in respect to Sunday legislation reminded him forcibly of occurrences exactly similar in the Parliament of 1640. If hon. Members, took the trouble of examining the journals of the House, they would find that their hon. Predecessors of that period had brought in several Bills to the same effect as some of those introduced then. For instance, one Member of that time brought in a Bill "to prevent walking in the fields on the Sabbath," and another a Bill "to prevent people regaling themselves in porches (of houses) on the Lord's day." He was sorry to be obliged to say, that many clauses in the Sabbath Observance Bill of the last Session were analogous to these, and very much to the same general effect. He trusted that the Bill of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury contained no clauses of that nature; and he hoped that strict attention would be paid to it in every stage, to prevent their introduction by any other hon. Member. He was not one of those who believed men could be made religious by Act of Parliament, and, therefore, he was opposed to any legislatorial interference whatever on the subject.

complained that the hon. Member who moved for leave to introduce the measure before the House had departed from the usual wholesome custom of entering into an explanation of its nature and contents. In abstaining from all explanation the hon. Member pursued the same course as had been adopted by the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir A. Agnew) in his Bill of last year, and therefore left his measure open to the suspicion that they were identical in their objects. The consequence was, that the Bill of the hon. Baronet was a Bill of pains and penalties for the poor and of impunity for the rich. He (Mr. Potter) was one of those who thought that no laws should be ordained for the observance of the Sabbath; its observance should be enforced by example and moral influence, not by Act of Parliament. With respect to the Bill before the House, as the hon. Mover had given no intimation of its contents, he (Mr. P.) should assume that it was the same as the rejected measure of the last Session of Parliament, that it was a revival of the Act 29 of Charles 2nd. If so, it was of a very objectionable character. That Bill prohibited the sale on Sunday of many articles of necessity and innocent luxury. For instance, it prohibited the sale of fruit, which would be a great hardship on the poor man, because it would prevent his enjoying a harmless addition to his rest-day's recreation. It also forbade any person to enter an inn or a lodging-house on the Sabbath, which would also be not alone a hardship but a cruelty to travellers by necessity. If the Bill before the House contained any clauses of an analogous nature to these he (Mr. Potter) should oppose it in every stage of its progress.

defended the Bill of the last Session of Parliament introduced by the hon. Member who moved the introduction of the present measure. That Bill was only intended to prevent unnecessary desecration of the Sabbath, not to interfere with the enjoyments of the working classes. In common with the hon. Member for Bridport he (Mr. Hardy) believed that men could not be made religious by Act of Parliament; but he believed also, that to make them so was not the object of the Bill, but to prevent scandal to morals and religion. A great deal of obloquy had been cast on that Bill, because it was alleged that it was levelled at the enjoyments of the poor, while it spared those of the rich; but such was not its intended effect. On the contrary, it was to protect the poor at the expense of the enjoyments of the rich that it was introduced to the Legislature. It was not to prevent young men in Birmingham, shut up in shops during the week, from riding in the green lanes on a Sunday; but it was to prevent the necessity of the hostlers at inns, where horses were hired, from waiting the return of these young men rather than be in attendance in church, or at home with their families. The Bill before the House was of the same nature, and was not merely a revival of the Act 29 of Charles 2nd.

was glad the hon. Member for Shaftesbury had the moral courage to bring forward the Bill before the House after the contumelious manner in which the similar measure introduced by him to the last Parliament had been treated. He deprecated the insinuations conveyed in the observations of the hon. Member for Bridport, when comparing the present and past Parliament to the one which sat at the lamentable and ever-to-be-regretted period to which he alluded, 1640. It was not fair to mix up motives in that manner, nor was it fair for the hon. Member who spoke subsequently to attack the Bill on the assumption that it was the same as that of the last Session. If it contained nothing which was calculated to impose shackles and restrictions upon the enjoyments of the poor man, he (Mr. Young) should give it his hearty support; if, on the contrary, he should hold himself free to oppose it.

said, he should oppose any clause in the Bill which would have the effect of restricting the rational enjoyments of the poorer classes of the community; but he admitted that a measure which would prevent the desecration of the Sabbath was necessary.

should not oppose the Bill if it did not trench upon the enjoyments of the poorer classes; otherwise he should oppose it as far as in him lay. He did not deny that a large portion of the community was in favour of some enactment for the better observance of the Sabbath, and that an anxious wish was expressed by all the religious part of the population of the country for the prevention of its desecration. He did not desire to interfere with the rational enjoyments of the working classes, as he had already said, but he thought some attention should be paid to the wishes of the religious portion of the community.

would not oppose the introduction of the present Bill if it were the same as that of last Session, as that measure contained no one clause which gave the rich a preference over the poor. He, however, thought that the House could not be too cautious of legislating on the subject of the Sabbath, or of interfering at all in what was, after all, a mere matter of conscience. Legislatorial interference was generally more detrimental to the best interests of religion than any little infringement of the sacred solemnity of the Sabbath could be.

denied, that anything which had been urged in the observations on this measure applied to the Bill introduced by him in the last Session of Parliament. He could assure the House that his Bill was more objected to by the rich than by the poor; and, moreover, that if he put it to the opinion of the country he would have a majority of the latter in its favour.

hoped that the hon. Baronet and his supporters would be satisfied with the present measure. He believed the motives of the hon. Baronet in respect to the Bill of the last Session to be most pure, but he was bound to add, that nothing could be more mischievous than that Bill was calculated to prove had it been permitted a trial. It interfered with all classes of the community, high and low, rich and poor. It afforded enjoyment to none; and it was, moreover, inquisitorial in its nature, and capable of being made the instrument of great tyranny and oppression to all. With respect to the Bill before the House, he (Sir J. Campbell) saw nothing to object to in it. It only affirmed an Act of Parliament already in existence, and capable of being used without any such affirmation. It did not seek out private violations of the Sabbath, it only prevented public desecration. Therefore it should have his support.

agreed fully with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. He would not make any observations on the subject, but he would simply ask the hon. Member for Shaftesbury a plain question respecting the object of his measure. Was the Bill intended to put down Sunday trading solely, or was it intended to revive the whole of the odious Act of 29th Charles 2nd?

replied, that it referred exclusively to the suppression of Sunday trading. Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

brought forward his Motion, "To call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee of last Session on the expenses attendant upon the elections of Members to Parliament." By the returns of the elections of 1832, which were ordered in the last Parliament on his Motion, it would be perceived that no rule regulating the expenses existed. These returns shewed that, in some places, very heavy expenses were entailed on the candidates, while in others they fell on the city, town, borough, or county, where the elections were held. In consequence of this anomalous state of things, he moved for the appointment of a Committee to take the subject into consideration, and that Committee had made its Report, to which he wished to call the attention of the House. If the last Parliament had continued he would have moved fur leave to bring in a Bill founded on the recommendations contained in that Report; but as its dissolution had taken place, and as the present Parliament was not bound by any act of the former, he thought it best to bring the matter again before them, referring them to the Report of the Committee, and leaving it then in their own hands, whether they would adopt that Report or give him leave to bring in a Bill on the subject of it. He should make very few observations on the Report itself. The first point the Committee had directed their attention to was the lessening of the expenses attendant on elections, for which end they recommended a uniform rule for adoption in England, Scotland, and Ireland, relative to taking the poll. This every one would admit would be an immense saving of time, expense, and trouble. The objects which he should propose in any Bill he might be permitted to introduce to the House, would be—first, an attempt to settle some points connected with the registration of votes. The noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, had declared, on his introduction of the Reform Bill, and in the debate thereupon, that no constituency should be less than 300; yet it appeared by the Report of the Committee that a considerable number of boroughs had a constituency less than this minimum. Therefore, the Reform Bill, it was obvious, had not produced, in this respect, the intended effect. His Bill should go to remedy this evil. The next point which he should enforce was the necessity of enabling electors to vote with as little loss of time and expense as possible. By the Reform Act, as it now stood, every elector was obliged to vote in the particular district where the property out of which he claimed franchise lay, although his actual place of residence might be many miles distant. It was declared illegal to pay the expenses of electors by the eminent Counsel, Mr. Harrison, and Committees of the House had decided variously on the subject. This he should also propose to remedy. With respect to enabling electors to vote with as little loss of time and expense as possible, he should propose to give each individual the privilege of voting in any district he thought proper. For instance, he would enable a man having property in Uxbridge to vote for the county of Middlesex in the Tower Hamlet district if his residence were there, and so on with others similarly circumstanced. That was the recommendation of the Committee, who stated in their Report that they saw no difficulty in the way of effecting this object, save the trifling one of a duplication of lists and a double registry. If adopted, it would save a world of expense, and a great deal of valuable time, as well as much trouble to electors. In his opinion, there was one very strong reason in favour of causing all electors to vote at their own place of residence; it was this—that there they were, of necessity, better known in the neighbourhood of their own residences than even in that wherein their property might be situated, and thus a precaution would be taken against any one man personating any other, or voting twice. It was thought by the Committee that, in every place returning a Member to serve in Parliament, some public functionary might be found to whom might be safely intrusted the discretionary power of increasing, when necessary, the number of polling places, with a view to bring each election to a close in one day; and those additional polling places, as well as all others, the Committee were of opinion ought to be erected at the expense of the city, or borough, or other place, where the election occurred. Though the expense of elections would, in one point of view, be increased by increasing the number of polling places, yet that would be fully counterbalanced by the saving of time in reducing the duration of the election to a single day. The city of London gave an instance of perhaps the largest constituent body in the kingdom; and, therefore, the Committee called before them one of the Sheriffs of that city, who, on being examined, declared, that he entertained not the slightest doubt that the election for that city could easily, and with great advantage, be limited to a single day. Two days, certainly, might prove convenient to some electors, but in venal places so long a duration of the election held out great temptation to electors, for in proportion to the narrowness of the contest, so did the demands of those who held out to the last rise; and it was generally between the first and second day that they negotiated for, and obtained, the wages of their corruption. In a few words, then, the effect of the changes proposed by the Committee would be to lessen bribery, to lessen expense, to lessen the waste of time, and to afford a better opportunity for knowing the sentiments of the electoral bodies. Even under the present regulations, the second day was almost wholly unnecessary, and would be not only useless, but mischievous, under a better system. Further, he wished to state, that he had much satisfaction in expressing his opinion, that the greater part of the changes which it was proposed to introduce could advantageously be established in Ireland. As the law at present stood, the poll must remain open a certain time, and a further time must elapse between the close of the poll and the declaration of the numbers. The mode of adding up the numbers was also most objectionable, and very liable to error, as witness the mistake of 200 votes made by a very effective officer in the case of the Kent election. He thought, also, that there should be one regular scale of charges for registration. The Committee had stated in their Report, that they had considered it a part of their duty to classify the different charges which were made on account of elections. Of all these it appeared that only three were strictly legal; yet the charges of other kinds, under the heads of fees and gratuities to sheriff's, deputy-sheriffs, assessors, and of payments made for certified copies of the registers, &c., amounted to very considerable sums. Most of the improvements to which he had alluded had been originally confined to England, but he apprehended that they would be found equally applicable to Ireland. The general effect of them could not fail to be highly beneficial; they would lessen the expenses attendant upon elections, diminish the loss of time, and give a better opportunity of ascertaining the real sentiments of the electors. The hon. Gentleman concluded with saying, that, although, he had not given any notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill, he would at once do so; or, if the House pleased, he would give notice for to-morrow [Cries of "Move!"]. He would then move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendation of the Committee.

stated, that his right. hon. Friend, the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Wynn), had paid great attention to the subject, and was of opinion that a Bill might be brought in without any further examination of evidence. Not having been in the last Parliament himself, he had not seen the Report of the Committee; but from the statement given of it by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he was ready to say, that he entirely agreed in the principles of its recommendations, and, with some modifications, they might be advantageously carried into effect. But, however practicable it might be to take the votes of any given number of electors in cities and boroughs in one day, that time would hardly be sufficient for counties, as all the county elections took place within a week, and persons who possessed the franchise in different counties ought to have an opportunity of exercising it. With regard to Scotland, he would suggest that the number of polling-booths should be more numerous than appeared to be contemplated by the hon. Member for Middlesex; for, in the Highland districts, a circuit of twenty-five or thirty miles might not yield two hundred voters.

expressed his gratitude to the hon. Member for Middlesex for the pains he had taken in bringing this subject before the House. He entirely approved of the suggestions of the Committee, and hoped that the hon. Member would not allow trifling difficulties to deter him from endeavouring to carry into effect the principal of those suggestions, namely, the reduction of the time of polling, at least in cities and boroughs, to one day. With regard to the authority which should have the power of managing the polling-places, he should beg to suggest the Privy Council as the most fit.

also begged to return his thanks to the hon. Member for Middlesex for bringing the subject for- ward; but he thought with the hon. Baronet the Member for Edinburghshire that in many of the counties of Scotland, one day would not be sufficient to take the poll in. Many voters lived upon islands, and might be prevented by the weather from coming to the poll upon one particular day.

said that, no doubt, such would be the case in one or two counties of Scotland, as Ross, for instance; but in the remainder there would be no such difficulty. He could not agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Edinburghshire, that a good general rule should be rejected because some persons had vot s in twelve different counties. He should, however, consider every suggestion that might be made upon the subject, before moving for leave to bring in a Bill for Scotland, similar to that now proposed for England by the hon. Member for Middlesex.

said, that the advantage of an increased number of polling places would be great in preventing riot, intimidation, and expense, and in facilitating the identification of voters. He would suggest, however, that it would not be enough to have polling places in towns where quarter sessions were held; there ought to be a polling place in every town or district in which road sessions were held. He wished also, that the mode and right of registration, and the time for polling in England and Ireland, should be assimilated. He complained of the infrequency of the registration in Ireland, and said that the time for polling in towns was too long, while from the various impediments thrown in the way of voters by the administration of oaths and other devices, the time was too brief in counties. He was ready to lend his assistance in framing a Bill to extend to Ireland.

was satisfied that in Ireland it was necessary to reduce the time of polling to two days. He should be happy, when he received the information for which he had written to Ireland, to afford the hon. and learned Member for Dublin every facility in his power to remedy any evil that required correction in the present mode of carrying on the Elections in that country. He considered it most important that there should be several polling places, for voters had in some cases nearly seventy miles to march before they arrived at the place of elec- tion in some counties. It would be of the greatest advantage to the representation of the county to have these changes made.

wished the polling to be limited to one day instead of two; but, in other respects, he saw no necessity for any change in the system as respected Scotland. In the counties of Scotland the Electors were a most intelligent body, and in the burghs there were no corrupt freemen—that greatest curse in elections. In the counties there were no fictitious voters, and no temptations to make them.

wished to know from the hon. Member for Middlesex whether it was intended to take into consideration the powers of the returning officers. He thought that some change should be made in those powers.

said, the Committee confined itself to three points; it recommended the abolition of the Catholic Oath, the delay and inconvenience of which had been experienced in many Elections in Ireland. The Committee also recommended that the certificate of the freeholder should be final, and that the number of polling-places, should be increased.

concurred in what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. It was strange that, while they talked of a legislative union between the countries, they legislated as if there were three kingdoms instead of one. The general opinion seemed to be in favour of one day's polling instead of two. He thought the object would be obtained if they polled in parishes. The whole of the election expenses, would thus be greatly diminished.

said, it gave him most sincere pleasure to hear, that the learned Lord intended to introduce the same Bill which had been so keenly opposed to the Committee which sat last summer. He (Mr. Murray) had never objected to that opposition; for, however warmly it was conducted, it tended to a more rigid and minute examination of all the details of the Bill, than might otherwise have taken place. The Committee sat constantly for nearly two months, and was much indebted to the able assistance which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, notwithstanding his other numerous and important avocations, gave to the details of the Bill. The Committee also received much advantage from the attendance of the learned Member for Huddersfield, and from two gentlemen who were not Members of the present Parliament—the late Member for South Lancashire, and the late Member for Glasgow—who, from their knowledge of mercantile affairs, were able to assist more, perhaps, than any others, in the improvement of the Bill. With all the pains that had been taken to improve it, he believed it still had defects; and as the learned Lord had declared his intention to adopt the same Bill, he (Mr. Murray) would readily give every assistance in his power to remove those defects, and to render it such a Bill as would be beneficial to the country of Scotland.

as a Scotch Member, hailed the introduction of this measure as one which was much wanted, and most earnestly desired in Scotland, and was glad, that there was now a prospect of its passing into a law.

tendered his thanks, as well to the late Lord Advocate, for having originated this salutary measure, as to the present learned Lord for following his predecessor's wise course, in bringing forward the Bill again at so early a period, as to insure its passing this Session. He wished to know from the learned Lord, whether it was his intention to introduce any measure to amend the law respecting conveyancing in Scotland. There was no other country in Europe, except Hungary, where the barbarous system of feudal conveyance of property still remained.

hoped the learned Lord was actuated by a steady determination to press the Bill forward, and to insure its passing into a law this Session. He perfectly agreed in the observation of the last speaker, that the system of Scotch conveyancing was as oppressive as in the most feudal country in Europe.

said, it was his intention to refer the Bill, for which he now moved to a Committee up stairs, when the aid of the hon. Member, the late Lord Advocate, would be made available towards rendering it more perfect. As to conveyancing, he would say, that it had been referred to a Commission, and until that Commission reported, he could not take any step. At the same time, he would admit, that the present system was a bad one, and he was disposed to give it his best consideration, with a view to devise a remedy. Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

rose to move for the Committee, of which he had given notice, to inquire into the most effectual method to put a stop to Bribery at Elections. It was not, he observed, necessary for him at that hour, to go into details as to the object of his Motion. It was well known, that there still existed in many boroughs a disposition to bribery, and it was necessary for the character of the House, that they should take an early opportunity of passing a Bill to prevent. corrupt practices as much as possible. The hon. Baronet, after adverting to the history of the Bills which had been introduced on this subject in the last four years, and to their not having been successful, observed, that he could not hope for the success of any measure introduced on the subject, until it had been submitted to the consideration of those who had attended to the question. He regretted, that in the last three or four years, they had made no progress in any measure for the prevention of bribery; but he was glad to have heard in the previous discussion a suggestion thrown out and receive the almost general concurrence of the House, of a measure which would go far to strike at the root of the evil—he meant the limiting the polling at elections to one day instead of two. That, he thought, would be going far to correct the evil. The other branch of election matters, to which the Motion was directed, was the subject of intimidation, with respect to which there were no statutes applying a punishment save and except in cases where riots should actually ensue; but, for intimidation during and previous to the poll, the House possessed no power to interfere, or punish the offenders. Now, it would hardly be denied when the occurrence of numerous cases of intimidation of various kinds was not to be questioned, after the experience of the last and previous Sessions, that it was the duty of the House to provide some remedy which, if it might not succeed in preventing the mischiefs which arose, might, at least, lessen the evils arising from such a system. It ought to be made equally criminal to have recourse to threats and menaces to prevent the conscientious exercise of the elective franchise, as to have recourse to bribery, and these or the exhibition of placards or emblems, threatening personal violence, affecting the return of a Member, ought to be restrained by punishment. It was the duty of the House, or of such a Committee as that for which he now moved, to inquire and investigate whether or not it would not be advisable to enable an Election Committee to deal with a specific case of this kind, when submitted to it. Another species of intimidation, perhaps less flagrant than the previous classes to which he had alluded, though not in his judgment less criminal, because it was calculated to withdraw men from the independent exercise of a right—nay, he would say a duty they owed to their country—was the intimidation exercised in some cases, he would assert to a great extent, by persons of property, and by individuals holding official situations. To these instances the attention of the Committee would, of course, be directed with a view to their remedy. On that Committee it was his intention, that the friends of the Vote by Ballot should be represented, and he therefore thought it would ill-become those who advocated the introduction of that measure, as a means of prevention of these evils, to oppose the appointment of this Committee—a Committee, one of the objects of which would also be to provide a remedy for the intimidation practised by persons of influence over those who derived their daily sustenance from them, and who occupied their tenements. He should be glad to see some mode to cure these evils, and to check intimidation adopted, before recourse was had to the Ballot. If the efforts of the Committee should prove ineffectual in this respect, then at least the advocates of the Ballot would acquire considerable strength in that House. He only hoped those Gentlemen would enter upon the Committee without prejudging the question. The evils which he pointed out tended to demoralize the country, and to render the franchise rather a curse than a blessing, and no greater benefit could be conferred on the country than their removal. It might be said, that though there were no laws calculated to check intimidation, yet Resolutions had been passed, and still remained in force for that object; but he must remind the House, that those Resolutions were valueless, because scarcely any case could be brought forward, by which the return secured by intimidation could be effected. With regard to the evidence to be taken before the Committee for the appointment of which it was his intention to move, he should guard himself against the possibility of prejudging any case to be submitted to any Election Committee shortly to be appointed, by not entering at all upon those cases, so that parties, who were likely to be put upon their defence in a short time would not be affected. A benefit, however, would arise from now appointing the Committee—namely, that sitting with the Election Committees, it would be able to call before it the agents attending thereon, and then in town, who, doubtless, would be able to communicate facts, from which much information, and no evil to individuals would arise—he meant important general facts, from which the extent of the evils of which there existed such just grounds of complaint, could be ascertained. He need not detain the House at this late hour further, as he understood the Motion would not be opposed; he should therefore conclude, by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the most effectual means of preventing bribery, corruption, and intimidation in the election of Members to serve in Parliament.

said, that though he had given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill on this subject; yet he rejoiced the onerous and irksome duty of providing a remedy for the evils so justly matter of complaint and reproach, had been taken upon himself by the hon. Baronet opposite, and the Committee which he sought to have appointed. He (Mr. Hardy) thought, however, that this Committee could not, even after a long investigation, come to any other conclusion than the Committee which had been appointed on his (Mr. Hardy's) Motion last Session, and to which the right hon. Gentleman now in the Chair had afforded his valuable assistance. With respect to treating, the Committee must not confine the criminality of that offence to a particular period after the issuing of the Writ, and between that period and the time of the Return, as was now the law, but must rather consi- der and provide for the animus with which the treating was given. The great mischief had been (and it was the reason why treating had attained its present height), that by Election Committees, the seat of the Member was regarded as sacred, and regarded as a sort of "taboo," which in the South Sea Islands was not to be touched. Let the seat, however, be easily affected, and an end would speedily be put to bribery, treating, and other means of corruption.

most cordially seconded the proposition of his hon. colleague. From what he had lately witnessed, he was convinced not only that such an inquiry was necessary, but that from it the greatest possible good would arise.

concurred in the objects of the present Motion, and particularly in that portion which referred to the subject of intimidation. He thought it should be at once fully understood, whether or not this House considered that a tenant's vote was his landlord's property, and whether or not the franchise given to an individual for his benefit ought to become, as it were, a portion of his landlord's rent, and if it were not so, that the House would visit as delinquents, those who used other men's consciences for their own purposes. He trusted the investigation would be followed up, and the matter sifted to the bottom, because a protection should be thrown round those unfortunate tenants who were by intimidation ground down by those possessing authority over them. He had seen a man come up conscientiously to record his vote, when his landlord took an oath, that if he voted in a particular way he would not only refuse to renew the tenant's lease, of which only seven years had to run, but he (the landlord) would also secure the property, that after his death his son should not have the power of renewing the lease to that individual. The worst of the evil was, that the men who used this species of intimidation were the first when an appeal was made to public sentiment and public duty, when a voice was raised to appeal to public opinion, to calumniate those who took any means to bring public opinion to bear upon each individual case. He was glad that a Committee was to be appointed, but he thought eventually it would be found that the Ballot was the only remedy to check the evils which were now complained of.

said, that he had seen so much of intimidation practised, that great as was his reluctance to the adoption of the Ballot, he was afraid, that unless some means were devised to make intimidation inefficient for its object, the Ballot would become actually necessary. If so, he should ever consider it a necessary evil. The franchise he should always hope to see exercised boldly in the face of the whole community, and every Englishman, Irishman, and Scotchman, ought to have the means of so exercising it without any apprehensions whatever. If a punishment could be secured for parties guilty of such practices, the Committee would confer a lasting benefit upon the country. Should they, however, fail in their means of prevention, then to the Ballot he should be obliged to yield.

as a Scotch Member, and having witnessed much of intimidation at the recent elections in that country, felt bound to give his support to the Motion. Unless some means were devised to check this evil, the Ballot would be the only resource to which the elective portion of the community could resort in order truly to express their opinions and sentiments. He trusted some plan would be effected by which the tenantry would be left to the free exercise of their votes, and he had no hesitation in saying, that if such protection had now existed, very different results would have been obtained in Scotland in some cases from those which the last fortnight of the elections there had produced.

said, that he implied from the last observation, something like an expression against the landlords of Scotland. Of that body, so far as he was acquainted with them, and from all he had seen, he must say, that they behaved well during the late contests. He however felt obliged to the hon. Baronet opposite for submitting this Motion to the consideration of the House.

said, that in anything he had said, he did not mean to apply it to the hon. Member for the county of Stirling.

said, that two instances of intimidation of a different kind had come under his observation during his contest for the county of Tipperary, in 1830. He had applied to a man of the name of Brian for his vote, but on learning that by doing so he would incur the displeasure of his landlord, he desired him not so to dispose of it. The man voted against him accordingly, but on his way home he was waylaid, beaten, thrown into a bog, and left for dead. The other instance was that of a man named M'Donnell, who came to him of his own accord, and promised his vote. He (Mr. Sheil) told M'Donnell, that he understood, as to voting for him, his landlord was adverse to his doing so, and entreated him not to vote. M'Donnell, however, voted in his favour, was subsequently ejected from his farm, turned into the public streets, and with his family was now starving in the town of Dundalk. These instances showed, in the one, intimidation on the part of the people, and in the other, intimidation on the part of the landlord, and he would ask the hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey), how he could prevent this, except by the adoption of the Vote by Ballot.

expressed his satisfaction at the present Motion. Though he entertained strong opinions upon the efficiency and necessity of the Ballot as a means of protection, yet he should go into the Committee with the fullest disposition to entertain any other means which the sagacity of other hon. Gentlemen might suggest, and should be ready to adopt any efficient remedy they might propose. He hoped, however, that Gentlemen who entertained preconceived opinions unfavourable to the Ballot would, if they found the remedies proposed to check these great and grievous evils inefficient, follow the example of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, and get over any scruples and objections to the Ballot which they might have previously entertained.

mentioned a case of intimidation, in which the landlord seized the book immediately after it had passed from the lips of a tenant who voted contrary to his will, and swore by the contents of that book, to turn him out of his land the first opportunity. He stated another case, in which a landlord, who was a Member of that House, gave notice, that any tenant or dependant of his, who voted against his friend, should be instantly turned from the land. One of his dependants, however, greatly to his credit, said to him, "Sir, your conduct is so unconstitutional, so tyrannical, and so ungentlemanlike, that you shall never have my vote."

hoped the Com- mittee would be able to put an end to that system of intimidation which had led to so much disturbance. He could, if it were necessary, produce instances in which landlords had told their tenants, that they might exercise their franchise as they liked, and the tenants said, they were desirous to exercise them according to the wishes of their landlords, but that they could not do so except at the risk of their lives. He expressed his fervent hope, that the hon. Baronet, and the Committee, would be the means of procuring for the people of Ireland the free exercise of their opinions, and they would thus confer one of the greatest benefits that could be bestowed upon that country.

said, that nothing could be better than the Motion now before the House. A more important constitutional step had never been taken by the House than the appointment of a Select Committee under the care and superintendence of his hon. and learned Friend. This Committee went to establish a new and distinct principle; and all who had one common object in view must concur in the propriety of it, whether they were friends of the Ballot, like his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, or whether they had, like him (Mr. Spring Rice), considerable doubts on that subject,—whether they supported the Ballot in order to prevent intimidation, as his hon. Friend did, or whether they agreed with him (Mr. Spring Rice) in wishing to see intimidation prevented by some other means, because they doubted that the Ballot would be effectual. The Motion was agreed to, and the Committee appointed.