Wood moved the second reading of the Smith field market improvement Bill.

felt it due to his constituents and to the farmers and graziers of the country, generally, to oppose the measure. Though the hon. Member was the patron and the successful advocate of the privileges of the Corporation of London he did not expect he would have had the hardihood to move the second reading of a Bill of this nature, not on account of its own intrinsic merits, but in reference to another Bill—the Islington Market Bill. In the body of the Bill moved by the worthy Alderman there was a clause, which went to impose on the graziers of the kingdom who sent stock to London additional tolls, for no other purpose but the aggrandizement of the property of the Corporation of London, and the perpetuation of an admitted nuisance. He believed that since 1800, the Corporation had been before Parliament with bills for the improvement of this market. In the year 1809 a Committee was appointed on the subject, and that Committee recommended the removal of the market to the nearest and most convenient situation, where a space of not less than twelve acres could be appropriated to it. Among the names affixed to that Report he found the respectable, influential, but not consistent name, of Matthew Wood. The worthy Alderman had talked of the opinion of farmers and graziers being in favour of retaining the market in its present site. Now, he supposed that Mr. Coke of Norfolk, would be acknowledged to be an authority on such a point. Mr. Coke had given his opinion against the proposition for the enlargement of the market, on the ground that it would only per- petuate the existing nuisances. The Bill which he (Mr. Handley) had brought forward last Session for the establishment of a market at Islington, and which he should again introduce this Session, he had brought forward on the grounds of public utility. He had no personal acquaintance with the individual who had projected that market, and the fact was that he had never met him but once, and that accidentally. With regard to the present Smithfield-market, he would state, from his own experience, having paid some visits there through curiosity, as well as on business, and having witnessed the most disgusting scenes of brutality and ill-treatment towards the cattle, that it was a perfect nuisance. The worthy Alderman had talked of the decisive evidence given before the Committee last Session, and certainly some of the witnesses exhibited decision enough in their testimony. A butcher from Sheerness had the unblushing effrontery to state in his evidence, that the bullocks which he bought in Smithfield on Monday, and drove down to Sheerness, a distance of fifty miles, on Tuesday evening, were fresher than if he had bought them in some of the neighbouring markets. Even if the market should be enlarged to the extent this Bill proposed it would be still far too small for the purpose. But what right had the Corporation of London to tax the graziers and agriculturists to defray the expense of that enlargement? They would not submit to such an imposition. When he again introduced the Islington Market Bill, he would again state to the House the reasons which in his opinion, called for such an improvement. At present he would content himself with moving, trusting that the House would stop this Bill at once in its progress, that it be read a second time that day six months.

wished to ask the probable amount of the expense of the proposed market, and in what manner it was to be raised. [Mr. Alderman Wood. "It is estimated at 100,000l., of that sum 50,000l. would be provided by the Corporation, and the remainder it is proposed to raise by a toll on all cattle exhibited for sale in the market."] Then as a member of the Corporation of the City of London, he felt called upon to oppose the second reading of the Bill on the ground of the enormous expense that would necessarily be entailed on that body, in the event of its passing. During the last thirty-five years there had not been less than eleven applications to Parliament on the part of the Corporation for enlarging and improving Smithfield-market. On all those occasions it had been satisfactorily proved that the present site of the market could not be enlarged so as to answer its purposes. The worthy Alderman had told them that 50,000l. was to come out of the funds of the Corporation. Now where, he would ask, would they find this 50,000l., for it appeared from a recent report of theirs, that they were deficient 20,000l. on the expenditure of the last year? The worthy Alderman, no doubt, would represent the funds of the Corporation as being of great extent; but he could assure the House that they were of a very limited description, except as arising from taxes upon the public. The revenue of the Corporation might be stated at 400,000l., of which only 48,000l. came out of the estates of the Corporation, the remainder being derived from taxes on the citizens. He had seen so much market jobbing in the City of London, that he must deprecate the idea of the Corporation having anything to do with the management of this market. He was told that the estimated expense for enlarging Smithfield-market would be 100,000l., but they had no means of ascertaining what the actual expense would be. The expenses of the Corporation had always exceeded their estimates in such matters. In the case of Farringdon-market the estimated expense of the building was 150,000l. whereas the removal alone amounted to that sum, and it cost altogether, no less than 250,000l. How was this additional sum raised? The Corporation, seeing that they had not sufficient money, placed a new tax upon coals. The profit to the Corporation derived from Farringdon market was last year but 4l. 15s. 5d., and next year it would be a loss to the City, since the expenditure would be more than the receipts. To purchase the site of some houses in Farringdon-street the Corporation expended the sum of 27,000l., and to the inhabitants of those houses 18,200l. was given as a recompense for their loss in trade, whereas it was afterwards proved that those persons suffered no loss, since their trade produced them no profits. If the costs for improving the present market were now stated at 100,000l., he was sure that the ultimate expense would be upwards of 150,000l. He would therefore oppose the second reading of the Bill.

regretted that the hon. Member for Coventry had thought it necessary to amuse the House with a sort of statement such as he had been in the constant habit of making in the Common Council of London, and to which appropriate sphere it had better have been confined. As to the expense of Farringdon-market, the fact was, that juries had given such extravagant verdicts of compensation, that it was impossible to confine the undertaking within the ordinary calculation. Another great improvement had, however, been effected, with a saving of, perhaps, 200,000l. or 300,000l.: he alluded to London-bridge, and its approaches, upon which not less than a million of money had been most advantageously expended. So important had the Duke of Wellington considered this work, that he had actually kept Parliament sitting, when the Members would fain have gone into the country, because he was anxious to see the Bill passed for its completion. Many had been the attempts of the City of London to enlarge and improve Smithfield-market, and at one time the plan was to carry it only, perhaps, a quarter of a mile further than at present, to an open space near Sadler's Wells. That project had, however, with others, been defeated, and the scheme now seemed to be to remove it to a swamp at a considerable distance, which could scarcely be drained, and to which there was only one road. If removal were necessary surely it would be much better not to remove it so far, especially when a space quite sufficient for the purpose could be found much nearer the present site. He was aware that his hon. Friend (Mr. Handley) was alarmed for the fate of the Bill he had introduced, because last year he had been completely beaten in the Committee as the evidence was all against his scheme. His hon. Friend had alluded to the authority of Mr. Coke, not recollecting that that venerable authority had retracted his opinion in favour of a change, and had declared that on looking at the question in all its bearings he found no situation so good as that of Smithfield. In the Committee the testimony of persons who sold fifty or sixty beasts, and a proportionate number of sheep in the week, was opposed to the evidence of men who only sold five or six beasts in the week. The hon. Member had complained that 50,000l. was to be raised by an additional toll. What was that toll? Twopence instead of 1d. per head, and yet by his own Bill of last year 4d. was to have been paid if the beast remained in the market a certain time, and the whole charge might amount to 1s. per head. When the new Post-office was erected the Corporation of London might have sold the site of Smithfield-market for 190,000l. and the ground on which the building stood actually cost 150,000l., half of which was paid by the City. But besides the 50,000l. to be raised, as he had said, by a toll of 2d. per head, the Corporation was about to expend a very large sum of its own money, equal in amount to that obtained by the toll. All the Corporation wanted was, that the public should be duly accommodated, which it most certainly would not be by removing the market to a spot of ground at a great distance, and merely purchased by a speculator in the hope of prevailing upon Parliament to pass a Bill to abolish the present market.

:The worthy Alderman had stated that the site of the new market was a swamp. All he would say in reply to the observation was, that its site was many feet higher than that of Smithfield.

the right hon. Baronet opposite put a question to me yesterday, relative to the Motion of which I gave notice, to limit to three months the votes in Committee of Supply, and I gave him a conditional answer to his inquiry whether it was intended to bring on the Motion to-morrow. I am now able to state to the right hon. Baronet, that having consulted with those upon this side of the House who I thought would support that Motion, I regret to find that they do not concur with me in considering the question sufficiently decisive of our want of confidence in the present Administration, and I have therefore been induced, with regret, to postpone the Motion of which I gave notice respecting the Supplies, but I do so with a view to proposing a subsequent Motion, tending to show decisively that the House has no confidence in his Majesty's Ministers,

:Is this, then, the Motion of which you gave me solemn notice more than a week since? I say, is this the Motion which you thought it incumbent on you to give notice of a week before-hand? I asked the hon. Gentleman last night if he intended to bring forward his proposition for limiting the Supplies, pursuant to notice, and the hon. Gentleman now says he gave me a conditional answer. That conditional answer was, that the Motion would be certainly brought on, either by himself or some other hon. Member. I now ask the hon. Gentleman, whether the hon. Member, who was to have supplied his place, has also abandoned his intention; or whether any more decisive vote or want of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers is to be moved to-morrow.

I answer, that as far as I am concerned, it will not be brought forward to-morrow. I beg to remind the House, however, that on a former evening, when I expressed my opinion that the votes on the election of Speaker and on the Address evinced that the House had no confidence in the present Government, the right hon. Baronet did not appear to consider them in that light. I considered that granting the Supplies for only three months would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in Ministers; but I was reminded by some hon. Friends, that the right hon. Baronet might turn round on us and say, "This is no vote of want of confidence in the Administration;" and on that ground, lest a limitation of the Supplies should not be taken as a decisive indication of the opinion of the House, I have consented to alter the course which I had intended to adopt. I have done so, seeing the necessity of proposing some Motion which shall come directly to the point, and contain words that cannot be misunderstood. I have only to add, that as far as I know, no other person will tomorrow bring forward the Motion of which I give notice for limiting the Supplies.

:I asked the hon. Gentleman what course he intended to pursue with respect to his threatened decisive motion of want of confidence in Ministers, with a view to displacing them, and I really do not think that I am trespassing unreasonably on the hon. Gentleman or his friends when I again venture to ask a question as to a course of proceeding which may be of great importance to the Ministry and the country. The hon. Gentleman says, that neither he, nor, as far as he knows, any other hon. Member, means to press the Motion for limiting the supplies, on the ground that it might not be considered sufficiently decisive of the opinion of the House, with respect to the present Administration; but he adds, that I may depend on it another Motion, which cannot be misunderstood, and which is to convey a decisive declaration of want of confidence in Ministers, will be substituted—to-morrow? [Mr. Hume: "Not tomorrow."] I wish to ask whether, or no, that other Motion will be brought on tomorrow? ["No, no,!"] I understand, then, that neither the hon. Gentleman nor any of his friends will oppose the vote for the Supplies to-morrow. I only appeal to the hon. Gentleman whether it is not right, if he, or any other hon. Member, have come to the determination to bring forward such a Motion, that no time should be lost in naming a day for that purpose?

:I assure the right hon. Baronet that if it rested with me, I would bring on the Motion without any delay; and that, at all events, it will be brought forward on the very first fit and proper moment that occurs. Conversation dropped.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a uniform system of Registration of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in Scotland. The defects of the English system of registration were generally admitted, yet that system was perfection itself, compared with the practice in Scotland. There existed in that country a registration of baptisms, but not of births—of bans, but not of marriages, and there was no registration of deaths. In Edinburgh, in thirteen parishes, of which the population was 75,000, and where, according to the ordinary calculation, the births must have amounted to 1,800, only 400 were registered. The Bill which he proposed would be similar to that of last year, and would proceed on the principle of compulsory registration. As to the details of the measure, however, he was not bigoted, but would be ready to adopt any proposition calculated to effect a real Amendment in the plan.

objected to that princi- ple of the Bill which rendered registration compulsory, and would oppose the measure on that ground, when the proper time arrived. He admitted that registration was defective in Scotland, and was ready to improve it, but he could not consent to one clause in the Bill, which required the poor man to go to a registration office and pay a considerable fee. [Mr. R. Steuart—" 6d."] Well, even 6d. for registering the birth of his child at a time when he could least afford it. He objected the more to this compulsory provision, inasmuch as if an individual neglected to comply with it within forty-eight hours, he became liable to a severe penalty. Such, at least, he thought was the provision of the Bill of last year, which the hon. Member had professed his intention to revive. He admitted the advantage of a registration of births to the rich, whose children succeeded to property, but it would be difficult to prove that the poor, whose offspring inherited only the produce of the labour of their own hands, were equally interested, and should be compelled to comply with the regulations of a general registry under a penalty in case of neglect.

warmly approved of the principle of the Bill, and did not see the reason why the State should not pay for the registries of the poor. The poor were interested in those registries, and he had in his own experience known cases where it would have been of great advantage to the poor man to be able to apply to a registry. It frequently happened that the relatives of poor men who died abroad were not able distinctly to trace their relationship, and property thus left was wasted in litigation. It would be equally advantageous to Church of England men, in the case of property which might be left to them by Dissenters, and he hoped to see similar Bills brought in for England and Ireland.

had opportunities in other countries of witnessing the working of measures similar to that proposed, and did not think there would be any difficulty in carrying it into operation. By the systems adopted on the Continent they could trace an individual from his birth to his death. He hoped, in any plan which might be adopted, that the rights vested in individuals would not be interfered with, and that their concurrence in the measure might be acquired.

thought, that difficulties would attend the application of the principle of compulsory registration, and hoped that the Bill would differ in its enactments from that of last year.

hoped that his hon. Friend, the Member for Haddington, would not allow the doubts that had been thrown out to have any weight with him. The measure was important in a national point of view; let the hon. Member proceed with it, and when he had brought in his Bill, let him subject it to a Committee up stairs, where all the doubts and difficulties now suggested might be easily dispelled.

thought that such a measure as the hon. Member proposed would be extremely beneficial, if properly carried into effect; and he was, therefore, willing to give it every assistance in his power. But he apprehended that the hon. Member would find some difficulties, not only in the details of his measure, but arising out of the nature of the subject itself, in a country where marriage might be performed without any religious ceremony, and it was difficult to know in some cases whether individuals were married or not.

had stated, that he did not desire to stand by the details of the Bill of last year in every instance, if improvements could be pointed out; but he certainly thought, that unless the principle of compulsory registration were upheld, the measure would be wholly inefficient, particularly as to marriages which in Scotland were celebrated with so little ceremony. Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

moved for a copy of the proceedings had at an investigation held at Armagh of the transactions which took place at Keady in the county of Armagh between the Magistrates, the police, and the Orangemen, on the 5th of November last, with all the documents connected therewith.

could not grant the papers to which the Motion referred, because, as the Government had determined to prosecute the parties concerned in the transaction, the Crown Solicitor had taken the documents with him to the Armagh assizes. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member would perceive that he could not consent to the Motion, the more particularly as a judicial proceeding was pending.

complained of the encouragement given to Orangemen, and said that the people did not place confidence in the Administration of justice in that country.

said, he understood that the Armagh assizes would commence tomorrow, and, therefore, the trial would in all probability be over before the papers could be laid upon the Table of the House. There was no case better calculated to satisfy Members of that House of the baneful effects resulting from party divisions in Ireland than that to which the Motion referred.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman had listened attentively to what he had previously said, he would have found that he made no objection to the production of the papers, further than that orders had been given to prosecute the parties implicated. And how were they to know that the case might not be postponed, or that some other impediment might not have come in the way? But there was another reason why he could not produce those papers—namely, that they had been carried by the learned counsel to the Assizes, and he therefore could not produce them.

considered that the order ought to be pressed. They were bound to do thus much to show the people of Ireland they were disposed to do them justice. He had received from his agent a man of grave, sage, and steady character, a detail of the outrages committed by the Orangemen in Clanes, with the details of which he would not trouble the House. He declared that the people would not endure the armed Orange banditti tolerated by Government, and if that party were not put down, it was to be feared that their passions would get the better of their reason, and the Catholic gentry of Ireland would arm their tenants to fight it out with the Orangemen, who now conceived the present Government owed its elevation to them.

was almost sorry that the hon. Gentleman had not substituted for some parts of his address the substance of the communication he had received from his agent, who, it appeared, was a very grave, sage, and steady character; and, he had no doubt, that what he said would have displayed a little more moderation than some of the hon. Member's observations. The hon. Member who originated this Motion moved for two sets of papers, the latter of which referred to a case in which no judicial proceeding had been commenced; rewards had been offered by proclamation for the discovery of the delinquents but without success. Now, the paper relating to this transaction his right hon. Friend was prepared to give. But the other Motion related to transactions upon which trials were now pending. Nothing could be fairer than the request of his right hon. Friend, who merely asked for such a delay as the attainment of the ends of justice required. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman would, on reflection, see the propriety of withdrawing, for the present, that part of his Motion objected to. There would be no objection to produce all the papers at a subsequent period.

thought the House should act upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Meath, and order the papers, leaving them to be produced when convenient.

entertained the strongest objection to such a course. The only objection to produce the papers at once was, that such a course might interfere with the ends of justice; but at a future period they could be moved for. The orders for returns made by the House of Commons should be imperative, and not left to the discretion of subordinate agents. He put it, therefore, to the good sense of the hon. Gentleman whether he would not obtain all that be required by moving for the returns at a future period.

moved for a copy of the proceedings of an investigation held at Armagh, of the transactions which took place in the neighbourhood of Keady, between the police and the country people, on collecting an arrear of tithe due to the rev. James Blacker, &c., which Motion was agreed to. The hon. Member also moved for a copy of the proceedings had at an investigation held at Armagh, on the transactions which took place in that town and neighbourhood on the 15th of January last, and the following week, during which several houses in that town were wrecked, and fourteen Catholic houses buried in the neighbourhood, by a body of Orangemen, together with the several papers connected therewith.

said, that the Government was anxious to discountenance the improper proceedings alluded to in the Motion just made. With that view, a reward had been offered for the discovery of the offenders, and the hon. Member might be sure that no steps would be neglected to bring them to punishment.

was anxious to vindicate the Armagh Magistrates from the charge of favouring the Orangemen.—There was no foundation for the accusation. The investigation was about a brawl at a public-house. The hon. Member was quite wrong when he assumed that the outrage was commenced by the Orangemen. He (Lord Mandeville) attended the investigation, and he could assure the House that there was no evidence whatever that the outrage was perpetrated by Orangemen; on the contrary, there was distinct evidence that the rioters were not Orangemen. The history of these feuds was this:—At races held before this outrage, a party of Catholics had surprised and attacked a body of Orangemen who were not prepared for, and did not expect, any hostility from their opponents. Another race was held in another part of the county, soon after, and the Protestants came prepared for their defence. There the Catholics again mustered strong, and having provoked the Protestants there ensued a second fight, in which the Catholics were worsted. Then came the races of Armagh. The Lord-Lieutenant. got intimation that a riot was meditated, and issued an order for the suppression of the races. After this the Catholics, animated by a strong feeling of animosity towards the Protestants, absolutely went about marking each obnoxious Protestant for vengeance. One Protestant and his daughter, on going to church, were waylaid and beaten to such an excess that their lives were despaired of. The houses of other Protestants were subsequently attacked and absolutely wrecked. Then the Protestants took fire, and naturally.— This was the origin of the disturbances now complained of. There were as many as six wounded Orangemen the victims of Catholic outrage. The consequence was, that the Protestants turned out and burned seven, not fourteen, houses of the Catholics. After that 400 Catholics, all armed, turned out and attacked the Protestants indiscriminately. The Protestants, to the number of 300, turned out next, and repelled the invasion on their houses, property, and lives. The case was brought before the Irish Government, and an investigation was ordered. The Lord-Lieutenant, whose duty it was to act impartially, summoned only the Magistrates who belonged to one party, the Catholic party. He absolutely excluded Magistrates who were known to be friendly to the Protestant party. When it was a complicated inquiry, involving the interest of two parties, why, he would ask, should the inquiry be conducted by the partisans on one side only? The Lord-Lieutenant's conduct was highly reprehensible. He selected his own court, formed his own tribunal, selected his own witnesses—for even the witnesses were all chosen from one side, to the utter exclusion of rebutting evidence. He did more—he made the investigation a scant and partial one, he excluded the public press—there was no official reporter admitted—the reporters for the press were excluded—all was done within closed doors, and by the organs of a particular party. Even the evidence given in open court was not suffered to be produced before this dark and scanty tribunal. Was this a seemly, was it a just, was it an honest, was it a wise proceeding? In a case deeply involving the interests of many individuals—affecting too the public welfare, and the public tranquillity—should a high functionary stoop from that lofty ground of impartiality which it was his duty to maintain, and link himself by the establishment of such a private inquisition with the Ministers of a party. Everything was done before that tribunal to inculpate the Protestants, and cleanse the Catholics from guilt. Witnesses were refused on the Protestant side to overturn the evidence given by the Catholic party. When the inquiry was ordered by the Lord Lieutenant for the furtherance of public justice it should surely be conducted in the spirit in which it was ordered; it should not be one-sided, but impartial.

said, he would not have uttered a word on the present subject were it not that the hon. Baronet opposite said there was some palliation for the conduct of the Protestants. He hoped the party feelings of the noble Lord and of the Orangemen would be confined to the court house, and not uttered in that House. When the noble Lord talked about his anxiety for the Protestant party —when be heard declarations made in that House that the time was come when the Protestants of Ireland should stand in defence of their rights—he, as the Representative of the Irish Catholics, should be excused if his feelings sometimes hurried him too far. The noble Lord said the Catholics were armed, and therefore it was necessary the Protestants should be armed also. He also declared, the Protestants would drive the Catholics into the sea if they got one good field day.

"Words are but wind,

While actions speak the mind."

When he saw the defenders of the Orangemen on the Treasury Benches he could expect little conciliation, little relief to the Irish people. It had been stated that few police had attacked the people, but the fact was, that there were thirty-seven police who had joined in the attack, and by whom murder had been committed, and there was no magistrate to control them in the outrage. It disgusted him, and all Irish, and all English Members, that they were obliged to rise, night after night, to defend themselves from a fanatic and out of the House, which would lead to the desolation of Ireland. He had no confidence in the declaration of Government that their great aim was to put an end to party feeling in Ireland. He had no confidence in the late Government, for their professions were falsified by their acts. They gave him a Commission, and when they put him to the trouble of the inquiry they did nothing. The Orangemen were now become too powerful to be interfered with. He had no confidence, therefore, in the present Administration, nor in any Administration. His confidence was in the pressure from without.

as an English Member of Parliament, could not help rising to express his disgust that an Irish clergyman should be found acting in the character of a Magistrate during the collection of his own tithe; and he thought that the Government ought to issue an order to prevent the repetition of a like occurrence. He fortunately belonged to a county in which clergymen were considered to have a higher occupation than that of a Magistrate. But, at all events, there could exist no difference of opinion on this point—that clergymen should not be allowed to act as Magistrates in their own cases.

said, that when the papers moved for should be laid on the Table, the directions given by the Government on the subject of the attendance at the collection of tithe, not only of clergymen but of all Magistrates being parties interested would fully appear.

would content himself with saying, that he had himself taken the pains to impress on the Magistrates of Ireland, and particularly clergymen, the impropriety of being present at any collection of tithe in which they had an interest.

denied having used the words which had been attributed to him by the hon. Member, (Mr. F. O'Connor.)

thought, that on one point at least originating out of the present discussion there could be no difference of opinion. He meant, that if the assertions of the noble Lord (Lord Mandeville) were correct, Lord Gosford was not a fit person to remain in the important situation of Lord-lieutenant of the county of Armagh. The assertions of the noble Lord must be either true or false—if false, the noble Lord had much, indeed to answer for in having made them in that House; if true, Lord Gosford could not escape the marked censure of that House. The truth or falsehood of the charges it became now the object to ascertain, and he, therefore, rose to ask if the papers moved for were calculated to effect that object, and if not, whether it could be collected by any other documents in the power of Parliament to command? He maintained that it was the duty of the noble Lord, as an upright and honest Magistrate, to represent the conduct of the noble Earl, whom he accused, to the Government, with a view to its receiving a strict investigation. Honourably, he could not avoid doing so; but, at all events, the House was now bound to interfere. As an English Member, unacquainted with the state of parties in Ireland, he felt quite unable to ascertain the truth of the representations made on either side of the House night after night; and, feeling convinced, that if Ireland was to be pacified they must act on the principle of doing equal justice to all parties, he did desire to have all documents calculated to throw light on the question in dispute. He had the honour of being acquainted with the noble Earl whose name had been brought forward, but, notwithstanding that, he was prepared, should the noble Lord opposite prove the facts he laid to his charge, to vote with bum upon any motion of censure he might please to make. Justice would be paralysed if any man guilty of one-half of what Lord Gosford was accused, was suffered to retain the post of Lord-Lieutenant; but, as the subject had been broached incidentally, and without notice being given, so that an answer might be made on the noble Earl's part, he entreated the House to suspend their judgments upon it until the noble Lord did that which now lie must do—by bringing forward proof of the truth of his assertions—either save his own character, or for ever destroy that of Earl Gosford. One other point and he had done. It appeared that certain outrages had been committed at Armagh, but, hitherto it had been found impossible to discover the perpetrators. This the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had stated to the House, adding, at the same time, an earnest desire, that Government might be able to bring them to justice. That desire might now be accomplished; for, if the noble Lord's assertions were to be believed, it was in his power to identify and bring the parties to justice. The noble Lord confidently stated, that they, meaning the perpetrators of the outrages, were not Orangemen. If the noble Lord knew that fact, he knew who they were—if his evidence was good to prove they were not Orangemen, it was equally good to convict them in a Court of Justice. To this fact he begged to call the attention of the right hon. Secretary, and he might be assured the House would now expect him to avail himself of the noble Lord's testimony in discovering who the parties in question were. For his part, he only hoped the law would be enforced impartially; for, until that was done, Ireland must be a perpetual source of trouble to the Legislature. It was really disgraceful that an assembly should be, as the British House of Commons now was, night after night, and day after day, having its precious time wasted in discussions, as to whether this outrage at Rathcormack or that riot at Armagh should undergo investigation, as if there could be a question that every such violation of the law ought not to be inquired into and punished by the Government. The course that had been pursued by the Government on the two occasions to which he alluded was quite sufficient to raise the impression that justice was not so impartially administered, and while such an impression prevailed, it was altogether vain to expect either peace or tranquillity. It did seem as though the Government were resolved upon giving countenance to the Orange party to the prejudice of its opponents; and while that was the case, there never would be wanting leaders to incite the multitude to violence.

was not surprised that English Members should complain of the disgraceful and disgusting language with which the House was night, after night, polluted whenever Irish subjects were brought on the tapis. It was the habit of a certain set of Gentlemen, all most partial to one side of the question, to keep fulminating their threats and abuse against those who differed with them; and if any of the Members on his side of the House got up to state what he conscientiously believed to be the true history of the case, he was sure, without either justice or fairness, to be accused of partisanship. He knew nothing of the transactions to which the notice referred; he only rose to entreat hon. Members not to express an opinion upon them until they were better acquainted with the facts than they were likely to be from the speeches of the hon. Members who had spoken on the other side of the House. They were continually hearing from the other side of the House of midnight outrages; and they were told, that as long as the present Government remained in office, there was safety for neither life or property in Ireland. [Cries of "Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] It was easy to cheer, but doing so did not of itself prove the truth of the assertion. As to himself, he believed it to be as great a falsehood as could be concocted, and he was happy to say, that all the respectability of that part of the country from which he (Sir R. Bateson) came, fully agreed with him in opinion. All that the gentry and Magistrates of Ireland required was even-handed justice. They sought for no partiality—they looked for no favour. He (Sir R. Bateson) never was a party man, and all he wanted was justice to men of all religious opinions. As to the allegation that his Majesty's Government countenanced a certain party in Ireland, he did not believe it, and was prepared to prove it was not the fact. Indeed its best refutation was to be found in the fact that both extremes of the Irish parties were equally disappointed at the course of policy the Government had adopted. He addressed himself particularly to English Members, for he knew it was quite useless to address the few who arrogated to themselves the title of "The Irish Representatives par excellence," and he asked them not to believe what they heard night after night reiterated about Ireland, in speeches only made to keep up that party feeling which it was the wish of every sincere friend of Ireland to put down. He complained that the hon. Members for Ireland who were in the habit of speaking from the other side of the House always took the same side of the question, and never allowed their opinions to coincide with those expressed on his side. He would not follow the example they set him; but if he did, he could state instances of outrage committed on Protestants as revolting and exciting as any of those detailed by the hon. Member for Dublin and his supporters. Within a very short time no less than twelve such cases had occurred in the county he represented. All he wished was a fair representation of the real facts, and that justice should be done to all parties.

rose to put a question to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. It had been stated that a clergyman of the Church of England had placed himself at the head of a body of soldiers, and that death had occurred in consequence of orders which that clergyman himself gave. He wished to know, why that reverend gentleman had not been struck off the commission of the peace?

replied, that this question did not affect the present Government any more than the Rathcormac case. When he went to Dublin, he wrote a circular letter to all the magistrates, directing that no one should act as a magistrate where he was himself interested, and that no clergyman should act as a magistrate in the collection of his own tithe.

as one of the representatives for the county Armagh, in some degree identified with the occurrences which took place in that county, and having been personally alluded to by the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion now before the House, trusted he should be permitted to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from that hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the borough of Armagh (Mr. Dobbin), had told the House that a numerous body of persons came into the town of Armagh for the purpose of attending the election of the county members, and that those persons were the promoters of all the disturbances which afterwards took place. He did not think it was fair upon the part of that hon. Gentleman to have concealed from the House that his own election, the election for the borough, had been going on for five days, and had not terminated when the election for the county commenced. He was sure the hon. Member would not hesitate to admit that at that election strong party feelings were exhibited—that frequent riots had taken place—that broken windows, and broken heads were not less numerous than on former occasions—that the friends of neither candidate were in a state, soberly, to discuss the claims of either, and that the town was in a great degree of excitement when the election for the county came on. It was not, therefore, fair upon the part of the hon. Member to lay to the charge of the persons who came to attend the county election, the injury done to the town. But the hon. Member has also omitted to mention that some persons well known to the hon. Member, amongst whom were Mr. Sinclair, his brother, and son, who left the town to return home at the early hour of four o'clock, were stopped upon the road so well described by the noble Lord, the Member for Huntingdonshire, by a Roman Catholic, who prayed them for God's sake to return home by another road, as there were at least 700 men well armed waiting until they came up to where they were, and not one of them would go home alive; to which Mr. Sinclair replied that he was not aware of having given offence to any person, and that he would go on. The party did proceed, and when they arrived at the part of the road described by the person from whom they had received the caution, several guns, from both sides, were presented and attempted to be fired at them, but fortunately, owing to the wetness of the afternoon, not more than three or four went off; otherwise, the prediction of the informant must have been verified. Several persons returning home were dreadfully beaten by this party. On his return from the county Tyrone, where he went to attend the election for that county, he found a letter from a very respectable Gentleman residing in Blackwater town, in which he stated that 400 men had marched through that town, all armed, denouncing him (Colonel Verner) by name, himself, and all those who had dared to support him at the election. That there were neither military nor police in the place—that they were in expectation of being hourly attacked, and, with the exception of half a dozen young men who had guns, and who were assembled together, they were without the means of defence or protection. He mentioned these circumstances, to which no allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Armagh, in order that the House might judge whether the Protestants had not sufficient cause for alarm. The hon. Member had taken upon him to state, that the injury done to the houses, whether in the town or in the country, was done by Orangemen. It is very evident that the hon. Member did not attend the investigation at Armagh, or he would not have uttered such a calumny against that body. He had had a copy sent him of the evidence, taken by a professional gentleman, at that investigation, which was compared with the evidence taken by the clerk, appointed by the persons who conducted that inquiry, and admitted to be correct. He had carefully read it over, and in no one instance had a witness sworn that any of the depredations were committed by Orangemen. The hon. and learned Member for Tower hamlets has said, in reply to the noble Lord beside him, that the persons guilty of these acts must be Orangemen, because it was not proved that they were not Orangemen. That was a most extraordinary argument. Now, there were several persons examined belonging to the houses which were burnt, and they every one swore, that they did not know an individual amongst those who were concerned in burning their houses—that they had never seen them before, and did not think they should know them were they to see them again; and yet from this evidence the honourable Member concluded they must have been Orangemen, and accused them accordingly, of being so; but the evidence of the inspector of police went to say, that he was unable to trace any connexion between a body of persons upon a hill about four hundred yards distant from where the houses were burnt, admitted to be Protestants, and the party who burnt those houses. A curious circumstance occurred to Mr. Olpherts, the magistrate, who was actively engaged in quelling the disturbances, and endeavouring, to discover the offenders. He went into the house of a woman, who stated her house to have been set fire to at the outside, but which fire had been subsequently extinguished. Upon examining the premises he was clearly of opinion that the fire must have originated at the inside. Upon interrogating the daughter apart from the mother, and ignorant of the evidence her mother had given, the daughter swore that she saw her mother take a candle, and go down to the room in which was a quantity of dry straw. Whether this was done for the purpose of charging Orangemen with the act, or, as appeared on another occasion, for the purpose of recovering the expense from the county, was a matter of conjecture. In allusion to what has fallen from the noble Lord respecting the manner by which the Court of Investigation was assembled, he would beg to say a few words. He admitted, as a magistrate, he had no right to expect any summons. He had ceased to belong to the magisterial body in the county of Armagh; he had resigned the commission, which he could no longer bring himself to hold, when he saw those with whom he had been acting for upwards of thirty years, insulted and deprived of their commission without any investigation into the charges preferred against them; but as one of the representatives of the county—identified with those persons who were charged with being the disturbers of the peace—he did, he confessed, feel that his being overlooked was not a matter purely accidental. He was on his way to leave the country with his family, when, by accident, he heard the inquiry was to take place next day; he did, in consequence, delay for a day his journey, and was present at the first day's investigation, when he saw the hon. Member for Armagh, who, like himself, was not, he believed, present, except upon that one occasion. He heard the letter of the right hon. Secretary read by the noble Lord who presided at that meeting—he heard the instructions which that letter contained read, and which were, that the investigation was not to be confined to the recent outrages which had been perpetrated, but was to go back to the time of the races in October last. Why those instructions were not complied with, he was unable to say. The attention of the House had been frequently of late, called to the circumstance of the Protestants of Ireland having arms. Now, he would beg to ask, were the Protestants of Ireland the only persons in that country who were to be permitted to have arms? He recollected perfectly well being told so by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin last Session of Parliament. He thought it was during the discussion upon the Coercion Bill that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were armed, and the hon. Member added, and well armed too. [Mr. O'Connell: What he said was the Roman Catholics of the North.] He would address himself more particularly to the English Members, and he would ask them, whether it was right that the only acknowledged friends of British connexion in Ireland should be the only persons who were to be deprived of the means of defence, and whether the handful, which they were said to be, were to be delivered over to the millions, of whom they heard such repeated boasts, to be sacrificed by them whenever the proper or convenient time might arrive, at the shrine of Repeal or Popery. ["Oh, oh!" from Members opposite.] Hon. Members might cry "oh, oh" but had not the hon. and learned Member said, that all he required was the co-operation of Protestants, to insure the Repeal of the Union before twelve months. Was not that admitting that the only obstacle to the attainment of that measure was the opposition of the Protestants of Ireland? Disarm that body, and the hon. Member's object would be at once gained.

said, it seemed that the north of Ireland was in a state of civil war, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave encouragement to the factious feelings which prevailed, by receiving, and forwarding gracious answers to, addresses of an illegal character. For what other purposes were those addresses received, if it were not to keep up the feelings of faction, and the excitement that existed? He had the pleasure of listening, the other night, to the professions made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, but he had not the pleasure of hearing him declare that such things were not to occur again. When the Orange party saw the allies, by which they were surrounded, and the spirit with which they were defended, could the Government be surprised, that it had not the support of a single Catholic in Ireland, nor of a single Member who truly spoke and represented the sentiments of that body?

wished to state an instance of 2,000 Orangemen having marched, during the last election, into Armagh, with colours flying and decorated with the Orange emblems. They did so much mischief, that two days were occupied in assessing the damage, which was estimated at 1,400l., from the injury done to houses in the town.

was not out of the town on the day in question, and he denied that the Orange party appeared in the town decorated as had been described.

said, he was on the hustings, from which he should doubtless have been dragged by the Orange party, and his life perhaps sacrificed, but for the protection the police afforded him.

had no desire to prolong the debate, but having interrupted the hon. and gallant Colonel in his allusion to him, he would state the opinion with which he had accompanied his declaration, that the Catholics were arming in the north. He had distinctly declared, that the greatest mischief consequent upon the possession of arms, by Orangemen, was, that Catholics who ought not to have arms, would procure them, at all hazards. For his own part, he wished neither party to have them.

moved for a return of all appointments made, during the last ten years, by or under the control of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports; specifying the particular duties attached to each, and the respective salaries, fees, and other emoluments thereto attached; and from what funds such emoluments are derived.

observed that there appeared to be grounds for suspecting that the appointment of Pilots, was but too often influenced by political considerations. It appeared that in one case, out of a crew of fifty-three Pilots, forty-eight were freemen of Dover; and that in another, out of a crew of forty-two, twenty-nine were freemen.

said, his opinion was, that it was now full time, to put the pilotage of the ports of this kingdom, under a better government than it had heretofore been; and, indeed, to put an end to the office of Lord Warden altogether, which was generally filled by an individual not of a naval character.

considered that the gallant officer, in objecting to the office of Lord Warden, because it was not filled by a naval officer, might as well say that the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, ought to be filled by a naval officer.

said, there was no analogy between the offices; but the point to which he intended to call attention was, that as respected the maritime interests, the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was an anomaly. He did not see why there should be a Lord Warden to a particular part of the Channel. The consequence of the present arrangement, was frequently great danger to human life. The port of Rye had been omitted by Act of Parliament from the same jurisdiction as the other ports; and the Lord Warden, therefore, not thinking proper to appoint pilots for Rye, there had been no pilots there for a series of years. The pilots of that part of the Channel ought to be placed under the control of the Trinity Board.

said, that although the papers moved for, related to the Cinque Ports, yet the question extended itself to other places. He was happy that Government had taken up the subject. He believed there were no complaints, generally speaking, respecting pilotage from places where competition was open, but that the complaints came from places where the appointments were made in secret, which was a system highly prejudicial to their efficiency, and to the maritime interests.

moved for copies of any correspondence between the Lord-Lieutenant, the Deputy-Lieutenants, and Magistrates of the several counties of Ireland, and the Irish Government, previously to, and during the late elections, with reference to the distribution and employment of the military force, and to apprehended obstructions of the freedom of election. He said, it certainly was his intention to press for their production; but, he understood it was wished by Govern- ment that a further time should be allowed.

had no objection to the returns moved for, but he would remind the hon. Members for Ireland, that an interval of two days, was not sufficient between a notice of Motion and the Motion itself, when the subject concerned related to transactions, the documents connected with which must, of necessity, be in Government offices in Ireland. On the present occasion, however, he had no objection to produce the Papers, and when they were produced, he took that opportunity of informing the House, he should move that all the Reports relating to matters occurring previously to, and at the elections, should be referred to the Committee on bribery and intimidation. With regard to the employment of the military, the Papers, when produced, would prove they had never been employed, but on grounds perfectly justifiable.

regretted to hear so confident a statement from the gallant Officer, with respect to the use of the military. He had himself known instances or the most gross and unwarrantable interference on the part of the military. He would read an extract of a letter he had received from the Rev. Mr. Webb, of Borris, as evidence of the system which had been pursued:—"We were obliged to close our chapel, these two last Sundays. This extraordinary measure we were obliged to resort to, that murder might not be committed. The magistrate brought a company of soldiers on each Sunday, and had them placed at the chapel to protect some voters. If we had permitted the people to assemble, there is no doubt the moment they had appeared, the military, armed as they were, would have found a pretext to fire on the people; for the people, it was more than probable, on their appearance, would have been greatly excited, and made an attack." The writer also requested the hon. Member to inquire of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, by what authority this military force had been stationed there.

thought it very advisable for hon. Gentlemen to avoid discussion, when moving for returns of papers. He had endeavoured to do so, but was provoked into reply by statements that were made on the opposite side of the House. He had heard of outrages, such as the hon. Gentleman alluded to at Borris, where it was stated that people were pulled out of their pews, the pews destroyed, and the people dragged into the streets and severely beaten. Similar scenes, it had been asserted, had taken place several times subsequent to the Carlow election, when neither the influence of the priests, nor the sanctuary of the temple, were any protection. If hon. Members would favour him with the names of parties engaged in such alleged disturbances, he would promise to institute the proper inquiries, and give them satisfactory answers. As far as he was able to judge, the conduct of the military had been on all occasions most exemplary. Depending on the returns of Sir Hussey Vivian, he was authorised to say so. It had been a matter of particular inquiry by the Commander-in-Chief, whether the troops had on any occasion entered into the contest influenced by the spirit of either party. The answer to such inquiry, both from Sheriffs and Returning-officers, was perfectly satisfactory, and the conduct of the military had met on several occasions the approbation of the disappointed candidate. The hon. Member for Cork, whom he saw opposite, he believed, had given his testimony in favour of the conduct of the military, an opinion, he believed, the House would universally arrive at, whenever the subject was brought forward and regularly sifted.

said, that at the election alluded to, he was rather surprised, when about to address the people, to find himself surrounded by drawn swords and fixed bayonets, but he managed to keep the soldiers in good temper, by talking of the impolicy of flogging in the army, of the evils of unmerited pensions, and the propriety of appropriating such pensions to the relief of the widow and the orphan.

had seen a letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to Sir Hussey Vivian, in which the hon. and learned Member praised the conduct of the military at Youghal, as having been admirable. As proof, too, of the good effects of employing that force, he begged to call the attention of the House to this fact, that in 1832, troops were not employed, and in Carlow fourteen men were actually killed; in 1834, they were employed, and there was only one man killed, and that was in Meath. He thought, therefore, he was quite right in saying, that their employment was per- fectly justifiable, particularly as there had been no complaint of misconduct, every account, on the contrary, agreeing in stating their conduct to be most exemplary.

could not complain of the conduct of the military, but their conduct reflected no credit on the Magistracy, but on the gentlemen of the army, and the good feeling of the soldiers themselves. In the letter alluded to by the hon, and gallant Officer, he did not, as was supposed, express so much satisfaction at the conduct of the military in itself, as he did a preference to it when compared with that of the police. He had written to the Commander of the Forces with regard to the practice of the soldiery firing on the people, and had received an answer, he would admit, which was perfectly satisfactory. He willingly gave credit to the army, and he believed that gentlemen in command had received orders to adopt every precaution in cases of Magistrates giving unnecessary orders. It had been stated that in 1831, murders had taken place, and that in 1834, there were none—[Colonel Perceval: One only.] One only, and that in the county remarkable for its brotherly love. There were none killed in the Southern counties.

was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House must be aware, that the military could only act at the requisition of the magistracy in Ireland, as well as in England. The troops had strict orders not to interfere, except at the requisition of the magistrates; and, unless they did then interfere, it would be impossible for any Government to be carried on.

objected to the interference of the Magistrates. In the county which he had the honour of representing for two Parliaments, the Magistrates were all of Orange particular caste of politics; they were all of Orange principles. There was not one of them who had a vote but who had voted, both in 1832 and 1834, against the popular candidate. He could bear testimony to the advantage derived from the presence of the military at elections in Ireland, at the same time he felt bound on all occasions to object to their introduction as unconstitutional. With respect to what had been stated regarding the loss of life at the Dungarvon election, he should beg the House to bear in mind that it was not through the people it had occurred, but through some marines who were directed by the Magistracy.

as representative of a large county (Carlow), could not let the opportunity pass of adding his testimony to that already borne to the efficiency and good conduct of the military, and, also, to the particular necessity which existed almost always in Ireland for their presence at elections, but more especially at the last election in that kingdom.

begged to add his meed of praise to that which had already been bestowed on the military. Their conduct, contrasted with that of the police, was decidedly in their favour. Advantage was always derived to the peace of the country from employing them in preference to the constabulary, in consequence of the latter being more immediately under the control of, and responsible to, a partial Magistracy.

said, that he had been in Carlow at the last election for that borough, and on that occasion he had seen a display of military, horse and foot, which would have led him to suppose the town was in danger of destruction. Yet be did not perceive the least appearance of excitement among the people, or even anything like a crowd, to warrant such a display of armed force. In England elections partook of the nature of a solemn civil ceremony. In Ireland, on the contrary, they appeared to partake of a military character. In England, the military never appeared at elections without the most absolute necessity existed; in Ireland they were called out and paraded in all places before any necessity was even thought of. With respect to the question at issue—the conduct of the Magistracy —he thought the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had gone beyond his duty in declaring his belief in their innocence. It was like prejudging the question, and could not but have its effect in prejudicing the course of justice. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Hardinge) spoke from his own knowledge, or merely from the information supplied by the local Magistrates?

rose, but

interposed, and said, that, he could not help expressing it as his opinion, that very great inconvenience would arise if discussions were entered into by hon. Members in anticipation of the production of documents which were promised to be laid before the House. If, however, a sense of justice induced him in this instance to permit the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for Ireland) to address the House in reply to the observations of those who had preceded him, he trusted he should not be understood as countenancing discussions of this nature which, if generally allowed, must necessarily be attended with very great inconvenience.

most cordially acquiesced in the justice and propriety of that decision. During the course of the evening various attacks had been made on the Irish Government, on the one hand for being too Orange, and on the other for being too Catholic; his great object, however, had been, and always would be, to act with the strictest impartiality; and although he did not enter into details for the purpose of vindicating the course which had been pursued, it being most improper to anticipate a debate on papers which were to be produced, yet he could not avoid stating, that the conduct of the military had, on all occasions, been most exemplary, and in consequence of the protection afforded by them to the people, not a single life was lost at the last election, while at the one preceding not fewer than fourteen were sacrificed.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to Improve the Administration of Justice in Ecclesiastical Courts, said, that he did not propose occupying the attention of the House at any very great length in introducing the Bill which he proposed to submit to their consideration; but as this was one of the subjects alluded to in his Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, he thought it would be unbecoming in him if he did not state, as shortly as he could, the general object and scope of the Bill which he meant to offer for their adoption. The leading object of it was to consolidate some 300 or 400 courts which were dispersed all over the country, and which were incompetent to perform those functions of justice which had been assigned to them, and concentrate the jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters in one court, to sit either in London or wherever his Majesty should be pleased to appoint. It was also intended by the Measure to invest the new Ecclesiastical Court with additional powers, in order that there might be a more effectual administration of justice in Ecclesiastical matters which came under its cognizance; while its jurisdiction over certain other matters which had been made the subject of complaint more than once since the House met would be entirely removed. The Court of Appeal which an hon. Member had alluded to, and which formerly was known as the Court of Delegates, was already abolished, and its authority transferred to the Privy Council—it was proposed that the Privy Council should be also the Court of Appeal from this new Court. The effect of this alteration would be the bringing into one system, and under one arrangement of rules, a variety of important jurisdictions now exercised in point of practice by eight or ten different courts, and capable of being exercised by no less than between 300 and 400. Before detailing sonic parts of the Bill, he begged leave to state to the House the origin of the measure and the share he had in its introduction. In January, 1830, a Commission was appointed (subsequently renewed on the demise of the Crown, in the month of July the same year) for the purpose of investigating the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the Report was made in the month of February, 1832. A more learned and valuable document than the Report of the Commissioners which he now held in his hand, he had rarely met with, to the composition of which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, he believed, had very much contributed. The Report contained many most valuable suggestions, and having, in part, subsequently received the sanction of a Committee of the House of Commons, a bill was prepared, with considerable care, in the latter part of last year, which be believed received the sanction of nearly every one who had been consulted on the subject—among others, of the hon. and learned Members for Edinburgh and the Tower Hamlets; the latter of whom, though he had his professional interest to consult, hesitated not in confirming the opinion that if such a measure were adopted it would be the means of conferring general benefit on the community. It embraced a great variety of particulars, but he proposed calling the attention of the House merely to two, one relating to the Ecclesiastical Court, and the other, by and by, to the Discipline of the Clergy; those sub- jects being of prominent importance and pressing necessity. It was quite obvious that the existence of so many different tribunals, amounting, as he had stated, to nearly 400, and embracing diocesan and archidiaconal courts, peculiars of various descriptions, and some manorial courts, must lead to considerable inconveniences, possibly to conflicting decisions, and, in many instances, it was almost impossible that there could be an adequate judge, so that practically a denial of justice was, in many instances, the inevitable result. It was proposed by this Bill to consolidate into one court all those separate tribunals, and prevent in future any one of them entertaining any contentious jurisdiction whatever. It was also proposed to limit the new court to certain matters which were considered of sufficient importance to occupy its entire attention, and transfer to the ordinary courts of law others which had been hitherto investigated in Ecclesiastical Courts. The most important matters with which the Ecclesiastical Courts hitherto had jurisdiction related to testamentary and matrimonial causes, which it was proposed they should still retain; but of all jurisdiction as to tithes and other subjects enumerated by the learned authors of the report as civil and spiritual it was proposed to deprive them. They would also be prevented from intermeddling in those offences which belonged to the clergy—neglect of duty, statements of opinion not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England, and questions touching the relaxation of discipline, to be provided for by a separate bill; while all cases of defamation, brawling, laying violent hands in the Church or precincts of the church, and immoralities to which he would not particularly allude, might very well be left to the law as it now stood in the ordinary criminal courts of the country. Except for the purpose of producing nullity of marriage, for adultery, and incest, questions of that nature would also be withdrawn from the Ecclesiastical Courts. Such were the principal objects the bill had in view; but there was another important feature in it which he was anxious to state to the House. He alluded to the power of directing an issue, in order that a disputed question of fact might be settled in that most convenient and most constitutional of all methods—namely, Trial by Jury. It was proposed that the judge of the Ecclesiastical Court should have the power of sending an issue to be tried, in the same manner as the judges of the Courts of Equity were in the habit of doing when a question turned on matters of fact. There would also be an appeal from the Court to the Privy Council on the granting or refusing an issue on a new trial, which he hoped would operate as a sufficient check, and be satisfactory to the public. The Ecclesiastical Court, it should be remembered, had to deal with some of the most important and complicated rights and an immense proportion of the wealth of England—all matters testamentary and all property passing by will, it was, therefore, necessary, in order to its due administration of that branch of justice that it should be invested with sufficient powers, by calling in the aid of that important machine in investigating truth, Trial by Jury, the right of appeal, and at the same time that its powers were enlarged, to disencumber it from inquiries into a variety of criminal matters which had hitherto tended only to embarrass and perplex its operation. It was to be in future the King's Court, not the Court of any Archbishop or spiritual person whatever, and was to be held under the same rules and regulations to which the other learned judges were subject. The Measure was not peculiarly his, having been called on in his official capacity to take up the question and introduce it to the House. But, having diligently read the Report, in which he found much learning, great labour, considerable judgment, and extensive elucidation of important questions connected with the subject, he was not unwilling to avail himself of the suggestions which it contained, as he should always be ready to support any practical measures of improvement or reform, whether proceeding from that (the Ministerial) or the other side of the House, for no Member, whether lay or legal, could be more anxious than he was to improve the institutions of the country by properly-considered and well-defined measures of practical reform. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, that there was a portion of the Report of the Commissioners which, if not adopted in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or made the subject of a distinct measure, would defeat all that the Bill before the House proposed to do. It was that part of the Report which contained the recommendation of the Commissioners to abolish all the sinecure offices so numerous in connexion with the Ecclesiastical Courts. Not less than 60,000l. were divided in this way between the protegés of Bishops and Archbishops. Unless that source of patronage were lopped off the measure would give no satisfaction to the country. One of the highest Ecclesiastical personages in the kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had, on his (Dr. Lushington's) proposition as a Member of that Commission, relinquished at once patronage enjoyed by himself and his predecessors to the extent of 10,000l. a-year, spread over many sinecure offices. One was of considerable value, seven or eight varied from 1,500l. to 500l. a-year, all of which his predecessors had retained, other persons performing the duty, and they themselves taking the greater share of the emoluments. Within the short space of ten minutes his Grace replied—" It is so proper and just that I cannot hesitate an instant." In the same spirit every individual of the right reverend bench forming a portion of the Commission relinquished his patronage for the public good. He (Dr. Lushington) hoped that the same spirit would actuate the House when they came to consider the details of the Bill, and that they would unhesitatingly remove these overflowing sources of obloquy and public complaint. With respect to the measure of the Attorney-General, he (Dr. Lushington) felt bound to say, such was his sense of its imperative necessity, that he was only restrained from introducing one of the same nature by a knowledge of the fact that it would come with greater weight from the Government, and be more operative in its general effects on the Legislature. The preceding Government were undoubtedly very anxious about the matter; but they had not had time to mature it sufficiently. No blame could, therefore, attach to them for having delayed the production of a measure analogous to the present. He was rejoiced to find, that one of the provisions of the Bill took such offences as that of defamation out of the hands of the Ecclesiastical Courts. It was only in the month of May last that he had himself been compelled, in the discharge of his duty, to send an individual to gaol for defamation. He had no option, consistently with a due observance of his oath, but to act in the manner which he had mentioned. He sent the man there, and there he was at present, and there he might remain, for he knew not of any law by which he could be released. This was only one of many instances which illustrated the worst species of trials for defamation. He could not but attribute guilt to the Legislature for not having at an earlier period instituted inquiries into this subject, and for not having relieved Judges from a duty so odious, as that of punishing men pro salute animœ. The object of the report most especially was, the entire extinction of what used to be called the criminal jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts; that was to say, that hereafter no Ecclesiastical Court should exercise the power of punishing any person upon a criminal process. Another branch of the jurisdiction of the Court was that exercised over clergymen. This ought likewise to be taken away, and yet it was impossible that such a power of supervision should be extinct, and it therefore ought to be transferred to another jurisdiction, for which a separate Bill would provide, according to the recommendation of the Commission. This Court would take cognizance of all offences committed by clergymen in the neglect of the discharge of their duty; but it would not, in the slightest degree, interfere with the present jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Law in any other offences that the clergy might commit. The instituting of this new Court would be for the purpose of establishing a fair, impartial, and not expensive tribunal, for the purpose of correcting in time all improprieties and neglects in the ministers of religion, and of correcting them, not at a period when public scandal had been so excited, that the Bishops themselves, as had been the case in many instances, had been compelled to take the duty of correction upon them, and at their own expense, amounting in some instances to hundreds of pounds. The establishment of this jurisdiction would confirm more strongly the affections which still remained in the people of this country for the Established Church. All that would remain for the present Ecclesiastical Courts to perform, after the present Bill should have passed, would be the determination upon matrimonial and testamentary causes. These were causes, unquestionably, of very great importance, and no man who sat in that House, or who was not in that House, could feel but the deepest interest in the reform of the Courts which had to administer justice in such cases. Inde- pendent of the importance attached to the separation of husband and wife, the question of nullity of marriage involved the question of legitimacy, and the question of legitimacy involved the rights of property to an immense amount. With respect to testimentary causes, in his humble judgment, if the House did its duty to the public there ought not to remain any difference of law with respect to decisions upon the devising of real and personal property. He never had been satisfied that it was for the interest of the public that the disposing of real and personal property should be tried by a Jury in one case, and by another species of tribunal in another. The expenses of a double trial were not justified. The measure now introduced, when it came to be duly considered, would make every man of opinion that a more important Bill of Reform had never yet been suggested to the House. It was a measure which every Member would find to involve his own interests, and he cordially thanked his hon. and learned Friend, his Majesty's Attorney-General, for having availed himself of the earliest opportunity of bringing the measure forward.

rose to express his entire concurrence in the views which had been taken of the subject by his Majesty's Attorney-General, and by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets. The moment the Report of the Commission had been presented, he had read it with the utmost satisfaction. The public were deeply indebted to the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and very great credit was due to the right Reverend Prelates, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London and Durham, and the other Members of the right Reverend Bench, who had concurred under the Commission in recommending the Reform of all the abuses which had so disgraced the law of England, and who, for this object, had voluntarily consented to part with very valuable patronage. The criminal jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts ought long ago to have been abolished. Their proceedings pro salute animœ, were really for the sole purpose of putting fees into the pockets of the officers of the Courts. All persons knew, that the great obstacles to all improvement in this country were fees and patronage. The officers now had fixed salaries, and, therefore, they were as willing as other people to see abuses corrected. He was glad, that the Bill would abolish between three and four hundred Ecclesiastical Local Courts, for these were Courts purely mischievous. They created great expense, and great confusion. His hon. and learned Friend had said, that he intended to bring forward a measure for the administration of local justice throughout the country. He would beseech him not to abolish the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Courts. Let all the Peculiar and Manorial Courts be abolished; but it would facilitate the business of the country, if the probate of wills were to be allowed to remain with the Diocesan Courts. It was possible to centralize too much—to bring proceedings too much to London; and there would be an inconsistency in his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, bringing in two Bills, the one to create Local Courts for the trial of civil causes, and another for sweeping away all Local Courts, which took cognisance of Ecclesiastical cases. His hon. and learned Friend would find, that in this particular, he would give umbrage to the country solicitors, a very powerful body, who would be sending numerous petitions on the subject to the House, and who would be able to induce many country Gentlemen to vote against the Reforms altogether. There was a manifest hardship in compelling persons from distant parts to come to London to prove a will. Another point was, whether the supreme Courts ought not to have the power of dissolving marriages? Dissolutions of marriage ought to be tried before judicial tribunals, and not before the Legislature. It was a disgrace to the House of Commons, and to the House of Lords, and to the whole country, that whilst marriages by the law of the land were indissoluble, they could be dissolved by prerogative. When the case of a divorce Bill was before either House, and witnesses were examined at the Bar, the whole proceeding was a mere farce—a most expensive farce, it was true—but a farce that brought no credit at all to any party. He knew not why, in this country, as well as in Scotland, and the other countries in Europe, all such matters should not be brought before a judicial tribunal. These were judicial questions and not legislative, and judicial tribunals ought to have the power to grant divorces, both a mensa et thoro, et a vinculo matrimonii.

was convinced, that the country could not be satisfied if the decisions of such important cases as matrimonial divorces should be left to the decision of one single Judge. He would rather that such decisions should be left to a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was a very important tribunal. He was attached, by early prepossessions, to the Court of Doctors' Commons, and he could not bring himself to consider the decision of one single Judge in such cases as satisfactory. With respect to the Diocesan Courts, he would not enter into the subject; but he was sure the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would bear him out in saying, that the maintenance of those Courts would be perfectly impracticable if the present Bill were to pass. He begged to remind the House, that the Bill contained a provision for issuing a Commission to empower Courts in the country to grant probates of wills of small amount. He thought that this provision was amply sufficient for all purposes. He hoped, however, that some provision would be made for the distribution of copies of wills throughout the country; that would confer great benefit upon the public.

would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he was still not disposed to assent to all its intended provisions. It was by no means shown that the remedy which was to be provided against the inconveniences of the present system consisted in the abolition of all the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the establishment of a single tribunal in London. Such a plan might be very convenient for the adjudication of large testamentary causes—in other words, for the interests of the rich; but in cases involving property to smaller amounts, the effect of it would be different. In respect to that part of the subject which related to divorce, the existing law certainly required alteration; there was, indeed, at present one law for the rich, and another for the poor. But that would be still more the case if the jurisdiction over cases of this kind were confined to one central court. He contended, therefore, that it would tend to reform the several courts in the different provinces. These objections of his applied to the principle of the present measure, and could not, he feared, be removed by any alteration in its details.

bore testimony to the zeal of the right reverend Prelates who formed part of the Commission on whose report the present measures were founded, in removing abuses, and to their willingness to sacrifice their own time and their own interests for the sake of furthering that end. He did not think that it would be safe to leave testamentary causes, involving, as they often did, questions of the inheritance of land, to the decision of Local Courts; in his opinion, the tribunals which adjudicated such matters ought to be of the highest importance and character. As to the subject of divorce, it was, in his opinion, of the greatest importance that some change should be made in the existing laws upon it. He thought that the scandal of a Parliamentary divorce—the necessity of applying first to a Court of Law, and then to that House, where such causes were made matter of jest and merriment, and then again to the House of Lords—was a disgrace to the country; but still he was unwilling to invest courts of inferior jurisdiction with the decision of cases of such importance. He hoped, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Majesty's Government would turn their attention to the subject.

said, I trust, that this House will receive the present measure as the first practical fulfilment of the pledges given in his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, that his Majesty's Ministers were desirous of introducing into the administration of the law the most substantial Reforms, and of redressing every grievance, of which just complaint can be made. I do hope, that it was some kind of prognostication of the nature of those Reforms, which convinced the hon. Member for Middlesex, that it was not necessary to hold over his Majesty's Ministers the menace of limited Supplies. The hon. Member will see in the strong and uniform testimony borne to the efficacy of this Reform, a guarantee of the intention of his Majesty's Ministers, with respect to Reforms in general. This Reform in the Ecclesiastical Courts throughout the kingdom, is founded on the Report of a Commission of Inquiry, established upon the advice given by his Grace the Duke of Wellington, to the Crown. Nothing can be further from my intention, than to claim for his Majesty's Ministers the exclusive merit of this Reform. Few things are more honourable to party connexions in this country, than the manifestation on the part of public men of a willingness to co-operate in measures of Reform, that are complete and well calculated to promote the public welfare. The hon. and learned Member, who spoke last, has, with a modesty and forbearance, most creditable to himself, concealed the fact, that he was one whose co-operation had been of such signal utility to the inquiries of the Commission. The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, notwithstanding their total alienation from that political party, by which this Commission was instituted, were not unwilling to tender their gratuitous and invaluable services to forward all the purposes of the Commission. I do say, that such conduct redounds much to the honour of the hon. and learned Member; and that it redounds generally to the honour of Gentlemen, who, notwithstanding all their differences in party politics from the Government of the day, were the first to tender their services to perfect the laws of the country. A grateful testimony has likewise been borne to the dignified Ecclesiastics, and to the Clergy throughout the country, who were willing to sacrifice their private patronage, and to cast aside all personal interests, in order to benefit the country by promoting the objects of the Commission. I find this conduct has been invariable on the part of the right Reverend Prelates, notwithstanding the attacks that I see have been made on them in other quarters. Yes, Sir, uniformly have they evinced the same disposition to sacrifice every private consideration, in order to further the progress of useful Reform. As soon as his Majesty's Commission was established, the first offer made by every Member of that Commission, whether Ecclesiastical or Lay, was to suspend every appointment to Ecclesiastical preferments which had not attached to them a cure of souls until the Report of the Commissioners should decide upon the utility or inutility of filling up the places. Such has been the conduct of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of the Archbishop of York, and of the Bishops of London, of Lincoln, of Gloucester, and of the Lord Chancellor. All signified to the Commission, that not one of them would make any appointment to any Ecclesiastical preferment whatever, till the circumstances of the preferment had undergone the consideration of the Commission, and until it had been determined in what manner the preferment could be made most beneficial to the interests of the Church. With respect to the particular measure before the House, I go further, much further, than some of those hon. Gentlemen who claim to themselves the title of Reformers. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge, advises that the Local Ecclesiastical Courts should be continued in existence, while the whole object of the present Bill is to put an end to these local Courts. Another hon. and learned Member (Sir J. Campbell) has said that the Diocesan Courts should be continued, lest the country attorneys might petition the House, and oppose the Bill, through the medium of country Gentlemen, whom they may be able to influence. Why, Sir, I am a greater Reformer, than even his Majesty's late Attorney-General. If the local jurisdiction be good, maintain it; if bad, for God's sake, dont let us permit local attorneys, for their private and personal interests, to obstruct the course of Reform. If the country attorneys have any vested rights, any vested interests, in the maintenance of these Courts, let us compensate them; but if it be useful, if it be for the benefit of the country at large, that Central Courts shall be established, and that Local Courts be abolished, what grounds have country solicitors to obstruct the course of Reform? I know that the country solicitors are a powerful body; but if the present measure be right, if centralisation be more advantageous to the country than the continuance of local jurisdiction, I see no earthly reason, why the power of the country solicitors should impede the progress of Reform. I am one of those who think that the jurisdiction of Parliament ought to be trusted and relied upon. Most undoubtedly, no one can witness, with any degree of satisfaction, the examination of witnesses at the Bar of this House, on occasions of such a nature; but still, I think, that such a proceeding is not without an indirect effect upon the public mind and morals. I am not of opinion, that an easy mode of obtaining divorce would be attended with much advantage, nor am I that great admirer of the Scotch system, in this respect, that some hon. Members profess to be. I very much doubt, indeed, that it would be at all for the public benefit that Local Courts should have the jurisdiction of granting divorce a mensa et thoro. Such facilities would not be unlikely to lead to much collusion, particularly where females were concerned. The greatest confidence should exist in any tribunal possessing a jurisdiction of this nature, and too much care cannot be taken in the establishment of such a Court. I should be doing great injustice to Sir John Nicholl, and Sir Herbert Jenner, if I did not take this occasion to acknowledge the prompt, willing, and efficient assistance I derived from those learned and distinguished civilians, as members of the Commission, voluntarily tendered immediately on my return from abroad, and my appointment to office. Am I not, then, justified in saying, that where effectual Reform is seen to be necessary, there is no indisposition, in the highest authorities of the country, to give them both assistance towards so desirable an end. I entirely agree, and soon did agree, with those who feel that there never can be a perfect system of law Reform established, until all judicial sinecures shall have been destroyed. In any measure intended to be effective, provision must be made to abolish judicial sinecures. I, myself, introduced a Bill to destroy those abuses, and I believe with no little success and benefit; but, if any still remain uncorrected, I will give my support to any Bill, the object of which may be to render as pure as possible everything connected with the administration of justice.

had not intended to trouble the House on this Question, but the right hon. Baronet's personal allusion to him, rendered it necessary that he should say a few words. The right hon. Baronet had asked him, whether the introduction of this Bill, was one of the reasons which had induced him (Mr. Hume) to alter the course which he had originally intended to pursue, with respect to the Supplies? His answer was, that in changing that intention, the measure under consideration, never, for a moment, entered into his contemplation. It would seem that the right hon. Baronet assumed great merit for the introduction of this Bill, and that he wished it to be considered as a guarantee of the intentions of his Majesty's present Government, on the subject of Reform. The fact was, that the right hon. Gentleman had crept into the nest of the late Administration, and was then hatching the eggs which his predecessors had laid; and now, forsooth, he was taking great credit for the incubation.

in answer to the question just put to him, by the hon. Member for Middlesex, said that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for facilitating the local administration of justice. [Mr. Hume said, his question had reference to County Courts.] What was the difference? Were not County Courts a local administration of justice? The Bill which he had stated it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce, was for facilitating the local administration of justice; and the hon. Member would have an opportunity, on its introduction, of expressing his opinion as to the best mode of securing that object. While on his legs, he must beg to observe, that the hon. Gentleman entirely mistook some of the observations which had fallen from him. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not denied that the late Government were prepared to bring in a measure similar to the present; he had merely stated what was the fact, namely, that the Commission, upon the report of which the measure was founded, had been instituted by the Duke of Wellington's Administration. There was no merit in merely drawing the Bill; for it was drawn from the suggestions contained in the Report made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and the other Members of the Commission. So far from having shown any want of candour, on the occasion, he had given the merit to those to whom it was due. The hon. Member for Middlesex had been wonderfully learned, and curiously facetious upon the subject of incubation. The hon. Gentleman had recently had some practical experience of the throes of labour and the anxious cares and doubtful results, of the process to which he had alluded. The hon. Member had laid an egg, which he could neither hatch himself, nor get anybody else to hatch for him. What was to become of this redoubted egg? It had been, after an appropriate prelude, laid a week since; there was, then, a grave doubt as to whether it was to be hatched by the hon. Gentleman or some other hen; but, after all this patient agony of incubation, it appeared that neither the hon. Member for Middlesex, nor any other biped, feathered or unfeathered, could bring this egg to maturity. He had found an excuse for the hon. Gentleman for deserting his nest, in the earnest of Reform measures, which had been given by the Go- vernment, but he (Mr. Hume), instead of receiving it as a courteous assistance, had accused him of creeping into the nest of the late Ministry.

observed, that the right hon. Baronet should not count his own chickens before they were hatched; for he would probably find the chicken of his hon. friend, the Member for Middlesex, a good fighting-cock yet; but the proper time to crow was when the victory was gained. To come back, in sober sadness, to the question before the House; any one would have supposed that the discussion of such a subject might have been kept free from all party feelings. There had been no indication of such feelings on his side of the House; in his opinion there ought not to have been any on the other side of the House. It was quite evident, that but for the dissolution of the late Ministry, they would have brought forward this identical measure. The assumption of any merit, therefore, on the part of the present Government was an empty and unfounded boast. They stepped into other men's shoes, and then strutted proudly about as if the shoes actually belonged to them. He was glad to hear that so many eminent men, so many Bishops and Judges concurred in forwarding this Bill. But what must their predecessors have been who allowed all these abuses, all these sinecure duties to go on without remonstrance or interference. He willingly admitted that the Bill, as far as it went, would effect a salutary Reform. It would lop off some of the branches of corruption, but it would still leave the trunk standing; and he must say, that he thought his hon. and learned Friends on both sides of the House were wrong in not going further. Why have any Ecclesiastical Courts at all? This wisest of all possible countries had three descriptions of administration of justice—the Common Law, the Equitable, and the Ecclesiastical. The simplicity of legal proceedings would, in his opinion, be best consulted by a simplicity of courts. Why should it be necessary, first to prove a will in an Ecclesiastical Court, and then to carry its provisions into effect in a Court of Law, or a Court of Equity? Would it not be much better, instead of these three courts, to have only one? With reference to divorce cases, he had no hesitation in saying, that in his opinion marriages ought to be indissoluble. But if allowed to be dissolved at all, nothing certainly could be more unjust than the present system, by which the rich man alone was enabled to procure a divorce, because the rich man alone had the means of applying to Parliament for it. In fact, there was one law for the rich and another law for the poor. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think that there were too great facilities both for marriage and for divorce in Scotland. There was no reason, however, to believe, that on that account there was more immorality in Scotland than in this country. The right hon. Baronet also did not seem to be aware of the difference between local courts and the local administration of justice. Now, although there were no local courts at present, yet the assizes produced a local administration of justice. The distinction, therefore, was obvious. In Scotland there were local courts and local judges, and so there were, to a certain extent, in Ireland; but not so in England. He confessed that he was not for too much centralization; and he had thought it one of the defects of the Registration Bill that it was not local in its character, but central. He was convinced that immense advantages would result from the establishment of local courts in England. It had been objected to them that it would not be practicable to provide a succession of judges sufficiently qualified. It was practicable in Scotland, and why should it not be so in this country? He certainly approved of this Bill; but he begged to observe, that three of the most important Bills, connected with law reform, had been left to be introduced by the late Attorney-General.

observed, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that he had always understood it as one of the most happy circumstances in the administration of justice in this country, that the local was united with the central administration. He was of opinion that the ministerial parts of the administration of the Ecclesiastical Law, the granting of probates and the registering of wills, should be left in the country; but he was by no means prepared to say that the judicial administration of that law might not be advantageously transferred to London.

expressed his entire concurrence in the applause which had been bestowed by so many hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House upon the ad- mirable measure of Reform which had that night been brought forward by his Majesty's Government. He was greatly gratified to hear the right hon. Baronet state the readiness which all the high authorities, ecclesiastical and judicial, had evinced in forwarding rational and well-considered reform; and he had only, as an individual, to add, that he was willing, both upon his own part and that of a near relative of his, to give up any lay patronage they might happen to possess for the benefit, and to aid in the promotion, of true religion. Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

moved for leave to bring in the other Bill, of which he had given notice. Its object was to improve the maintenance of the Discipline of the Church of England. The inconvenience of the Ecclesiastical Courts continuing to exercise their present jurisdiction had been clearly pointed out, and the case of Dr. Coote had been cited as a striking example of delay, expense, and inefficacy. For the purpose of procuring an effectual administration of justice, it was proposed that a Bishop should preside in each Court, but that he should always be assisted by a legal assessor. There should be a due investigation of each complaint, which should be followed by a speedy execution of any sentence which the Court might think fit to pronounce. He thought it unnecessary to go into further details upon this subject. He had already stated to the House that the Report upon which the Bill was founded proceeded from a Commission, issued in January, 1830, which was renewed upon the demise of the Crown, in July of the same year. That Commission continued to sit, and it made its Report in February, 1832. He neither blamed the Government nor any Member of the Commission for not immediately bringing forward the measures that had been since founded upon the Report; but it was the fact, that the whole of the Sessions of 1832, 1833, and 1834, passed away without one measure being produced founded upon the last Report. It was not of so much importance from what side of the House any measure proceeded, as it was of importance that it should be well considered and speedily brought forward. He was anxious to put the House in possession of the facts relative to the origin and preparation of this Bill, so that praise might fall in the proper quarter. First, he must acknowledge that the Duke of Wellington's Government were entitled to praise for having originated and appointed the Commission, the Report of which was the basis of the measure. Next, the Commissioners themselves were entitled to the highest degree of praise for the admirable manner in which they had discharged their functions; and lastly, to the late Government for having prepared the Bill and put it into form. But, at the same time, he must claim for himself and the present Government the praise which was merited by them on account of the readiness with which they had at once brought forward this and the other Bill at such an early period of the Session as would enable them to get it passed this year; and even in this respect he should be contented with the bare acknowledgment, that the Government had shown a disposition to place no obstacle in the way of measures, the necessity for which had been affirmed by large portions of former Parliaments, and by the general voice of the community.

was sure that his hon. and learned Friend would not claim any praise in this matter, or in anything else which did not belong to him. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that the Bill had been prepared, and was ready, under the late Administration. That Bill was ready, and might have been introduced in the last Session; but it would be in the recollection of many hon. Members, that last Session he was taunted by the right hon. Baronet for having brought in his Bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt at a time when the House had so many other important matters before it. If, then, he had brought forward the measure which had been prepared on this subject, he should have heard still stronger objections against lading the Table with business which there was no prospect of carrying through. If the late Government and the late Parliament had not been dissolved, and if Parliament had been allowed to meet at the usual time, early in February, it was his intention to have taken the earliest opportunity which the Session afforded.

said, that all the credit he desired to claim for the present Government was, that they had thrown no obstacle in the way of this measure, and that they were disposed to adopt those reforms which were rational and well considered.

had not intended to complain of the learned Attorney-General, but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had arrayed himself in borrowed plumage, from which he wished to pluck a few feathers. Nothing ever gave him greater pleasure than to expose those who laid claim to merits not their own; and as the right hon. Baronet's speech certainly did seem to him to lay claim to the merit of others, he hoped he would not be offended at the candour with which he had told him so, and taken him down a peg.

said, that the reason why the subject was not brought forward in 1833, was, that a Committee, consisting of Sir Christopher Robinson and others, had sat upon the Admiralty Courts, and incidentally the subject of probates was gone into. That Committee sat till the end of the year. Next came the preparation of the Bill, which, he could assure the right hon. Baronet, was not so easy a matter as he appeared to think; and one gentleman who had undertaken the task gave it up in despair. It was, however, ready by the commencement of the last Session, and Lord Althorp pressed him (Dr. Lushington) to bring it forward; but he had said, that, although it would sound very well to lay the Bill upon the Table, yet that with a measure for the commutation of English tithes, another for the commutation of Irish tithes, besides the Church-rate Bill, it would be impossible to get through with it in a proper manner. If, therefore, blame existed any where from the Bill not having been brought forward last year, it rested with him.

said, that the name of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, the Member for Cumberland, had not been mentioned; but it was right the public should know, that, of all the non-lawyers who devoted their time and attention to this subject, the right hon. Gentleman stood pre-eminent. Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

rose to move for returns respecting National Education (Ireland), in pursuance of an order of the 13th May, 1834; and in addition, a list of all such books as are distributed or used under the direction of the Board, with the full titles thereof; and a list of the schools in which the whole or any of such books are used as class-books; also returns of the number of Roman Catholic children, of children of the Church of England and Ireland, and of Protestant children of other denominations in each of the schools under the superintendence of the Board; and that the Commissioners state the amount and particulars of any grants made by them to schools connected with or under the superintendence of any nunnery, monastery, or other religious institutions or houses; and also of any grants to schools kept in Roman Catholic chapels, or buildings forming part thereof, or contiguous thereto, or within the precincts of the said chapels, with the places where such schools are situated. He understood that some objection was entertained against the use of the expression Roman Catholic in this Motion. It was not his wish to disparage any religious persuasion. Some peculiar term, however, must be used to designate each. No objection was made in Scotland to the use of the word Presbyterian, and he never could see any objection to the use of the terms Roman Catholic or Papist. If he heard any reasonable objection to the use of these words in the return he should not employ them.

said, he objected to the making of any such distinction, because it was contrary to the principle upon which the system of National Education introduced by the late Government had been founded. That principle was, to draw no distinction between the children on the ground of religion. In the part of Ireland with which he was most nearly connected the greatest benefits had arisen from acting upon this principle. The parents of children of different religious persuasions were thus brought together, as well as their children, and mutual friendship, forbearance, and kindness was the result. In his parish the system was found to work so well that out of the fifteen heads of Protestant families who resided there fourteen of them made application for a grant towards the erection of another school. He would be very glad to see such a spirit extending further north, and children brought up in feelings of true Christian charity and benevolence one towards the other.

said, without the return for which his hon. Friend had moved it would be quite impossible to ascertain the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants attending each school. In his part of the country the schools were so situated that Protestant children could not attend them, because they stood either within the chapel-yard or very near to it. The schools under the Kildare-street society were quite deserted through the influence of the priests; and the new schools being in some cases within the chapel-yard, and in others very near it, the Protestant children could not attend them.

said, he saw no objection to the return. He should most sincerely rejoice if the system of education, proposed with the best intentions, should prove successful. He was anxious that the fullest information as to the working of the system should be communicated, and was glad that the attention of the Member for St. Andrew's had been called to the subject. He had no doubt the system would upon inquiry recommend itself, as it had already in some instances, to its former antagonists. He did not wish to see religious distinctions drawn upon this or upon any other occasion, but as they had similar returns before there could be no objection to them now. As there was a separation between the children in religious instruction it would be easy to make out a return of the Catholic and Protestant children. He should be better pleased if the schools were not situated within churches or chapels, or near to either, but on some neutral ground. The mere location ought to present no difficulty. It would be better to abstain from discussion till such time as they had full information. The result of inquiry would show whether or not the tendency of the plan was to throw the whole education fund into the hands of one party. The subject had been at one time converted into an arena for the exhibition of party animosity, but he trusted that time had gone by. No exhibition upon any theatre would be near so interesting to him as to see all parties co—operating and going forward together with the good work.

concurred in many of the observations that had been made by his right hon. Friend. in one part of his speech, however, he could not see whether he was speaking in irony or in seriousness. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that they ought to lay aside all party feelings, but there was in his speech something of taunt and irony, as if he was assuming a triumph, to which he did not consider his right hon. Friend at all entitled. He did not oppose it in a spirit of party, and one of his objections to it was, that it had a tendency to make distinctions of religion in schools. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Barron) by his allusion to the north, seemed to imply a censure on the conduct of the Kildare-street Society. Now certainly the object of that society was not the exclusion of any sect from their schools, but to bring them together as much as possible. If the present system worked so well, what objection could there be for answering any question? Why object to any? In the north of Ireland these schools most certainly did not meet with the approbation of the great mass of the people. It was said they were to be without any distinction of sects. This was not so, for Protestant parents would not send their children to these schools. His right hon. Friend said, he was happy to see so many converts to this new principle. For his part he was not one of them. His objections to it now were as strong as they were before.

hoped that nothing would be said or done to occasion acrimonious debates upon this subject. The object sought for by the return might be easily obtained in another way without trouble or expense. The hon. Member did not seem himself to understand the nature of his Motion, or the effect it might produce on the feelings of the Irish people.

said, that the returns had been granted in another place, therefore there could be no additional expense or trouble to have them laid on the Table of that House. With respect to the increase in the amount of the grant of the present year, it did not originate with the present Ministry, but it was to cover an increased expense incurred under the late Administration. Though he was prepared to give credit to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rice) and to his party, he begged to say that the present Ministry could not be charged with inconsistency on account of the course they meant to pursue. If the present system worked well let it be perpetuated; but he hoped that an end would be put to the practice of disseminating sinister reports. The returns were ordered.