said, the Petition he now had to present related to a tithe-suit in the Spiritual Court at Litchfield. The petitioner, Mr. Thomas Harris, was a man of respectability, occupying a farm in the parish of Ham in Staffordshire, which farm was his (Mr. Crompton's) property. The rev. Bernard Port was rector of the same parish, and was entitled to the tithe of cabbages. In the year 1831, the petitioner planted one acre of land in a field in this farm with cabbages, the other part of the field was sown with grass seeds. The greatest part of these cabbages was tithed without producing any dispute. The cabbages were pulled at different times as the petitioner had occasion for them for the use of his cattle; the tithe was set out and was drawn on Mr. Port's account. One small part of the cabbages remained, and the dispute arose about the tithe of this last part. These cabbages were put by Harris's directions into ten equal heaps; each heap consisted of eight or nine cabbages, and notice was given to Mr. Port to send his man to tithe these heaps. Mr. Port's man came, but he refused to take the tithe, because he said the heaps were not equal. Harris then said Mr. Port's man might take any heap he chose. This did not please him, and he refused to take the tithe. The tithe, was therefore, left in the field. After the lapse of a week the petitioner removed the nine heaps of cabbages which were his property, but the rector's tithe still remained in the field. It had been already stated that a part of this field was in seeds; for some weeks three lambs had been depastured upon the seeds, and the rector having improperly left his tithe-cabbages in the field, the lambs ate some of them. By the refusal of the rector to remove his tithe cabbages out of the field, Harris was placed in a difficulty—if he removed his lambs out of the field, he lost the use of it and the pasturage it afforded; if he allowed his lambs to remain, there was a probability of that occurring which had occurred—that they would eat a part of the rector's tithe cabbages. What, then, was Harris to do? Had he no remedy? Yes: he had a remedy; he might bring an action against Mr. Port, to recover compensation on account of his allowing the tithe to remain in the field, and thereby depriving him of the use of it. But, supposing him to have brought an action, and that the jury gave a verdict in his favour, and that the court awarded him all the costs it had the power to give; even if he thus succeeded, he would still have to pay out of his own pocket a sum far exceeding the value of the object for which he had gone to law. It was a mockery of justice to say that Harris had a remedy by action. Mr. Port's cabbages, in number 8 or 9, having been wholly or partly consumed by the lambs, he demanded to be paid for them, and asked 7s. 6d. as their price; Harris refused to pay this sum; he considered the cabbages not to be worth more than 1d. each, and he offered to pay in this proportion; Mr. Port then commenced a suit in the Spiritual Court at Lichfield for 7s. 6d. which he stated to be the value of the cabbages, and Harris was served with a citation: he applied to me for advice what to do; I recommended him to submit, and he did submit; and he complains that on account of eight or nine cabbages, which he values at 8 or 9 pence and which Mr. Port values at 7s. 6d., he has been saddled with law expenses to the amount of 15l. 2s. 6d.; this sum including the value of the cabbages. He ( Mr. C. ) had not any intention of imputing to the clergy a wish to act oppressively; on the contrary, he felt that those with whom he was acquainted, had good feelings about them which would make them shrink from proceeding against their parishioners in the Spiritual Court, and he believed he might apply the same observation to the greatest part of that respectable body; but arbitrary laws must not be kept in existence in the hope and expectation that those who were invested with power will be restrained by moderation and by the sense of justice from putting them in force. He would call upon the House to interpose to grant protection to the farmers against the oppressions of the Spiritual Court, not merely against the Clergy, but against all the possessors of tithes. He himself had an interest in tithes: the sums which he received for tithe were much greater than those which he paid for tilhe; there were many tithe-owners besides the clergy. The question he would put was this; is it proper that a tithe proprietor should be invested with the arbitrary powers of the Spiritual Court, which he may use as an instrument of vengeance against any unfortunate farmer who may have incurred his displeasure. He would next say a few words in regard to the state of the law. He had already shown that if a farmer was aggrieved his only remedy was by action, and success in that was almost ruin to him. For the farmer there was no cheap justice. Let the situation of the farmer be compared with that of the tithe-owner: the tithe-owner had his remedy by action; and for all sums not exceeding ten pounds whether the tithes were great or small, he could bring his complaint before two Magistrates; they were required to do him justice they would give him all the money due for tithe, together with full costs. He complained that the farmer should be liable to a proceeding such as this in the Spiritual Courts for such a sum. The proctors who practised there were strangers to him; he knew nothing of the law as there administered, and he was unable to obtain any information from the professional men who live in his neighbourhood. "It is proper (concluded Mr. Crompton) that I should state that I myself have been involved, and am still involved, in a dispute with Mr. Port respecting a road; on this account I have carefully abstained from making any observations: I have confined myself to the facts of the case, and I have stated them as if both the parties concerned were strangers to me.

said, that the rev. gentleman referred to had put a statement into his hands in justification of his conduct, and he would, therefore, briefly lay the details of it. before the House. He must say, that it appeared to him to signify little what was the value of the tithe in question. The simple question was, had the proceedings been according to law? This transaction had occurred four years ago. Mr. Port, he thought, justly asked why had not this petition been brought forward at an earlier period? He stated that his tithing-man, between whom and Mr. Harris the affair had been carried on, and whose evidence would be material upon the subject, was since dead, and that that might afford a clue to the late period at which the matter was introduced to the notice of Parliament. We lived in times when it was extremely easy to cast imputations upon the characters of clergymen of the Established Church, and equally easy, he was sorry to say, to gain for them credibility, and no small share of support, no matter whether they were founded on truth and justice, or the reverse. The question in the present case was, had Mr. Port transgressed or not the law of the case, and had he laid claim to that to which he was not entitled. Let them find fault with the law if they would, and endeavour to introduce other measures, but do not throw the odium of the existing law, if odium be attached to it, on Mr. Port, or other clergymen, who find themselves compelled by the obstinacy of tithe-payers to have recourse to it. Mr. Harris was, certainly, put to considerable expense in consequence of the citation. Justice cost dear to farmers, but they could not alone complain, for he believed that justice was a cheap article to no one. Mr. Port would not have caused the expense had he not been forced to do so in seeking to obtain what was his due. It had nothing to do with the question whether the value of the article was 9d. or 500l.; in both cases the point at issue was the same; and Mr. Port, or any other clergyman, had a right to make use of the means the law placed at his disposal. From the statement that had been placed in his hands it appeared that every species of annoyance was offered by Harris to Mr. Port. Letters had been received by Mr. Port from the petitioner couched in lan- guage as vulgar as it was insolent, and the petitioner had taken advantage of the defenceless situation of Mr. Port, as a clergyman, and had dared to do that which he would not otherwise do. The course pursued in regard to Mr. Port, he must say, was of a piece with the general conduct towards the clergy. Let any case in which a clergyman of the Established Church was concerned be brought before the House, and he was certain that there were many there who, from party spirit, would lake it up, and put the worst construction on the conduct of the clergyman, their sole object being, not to consider the justice of the case, but to assume that the individual was in the wrong, because he was a clergyman. This language might be thought to be strong and unfair; he wished it were so, but he did not believe it was. He would not go into detail of the disgusting ribaldry with which Mr. Port had been assailed. He would merely state one fact, that, on one occasion, while Mr. Port was administering the communion in the church, the petitioner and others got up a party at a public-house, and excited a brawl. The hon. Member concluded by again protesting against the course adopted towards Mr. Port.

certainly agreed with the hon. Member that these cases were all of a piece. He (Captain Pechell) had at this moment a relative of his suffering in the Court of Exchequer; and the only difference between the two cases was, that his relative had been carried thither on account of a small demand for turnips, and the present was respecting cabbages. In that case tithe was actually claimed for turnips that had been hoed up for the use of the cattle. If they had been carried off the land for sale, the clergyman might have been justified in making the demand; but, as it was, he had no right to make it. His relative was put, at this moment, to considerable expense by a suit in the Court of Exchequer on the subject. These monstrous cases occurred every day, and some remedy should be adopted to put an end to such vexatious proceedings.

expressed his deep regret that a system so odious and tyrannical, and so open to abuse, should be suffered any longer to exist. He regretted extremely that his Majesty's Ministers proposed to delay the Commutation of Tithes for another Session, perhaps sine die, and to suffer such abominable abuses as arose out of the present state of the law to exist.

observed, that the most important point of the petition was, that for tithe of the value of 2s. an expense of 15l. was incurred in the Ecclesiastical courts: thus showing the vexatious nature of procedure of those tribunals. He trusted that no time would be lost in passing the Bill which had been already introduced for doing away with the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts in these matters.

observed, that if the late Government had not been dissolved, a measure for the Commutation of Tithes, and the Bill alluded to for abolishing the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, would be now on their passage through Parliament. It did not come with a good grace from the other side of the House to regret the loss of measures which had been occasioned by the recent change of Government.

remarked, that the delay in passing these and other measures of reform was, in fact, attributable to the unfortunate change of Government in November last. Had the clergyman no other means of recovering his tithe in this instance except by expensive and oppressive proceedings in one of the superior courts? The hon. Member talked of there being Members in that House influenced by party spirit against the clergymen of the Established Church. [Mr. Trevor: No! I said in the country.] The hon. Member might not have meant to say so, but he had distinctly applied the terms to Members of that House, and, for his own part, he would as distinctly deny the justice of the application.

bore strong testimony to the benevolent character of the reverend gentleman. He was sure, he said, that nothing but the most vexatious conduct on the part of the petitioner would have driven Mr. Port to the proceedings he had adopted. This man actually sent Mr. Port, when offering him his tithe in kind, one cabbage in one day, for which the tithe-man had to come two miles. Vexatious proceedings of this character justified the clergyman in making an example of one man for the peace and quiet of the parish, and he did not bring him into the Ecclesiastical Court until he had first brought him before the magistrates, but without any good effect.

must say, for one Member of that House, that he was not influenced by party spirit against the established clergy. He was most willing to do them justice where they deserved it.

said, the petitioner had been heard to boast that he had good support in the back ground to sustain him in the law proceedings, and that he would put the clergyman to all the expense he could. This Mr. Harris had been always at the greatest pains to stir up ill feeling in the parish.

also bore testimony to the general kind and benevolent disposition of the reverend gentleman, and expressed his opinion, that, if any disputes had arisen between him and his parishioners, they were attributable to the state of the law.

said, it was owing to him that the petition had not been presented at an earlier period. It was sometime before Mr. Port's Bill of Costs was delivered to him; as he lived 100 miles from Ilam it was some time before he examined the circumstances of the case. An additional reason was, that there was a prospect that the tithes would have been commuted before this time. He now heard of the death of Mr. Port's tithing man for the first time. He must not omit to say, that, lamenting as he did, that differences should exist between a clergyman and his parishioners, he had called upon Mr. Port for the purpose of proposing that the tithes should be valued by an impartial person, and that a money payment should be made in lieu of tithe taken in kind. He had afterwards made the same offer through a professional Gentleman, whose name he would at anytime give, but Mr. Port thought fit to reject the offer. He did not know what where the insults of which Mr. Port complained, but he should be most happy for all the circumstances to be laid before a Committee of Gentlemen impartially chosen, who would say to which party blame attached. He made this proposal. Petition to lie on the Table.

presented petitions from Tamlaght, Finlagan, and other places in Londonderry, and from Ballymore, Bally-yeaston, and other places in Antrim, praying for the total and immediate extinction of tithes and the regium donum. They came from the Protestant and Presbyterian landholders of those parishes. He would just state some particulars as to those parishes. In Tamlaght and Finlagan, in the county of Londonderry, the Dissenting population was 6,561, while that of the Established Church was only 544, and the tithe composition there amounted to 1,000l. per annum. In the Grange of Kildallagh, the Dissenting population was 880, the Established Church population twenty, and without any church or any service the parishioners paid 73l. to a rector who lived twelve miles distant. In Ballymore, in the county of Antrim, the Dissenting population was 3,427, and the members of the Church Establishment only 122; the average congregation at Church was from four to eight, and the tithe amounted to 331l. In Ballyorton, county of Antrim, the Dissenters were 4,028, and the members of the Established Church fifty and the tithe was 200l. per annum. The petitioners prayed for the abolition of any assessment, whether in the shape of tithe or land-tax, levied on any portion of the community not members of the Established Church for the support of that Establishment. They maintained that all the revenue that was at present levied on Dissenters for that purpose should be looked upon as surplus revenue of the Established Church.

only wished to observe that tithe was wholly paid by the landlords, and that 19–20ths of the land in Ireland was the property of Protestants.

, while he entirely differed from the petitioners, bore his testimony to the respectability of their character.

was most anxious for a final settlement of the Tithe Question, but not in the way proposed by the petitioners. He denied that the Presbyterians as a body wished for the abolition of the regium donum. He begged to state that the clergyman who received the 1,000l. a-year referred to was the brother-in-law of Lord Plunkett. Petition to lie on the Table.

rose to call the attention of the House to some proceedings which took place in the House at a very late hour in the course of the debate of last night. He did so because he considered it to be the duty of every man who bad the honour of a seat in the House to endeavour to promote order and regularity in its proceedings. Although on some occasions during the many years he had sat in the House he might probably have violated the decorum of debate, and, led away by the warmth of argument, have casually indulged in language which it was improper to persevere in, he must say that never on any occasion when he thought himself in the wrong had he hesitated to avow his error, and he had been always ready, even though he might not have considered himself wrong, to bow to the decision of the Chair and the House, because in such cases he thought that the party concerned was not likely to form so correct a judgment as cool and dispassionate individuals. It would be recollected that that morning, at the close of the debate, the hon. Member for Ludlow rose from a seat behind the place where he (Mr. Hume) now stood, and persevered in addressing the House, contrary, as it appeared to him, to its wish. Whilst the hon. Gentleman was in the midst of that Address, in allusion to what had just fallen from the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, he stated that "the noble Lord had proved that the system of Vote by Ballot had failed in the United States." At that moment his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, was sitting by him (Mr. Hume), and he made an observation to his hon. Friend, who, as well as himself, had heard what the noble Lord said on the subject. His (Mr. Hume's) opinion on the Ballot was well known, and he had restrained himself with some difficulty from following the noble Lord, for he certainly felt a great desire to expose the fallacies of his argument. When the hon. Member for Ludlow made use of the words referred to, he (Mr. Hume) said to his hon. and learned Friend, "No such thing has been proved." Upon which the hon. Gentleman stopping in the midst of his speech, addressed him, and said, very warmly, "Hold your tongue, Sir." He replied to this singular address of the hon. Gentleman, "I will not hold my tongue; I am not speaking to you." The hon. Gentleman rejoined, "If you don't, I'll make you, Sir; I say if you don't hold your tongue, I'll make you; you are an impertinent fellow; we don't want any radicalism or any republicanism here." He then turned round, and again replying to the hon. Gentleman, said, "You are an impertinent fellow, do you hold your tongue." He spoke this with some warmth, and was near rising to make use of his hands on the occasion, but respect for the House kept him down. Nothing more passed between himself and the hon. Gentleman personally; and for his part, he thought that the offence had been offered on the part of the hon Gentleman, and not by him. He had to move for some returns, and remained in the House after the close of the debate for that purpose; while waiting in his place, the hon. Member for Wenlock came to him and said he wished to speak to him outside on the subject of what had passed between the hon. Member for Ludlow and him. He accordingly after he had finished his business went out, when a letter, which he now held in his hand, was given to him. It was as follows:—

"House of Commons, Tuesday Night.

"Sir,—I heard you make use of the words 'impertinent fellow' when I was speaking.

"I believe that you meant to apply those words to me, but, for fear of any mistake, I desire I may know immediately whether you did or not,

"I am Sir, your humble servant,

rose on this occasion, as the House might easily suppose, under feelings of considerable apprehension, occasioned not through fear of the course taken by the hon. Member for Middlesex, but through a fear lest, suddenly called on, as he now was, and without an opportunity of consulting his Friends who sat near him last night, he might not be able to bring his case before the House in the same way as the hon. Gentleman who had brought down a prepared statement of the circumstances. However, he thought it sufficient for him to state (as far as his justification was concerned), on his honour as a Gentleman—on his honour as a Member of the House—in the strongest language that a man could make use of, and still be within the limits of the Parliamentary rule and usage, that what the hon. Member for Middlesex had just stated was not true. [Order.] It was exceedingly unfair in any Member to say he was out of order. Was he to submit to the statement made by the hon. Member for Middlesex, containing as that statement did a most unjustifiable attack on his conduct, and was he not allowed to deny it? In common justice, such an attack having been made he had a right to reply to it, and he trusted that no party feeling or prepossession would be permitted to interfere with his defence. On the honour of a Gentleman, he declared that he never did make use of the words "You are an impertinent fellow," nor apply such terms to the hon. Gentleman. He believed he could have brought forward evidence to prove that he had used no such words, if he had had the same opportunity of preparation as the hon. Member. If he had indeed used those strong and offensive expressions, he asked whether the hon. Member would not last night have stated to his hon. Friend (Mr. Forester), when called on for an explanation by that Gentleman, "that Mr. Charlton had first insulted him by calling him an impertinent fellow?" ["He did!"] Did the hon. Gentleman tell his hon. Friend that? No: the hon. Gentleman did no such thing; he said, "that he had reason to complain of Mr. Charlton for interrupting his conversation, and telling him 'to hold his tongue;'" but the hon. Gentleman never, till this present occasion, spoke of the use of those strong and offensive words, "impertinent fellow," or complained of their having been applied to him.—Those words he (Mr. Charlton) declared he had never used in the whole course of his life in reference to a Gentleman, and which no person with any pretensions to the character of a Gentleman would so apply. In the midst of the great interruptions which he experienced last night, he certainly must have met with some of the most ex- traordinary nature from the hon. Member for Middlesex, to induce him to use the expressions which he did use. In the first instance, he requested the hon. Member to hold his tongue; but on the hon. Member replying that he would not, he (Mr. Charlton) then, dropping the entreating tone, told the hon. Member to hold his tongue. That was the whole "head and front of his offending," and he declared, before Heaven, that he had used no other offensive expression. He should be in a condition to prove the truth of his statement when those hon. Gentlemen who were sitting near him last night came down to the House. If then the hon. Member for Middlesex had been guilty, in the first instance, of a want of courtesy, and in the next of unfairly interrupting, there could be no doubt that the hon. Member was the first party to offend. After that, he admitted that he had written the note of which the hon. Member complained, and it was rather surprising the hon. Member, if he conceived that he (Mr. Charlton) had used the expression "impertinent fellow," did not tell the hon. Member for Wenlock that he (Mr. Charlton) was the person who first gave offence. He hardly knew what the question at the present moment was, because the dispute which had taken place between himself and the hon. Member for Middlesex was a private dispute, which had been carried beyond the walls of that House. He admitted that he had followed that course which it was the invariable practice for a Gentleman to pursue when he felt himself to be insulted by another, and, whatever might be the opinion of some Puritans, seemed to him to be the best calculated to secure the privileges of society. It was with great reluctance that he for the first time in his life resorted to the unpleasant alternative to which the hon. Member for Middlesex had called the attention of the House; and he only did so when he found that the hon. Member refused to answer his letter, set at defiance all explanation, and disregarded all those bonds by which society was held together. He had therefore been reduced to the necessity of using strong language but if they were the last words he had to speak, he would, feeling that he had bean insulted, rather lose his right hand than retract a syllable of what he had written.

said, that although he was very unwilling to take part in the discus- sion, he felt it his duty to come forward in the character of a witness. The two parties who had hitherto spoken, appeared to be influenced by those feelings of warmth which naturally arose out of the dispute. To that dispute he had been no party. He came forward as a witness, and he hoped and trusted, in the consideration of the House, an impartial one. He would speak with all the solemnity of manner and adjuration of the hon. Member who had last addressed the House; and he would suppose, though, perhaps, in not so emphatic a manner, that he was speaking on oath, in the presence of a jury. The hon. Member for Middlesex began a conversation which was suggested by a remark of the hon. Member for Ludlow, who said that the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had stated "that the Ballot had been tried in America and had failed;" on which the hon. Member for Middlesex, or himself—he hardly knew which made the remark first—said that it was no such thing. The conversation continued, until it was interrupted by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He confessed he was somewhat startled by the sudden and sharp manner in which the hon. Member for Ludlow exclaimed "Hold your tongue, Sir; if you want to answer me, you can reply to me after I have done." To this the hon. Member for Middlesex said, "I shall not; I am not talking to you." The hon. Member for Ludlow replied, "Hold your tongue, Sir; you shall hold your tongue; I will make you hold your tongue; you are an impertinent fellow; we want no republicanism here!" When he rose and called the hon. Member for Ludlow to order, he said that the hon. Member had made use of a word which no hon. Member could be expected to hear from another. He had stated at the time that the hon. Member for Ludlow had called the hon. Member for Middlesex an impertinent fellow. He was asked by several hon. Members—many of whom he was sure would corroborate the statement he was now making—before he left the House, what the hon. Member for Ludlow had Said; his reply was, that he had called Mr. Hume an impertinent fellow, and told him he wanted no republicanism there. He had said all he knew of the transaction; he was no longer a witness, and would therefore for the present abstain from saying any more upon the subject.

was not cognizant of his own knowledge, of what passed between the hon. Member for Ludlow and the hon. Member for Middlesex, but he rose to state that the hon. Member for Bath told him last night that the hon. Member for Middlesex had been called an impertinent fellow by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

had not the honour of being acquainted personally with the hon. Member for Ludlow; he was induced to come forward on the present occasion from a feeling of respect both towards him and the House; and he was sorry to say, in the outset, that his impression of what passed was somewhat different from that stated by the hon. Member for Bath. He was attending to the speech of the hon. Member for Ludlow, when he remarked that something passed between the hon. Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Bath, which seemed to excite the hon. Member for Ludlow, who said, in his hearing, in a sharp and abrupt way, "Hold your tongue, Sir." The hon. Member for Middlesex instantly replied, "Hold your tongue, Sir;" on which the hon. Member for Ludlow, as he understood, said, "If you do not hold your tongue, I will make you." The hon. Member for Middlesex immediately replied, "You are an impertinent fellow;" and then the hon. Member for Bath rose, and spoke to Order. What happened afterwards was in the recollection of the House.

sat in the neighbourhood of the hon. Member for Ludlow last night, and his impression of what passed was substantially the same as that of the hon. Member who had just spoken. Very great noise prevailed in the House whilst the hon. Member for Ludlow was speaking, and he appeared to labour under considerable irritation in consequence. Some conversation, carried on in rather a louder tone than was usually adopted by gentlemen when sitting near a Member who was speaking, passed between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Bath. The hon. Member for Ludlow appeared to consider that the conversation had reference to him, and he addressed the hon. Member for Middlesex, as far as he could recollect, in these words—"Hold your tongue, Sir; I will not be interrupted." Then that which had been stated by the hon. Member for Knaresborough followed. According to the best of his recollection, the hon. Member for Middlesex said "Hold your tongue; you are an impudent (or impertinent) fellow." He most distinctly asserted, on his honour, that, as, far as he recollected, the hon. Member for Ludlow did not make use of the expression "impertinent fellow," but the hon. Member said, in a sharp and overbearing tone, "Hold your tongue, or I will make you; I will not be interrupted."

heard the conversation which passed last night between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Bath, and he heard the hon. Member for Ludlow say, "Hold your tongue; do not interrupt." He then heard the hon. Member for Middlesex say, 'Hold your tongue; I will go on," or some words to that effect. The hon. Member for Ludlow next said, "If you do not hold your tongue, I will make you." Upon which the hon. Member for Middlesex said, "You are an impudent fellow." He (Lord Stormont) turned round and repeated at the time the very same words to the hon. Member for Westminster.

said, he sat in the same place last night as that now occupied by the hon. Member for Bath (the principal Opposition bench); and he recollected hearing the hon. Member for Ludlow say to the hon. Member for Middlesex, in rather a tone of irritation, which attracted his attention, "Hold your tongue." The hon. Member for Middlesex made some reply, which did not reach his (Mr. Trevor's) ear, and the hon. Member for Ludlow then said. "If you have anything to say to me, you can reply after I sit down; I have not spoken to you." To the best of his recollection, the hon. Member for Ludlow never applied the expression "impertinent fellow" to the hon. Member for Middlesex. If the hon. Member had done so, he (Mr. Trevor) could scarcely have failed to hear the words, as he was sitting immediately below the hon. Member, and was consequently able to catch every word that fell from him. Some sharp expressions escaped from the lips of the hon. Member for Middlesex, the nature of which he did not comprehend, as it was spoken in an under tone.

was sitting last night in the neighbourhood of the hon. Member for Ludlow, and his recollection of what passed accorded with that of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He was convinced that the hon. Member for Ludlow did not use the expression "impertinent fellow." If that expression had been used by the hon. Member for Ludlow, situated as he was, he must have heard it. He did, however, hear the words, not "impertinent fellow," but "impudent fellow," used by the hon. Member for Middlesex.

said, that whilst the division was being taken last night, he inquired of the hon. Member for Bath what had taken place between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Ludlow, and the hon. Member for Bath then gave him the same account he had just now given of the words used by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The hon. Member for Bath told him that the hon. Member for Ludlow said "You are an impertinent fellow; we want no republicanism here."

said, that without making any remark on the character or tendency of the conversation which took place last night, he felt bound injustice to all parties to state what he heard. He was sitting next to the hon. Member for Bath, and the hon. Member for Ludlow having made a remark with reference to something which he said had been proved by the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, the hon. Member for Middlesex, in aloud whisper, said "There is no proof." The hon. Member for Ludlow then said, "Hold your tongue;" and the hon. Member for Middlesex, replied, "I shan't hold my tongue." The hon. Member for Ludlow immediately observed," Will you not? I will make you;" and then the hon. Member for Middlesex answered, "You are an an impudent, (or impertinent) fellow." The hon. Member for Ludlow also said something about republicanism which he did not comprehend.

said, that he last night heard a conversation going on between the hon. Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Ludlow, and he thought according to his own recollection, that he heard the terms "impertinent fellow," or "impudent fellow," bandied about from both parties. He thought it necessary to state, however, that from the noise which prevailed at the time, it was almost impossible to catch distinctly what fell from either hon. Members,

believed there was no Question before the House to warrant the continuance of the discussion. As long as he had been in the House the mere reading of evidence from one side of the House and the other, on words spoken during a period of noise and excitement, and of considerable irritation between two parties, however it might rest between them, was not a question the House could take upon itself to deal with. If there were a question raised as to a breach of privilege that was a question they would take into consideration, but in the case before it he was at a loss to know what good purpose could be answered by a desultory discussion. He would not state a word upon the conversation of last night further than this, that whilst he must deplore that a conversation had occurred between any Members that affected the feelings of other parties, it was not in respect of conversations occuring in this House, that it became the duty of the House to interfere, so long as the conversation did not take place within the hearing of the House. With respect to any act done that interfered with the freedom of debate, or the privileges of the House, let that question be brought forward and the House would entertain it.—With the best feelings to all parties, he could not but say no person could doubt that misconception had arisen. It was, however, a satisfaction to observe that hon. Members who concurred, and hon. Members who differed in politics, had equally come forward, and stated frankly and unreservedly all that they had heard. But all the hon. Members who had spoken appeared to have a great difference of recollection as to the words which were actually spoken; and it appeared also that the hon. Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Ludlow had a very different impression on their minds as to what had occurred. Under these circumstances there could be no doubt that language had passed between these hon. Members which was to be regretted; but he doubted whether the House could interfere concerning the vague recollections of what had passed. If, indeed, there had been any appearance of an intention of either of the parties to proceed to a breach of the law or of the peace, then, indeed, the House might be called upon to interpose its authority. But as there did not appear to be the slightest apprehension of such an occurrence he could only regret that the House had been put, unnecessarily, to the trouble of listening to the matter as far as it had gone. He suggested that it would be proper to proceed with the Orders of the Day.

differed from the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that if an hon. Member said to another in the House "Hold your tongue," the House had a right to interfere, and express its opinion on the subject.

said, the House had heard a variety of conflicting statements, all exhibiting more or less discrepancy of detail. In his opinion, however, the man who distinctly said that he heard such and such words used, was a much more competent witness upon the subject than those who merely said that they did not hear them, and moreover, that they did not hear very distinctly what had been said on either side. It was quite clear that under such circumstances as these a man could not be very certain as to the words alleged not to have been said. Now the hon. Member for Bath had positively declared that he had heard distinctly the obnoxious words, "You are an impertinent fellow," used by the hon. Member for Ludlow.—The hon. Member for Finsbury heard the expression, "We want no Republicans" from the same hon. Member. The hon. Member for Somersetshire said, that he thought he recollected hearing the words "Impertinent fellow" bandying about between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Ludlow. And let it too be remembered that the hon. Member for Bath was the closest of all to the hon. Member for Middlesex; and in his account of the conversation at the time, he attributed the expression to the hon. Member for Ludlow. The expression, too, was used in a dropped tone of voice, as if it were to convey an insult to the individual to whom it was addressed, and yet be concealed from every one else. This would easily account for the fact why so many other Members had not heard it. It was clear that the hon. Member for Ludlow had no recollection of having used the expression; he distinctly and positively denied it. He believed that, under those circumstances, that was the strongest retraction which could be made. Those acquainted with such matters were aware that the best apology that could be made for words said to be uttered, was to deny having uttered them. The hon. Member for Ludlow had stated this. He had denied having used the words. If, then, he had used them, it must have been in anger and in irritation, and when he was not master of himself. The best apology there could be for them was his solemn declaration that he had not used them. This placed the hon. Member for Middlesex in this situation—he had heard the distinct retraction of those words, and he would therefore withdraw the words he had used, and thus put an end to the transaction. He thought that as to the words "Hold your tongue, they might well be passed over. He certainly should not be satisfied, and he hoped the House would not be so, until they were Certain that this matter should terminate in a manner that would not affect any human being. The hon. Member for Ludlow denied having used the offensive expression. This was an admission on the part of the hon. Member for Ludlow, that he did not intend to offend the hon. Member for Middlesex. He thought the House would act rightly in putting an end to this matter, as that expression was denied: in other words, as the best apology was made far it. He was sure the hon. Member for Middlesex would withdraw the Words he had used, and upon this being done, he was certain the hon. Member for Ludlow would not hesitate (for he could not suppose that hon. Member would do any thing but what was right), to withdraw his letter, and the matter could be thus terminated. The House could not let the affair stand as it did then; and if it could not be arranged, he should feel it his duty to move that both the hon. Gentlemen should be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. He hoped, however, the matter would end in a conciliatory manner; but there Was no one who must not see that it could not remain as it was then—it was, in fact, giving the opinion of the House, that both Gentlemen ought to go out and shoot each other. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by repeating his determination, that if there was no prospect of a satisfactory arrangement, he would move that both Members should be taken into custody.

said, that he had been requested by the hon. Member for Middlesex to attend this evening to state what he recollected hearing of the conversation which took place in his immediate neighbourhood in the House last night. He recollected perfectly that the hon. Member for Middlesex rose for the purpose apparently of making some explanation; and he saw very plainly that the hon. Member was labouring under feelings of great irritation. Seeing this, he interfered, and said to both parties, "Don't go on, don't go on." He said this not for the purpose of preventing explanation between the parties, but because he apprehended that under the circumstances the explanation which might take place would not be of a very satisfactory kind. He was apprehensive, he confessed, that some word or expression might escape from either of the hon. Members which in their cooler moments they might regret, and therefore it was, that he was anxious to prevent their carrying the conversation further. With regard to what had actually passed, as far as he was cognizant of it, he certainly did not hear the word "Republican" or any similar word, applied to the hon. Member for Middlesex by the hon. Member for Ludlow. As to the words "Impertinent fellow," he did hear them used by the hon. Member for Middlesex, but not, as he believed, addressed to the hon. Member for Ludlow, but rather in speaking of him; that is, the hon. Member for Middlesex said to the hon. Member for Bath, "He's an impertinent fellow." This offensive remark escaped the hon. Member for Middlesex, no doubt under the impression that something still more exciting had been said to himself by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The same expression was attributed to the hon. Member for Ludlow; but as that hon. Member had to all intents and purposes denied having used it, it was as if it had never been uttered. Under the circumstances, he really thought that in order to obliterate all unpleasant feelings on the subject remaining on the minds of the parties, the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was a reasonable and just one. He could not conceive that any good could result from adopting any other course.

said, that he quite concurred in the recommendation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. He certainly could not concur, however, in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that on mere technical grounds the House should get rid of the discussion of such a Question. As the case stood the disavowal on the part of the hon. Member for Ludlow of the words, "You are an impertinent fellow," had certainly done away with all offence that could possibly arise out of them. But there were the words previously used by the hon. Member for Ludlow, of "Hold your tongue," with respect to which he felt sure that, if the hon. Member for Ludlow would declare that he meant nothing offensive by there, the hon. Member for Middlesex would be prepared, in return, to offer every satisfactory explanation of his part in the conversation.

said, that he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, and he had no hesitation in declaring most solemnly that he meant nothing offensive to the hon. Member for Middlesex in saying, "Hold your tongue." This he declared most solemnly, as a gentleman and a man of honour. Now, with respect to the word "republican," or "republicanism," with regard to which much diversity of opinion appeared to be entertained by hon. Members who heard him, and which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth said, that, he had not heard used, perhaps he (Mr. Charlton) could explain how the mistake and this diversity of opinion had arisen. The fact was, the words, "We want no Republicans here;" or, "We don't want any Republicanism here," he conceiving that Republicanism was the necessary concomitant of the Ballot, formed part of his speech to the House, and were not at all addressed to the hon. Member for Middlesex. That was the reason, perhaps, why the words were recollected by some of the hon. Members who heard the conversation, and not by others.

said, that the matter was one which might have been very easily settled if they had begun with the beginning and not at the end, in discussing it. The fact was, the hon. Member for Ludlow complained of an offensive expression on the part of the hon. Member for Middlesex, and the hon. Member for Middlesex, it appeared, had made use of that offensive expression when labouring under the impression that the hon. Member for Ludlow had said something offensive to him. It was in consequence of that supposed offensive expression, On the part of the hon. Member for Ludlow, that the hon. Member for Middlesex said what he had said. If the hon. Member for Ludlow had not said what he was supposed to have said, the hon. Member for Middlesex would not have said what he did say. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member for Ludlow having denied or withdrawn all intention of offence, the whole affair in his opinion fell, most satisfactorily, to the ground.

certainly should not have used the words which he had done if he had not, at the time, distinctly understood the hon. Member for Ludlow to have made use of offensive terms to himself. As the hon. Member for Ludlow had denied having made use of the supposed expressions, he had no hesitation in saying that the words he had used he had spoken in error, and under a wrong impression, and therefore he wished that he had not used them.

then, of course, the hon. Member for Ludlow can have no objection to withdraw his letter. [Calls for Mr. Charlton, who was observed to be talking earnestly with an hon. Member near him, which caused a slight pause to ensue. Mr. O'Connell then continued]—If the hon. Member for Ludlow had any hesitation in withdrawing his letter, he should certainly persist in the course he had intimated, and move that he be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

said, he rose under very peculiar circumstances. He was willing to bow to the opinion of the House, and accept the explanation of the hon. Member for Middlesex, in full satisfaction of the offence which had been given. The hon. Member for Middlesex said that he had used the words complained of when labouring under a wrong impression, and that he wished he had not used them. He (Mr. Charlton) could only say that he wished the hon. Member for Middlesex had said as much last night when applied to on the subject. If he had said so, he (Mr. Charlton) would not have written the letter which he had done. As, however, the hon. Member for Middlesex had deferred this explanation till now, the utmost he could say was, that he felt sorry his letter had ever been written.

said, now that the affair had terminated, he trusted, that he should be excused for saying a few words. In the first place, he was bound to declare that he thought the House would not have performed its duty if it had not brought the question to an amicable conclusion, as it fortunately had been. There was another point to which it was necessary for him to advert, He did not hear the hon. Member for Bath state last night that the hon. Member for Ludlow had called the hon. Member for Middlesex an impertinent fellow. If he had heard it stated that such language had been addressed by one Member of the House to another, he would not have allowed the circumstance to pass by, for a single moment, without requiring an explanation.

was sorry to be obliged to oppose the hon. Member on a subject in which he had taken so much interest; but he was totally averse from that mode of Sunday legislation. The Bill now proposed, would only apply to one class, the Sunday traders; and he objected to such partial legislation. The other day the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir A. Agnew), proposed to place restrictions on travelling by the railway on Sunday. Now, he thought such a system of legislation improper, because it was partial and unjust. Why should one class be bound by restrictions, which did not affect others? Again, he was opposed to the principle of Sabbath legislation. Why should hon. Members wish to impose upon others their own views of religious duty? Let them keep the Sabbath as they pleased, but let them not seek to deprive the lower classes of that innocent recreation which they were entitled to, merely because they happened to think it improper. He was convinced no good would result from such a course. The experiment had been tried in Spain; and the principle of restrictive legislation on religious subjects, was there supported by the terror of the Inquisition: and its history in that country he thought afforded a wholesome lesson to its advocates in this. Some years ago orders were issued there that all persons should attend the mass. Now, mark the consequences. Some persons possessed themselves of all the communion tickets that they could procure, and then at the festivals of the Church, they sold the tickets to communicants, and thus made a traffic of the holiest rites of religion. Now, he thought; that legislation of that kind would have as bad effects in this country. He, therefore, moved that "The further consideration of the Report be deferred to that day six months."

rose to second the Amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for St. Alban's. It was rather hard that Gentlemen who came from the northern division of the country (where the Sabbath was kept much stricter than it was in the southern) should seek to enforce their mode of observing it on the people of England. He, therefore, was convinced that he was conscientiously serving the best interests of the country, by opposing that, and all future measures of the kind, and he cordially seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend.

From the commencement of the last Session this Bill has been most unfairly dealt with. It has been the invariable course of hon. Members to saddle it with objections on points wholly unconnected with it. I have not attempted to press on this House any particular or special views of my own. I have watched the cause of the failure of all those Bills which have been rejected by both Houses on this subject. I have endeavoured to ascertain the opinion which prevails in this House, as well as in every part of the country, and to embody these sentiments in a short, modified, and simple enactment; and have confined myself solely and exclusively to the subject of common Sunday trading, which in various places is extensively prevalent throughout the country; and I have a right to say, that the view I have taken meets the wishes of both the masters and journeymen, as well as the real interests of the lower classes of the people. The numerous petitions which have been presented on the subject within the last two years show that great anxiety prevails upon it; 2,000 have been presented since the commencement of the former Session, signed, I believe, by 200,000 petitioners; and this feeling has only partially subsided now, because it is generally believed that this very modified measure will be allowed to pass this House. It has been said that the law for the observance of the Sabbath is obsolete and extinct, which, in my opinion, is a very incorrect statement, because it is impossible to visit any part of this town on Sunday, without seeing decided symptoms of the operation of the Statute of Charles II. in conjunction with the good religious feeling of the community. I can perceive, in the partial opening of the confectioners' shops, the equitable operation of the third section of that Act; and I need only further mention to this House that there has been no Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, from the time of Lord Mansfield to the present time, who has not had to give judgment upon some part of this law. It has also been said that this Bill will make a trade to informers: this I deny; the moderate penalty attached to the breach of the law, which in no case exceeds 10s. will prevent this. It is remarkable that the Statute of Charles only gives the magistrates a discretionary power of awarding one-third of that small and moderate penalty to the informer, and I defy him to make a trade out of that. I have received letters informing me that my penalties are not sufficient—that I should make them 5l, or 10l.; but my wish is, to avoid giving any encouragement to the informer. The Bill is founded upon the principles of moderation; it is for the purpose of affording to the poor people of this country one day of rest and repose; and I consider that I have a right to call upon any man who considers himself a friend to the education of the lower class of the people to support a moderate measure such as this is, a Bill which does not impose any severe restrictions upon them, but gives them a free enjoyment of that day, which they do not now possess. I presented a petition to the House a few days ago, signed by a large number of persons engaged in the fish trade; the petitioners assured the House that they were actuated by no extreme opinions, but that the day of the Lord was a day of greater work to them than any other day, and for which they received no compensation; and this they considered to be a state of slavery, from which they called upon the House to emancipate them. With such a strong case as I think I have to bring before the House, I trust that hon. Members will give me their support. I never would have presented the Bill unless I had been satisfied that it would create no species of distress whatever to any class of the community. I am no advocate of illiberal opinions—I have nothing extreme in my religious views—I am no advocate for extreme views; on the contrary, I always oppose them. On this principle I opposed the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigton-shire; but I must confess I have received from him a very different kind of conduct from that which I pursued towards him, for he has shown a perfect absence of personal feeling, notwithstanding the warm manner in which I opposed his Bill, and has in the kindest manner given mine that support which I trust I shall continue to receive from him. I hope, therefore, that I shall now succeed in carrying this Bill through the House.

said, he had supported the second reading of the Bill certainly for its moderation; but he was of opinion that there were some parts which either did not go far enough, or which went too far: and it seemed to him that altogether the Bill did not protect the poor man, but deprived him of those relaxations to which he was entitled. The Bill only "protected" the tradespeople. Work might be going on all the while with the doors closed: but if the poor man went out of his house, he was met at every turn by the restrictive provisions of the Bill. He thought, therefore, that it did not effect its object, that it was too astringent, and, therefore, he should vote against it.

could not agree in considering that the desecration of the Sabbath should be a privilege, or that the man should consider himself ill-used who was prevented from profaning it. All that the hon. Gentleman asked of the House now was, to fulfil what he (Mr. Goulburn) understood was its intention on a former occasion, to allow him to bring in a Bill not obnoxious in principle, and which would be open to the suggestions of hon. Members, as to matters of detail.

supported the Bill. The hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Curteis) had asked why Prebysterian Members should ask the House to compel the people of this country, to observe the Sabbath, after their ideas. His answer was, that Episcopalians and Presbyterians, were equally bound, in a religious view, in keeping the Sabbath holy: and he would tell that hon. Member, that the former were quite as much disposed to do so, as the latter. With regard to the Bill as it then stood, he wondered that any Gentleman could get up to oppose it: it seemed to him to be on every case beneficial, or at least innoccuous.

opposed the Bill, because it prohibited the Sabbath enjoyments of the poor, and protected those of the rich.

agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, the Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp.) In fact it was a subject very difficult to legislate upon. It had always appeared to him, that it was unwise to pass any measure which interfered with the recreation of the working classes, upon that only day on which they could enjoy it. Upon any question on which the good of the nation was concerned, legislation might have the best effects: but on that discussion, it seemed to him that, as the hon. Member for Marylebone had said, it was possible to go too far, and, at the same time, not far enough. In the Bill there were some things of very great importance entirely left out; and others, comparatively trivial, inserted. It appeared to him a very great hardship that a poor man might not, on the Sabbath, drink his glass of beer, or wine, or spirits, if he liked; it was an invasion, scarcely justifiable, upon the amusements and recreations of the working classes, and the Bill did not legislate upon matters much more important, and which came nearer to the profanation of the Sabbath. But as the hon. Member would, no doubt, take that into his consideration, he (Mr. Trevor) should certainly, as in common justice, vote for its re-committal.

opposed the Bill.

had not heard anything said to induce him to think it unadvisable that the Bill should at least be re-committed, and he hoped the House, which had agreed to the principle, would suffer that.

asked if cook-shops and milk-shops, were included in the Bill?

said, they were not included in the Statute of Charles.

did not see why public houses, in which spirits were sold, should be allowed on the Sabbath, while beer-shops were not; nor why newspaper-shops should be allowed. He saw no necessity for legislating upon the subject, for there was no evidence that the country had retrograded in the observance of the Sabbath.

said, he did not approve of the Bill as it then stood, but he should vote for its re-committal.

would vote against the Bill: he was convinced that it would never operate, but would be quite nugatory: referring, as it did, to the Statute of Charles, one would be obliged constantly to look at that Act, and, instead of a small pamphlet, every man would be under the necessity of carrying a folio volume in his pocket, to ascertain what was therein excepted by the provisions of the Bill, He would also affirm, that the Bill, if it did operate, would be exceedingly oppressive.

said, it was curious to see the difference of opinion which prevailed upon the subject; some saying the Bill did not go far enough, and others that it went too far. Of course everything that went to establish the former conclusion, was, of course, music to his ears. The hon. Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) had wondered that he should propose so many different measures; the reason was, that he meant to go on, by little and little, till at last he had brought the House round to some conclusive measure; as he was convinced that if not the majority in that House, the majority of the people were with him.

said, the Bill left the poor man without any protection whatever, and prevented him from indulging in any innocent recreations and enjoyments. Even if the Bill were to pass, it would be wholly inoperative. It prohibited "every act of trading in open shop." Now, what did the hon. Member mean by the phrase "open shop?" a shop with the door open? ["No" from Mr. Poulter.] Nothing was more easy than to say "No:" but what would the Magistrate say when the parties were brought before him? If the door were open, the tradesman would be prosecuted: so that it appeared the act of vending was to be secret, and not open. He opposed the Bill, in hopes that the hon. Member would at least bring in a Bill which should be plainly understood by all parties concerned.

moved the second reading of the Roman Catholic Marriages Bill; and began by stating, that the object of this Bill was, to repeal so much of an Act of the 19th year of King George 2nd "as makes void all marriages celebrated by any Popish priest between Protestant and Papist," and thereby to remove from the Statute-book a severe and penal Act, the remnant of that code which so long disgraced the laws of this country, an Act which pressed heavily upon the conscience of parties, inflicted great injury upon innocent individuals, and operated most mischievously upon the public interest. Upon a former occasion he stated, that the law of marriage in Ireland at this day is the same as in Scotland, the same as the law of marriage in England before the Marriage Act. Some hon. Members doubted the accuracy of this statement, it was however confirmed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, upon the introduction of his Dissenters' Marriage Bill, and by every other hon. Member who took part in that debate. The words de prœsenti, followed by consummation, are sufficient for the validity of a marriage in Ireland; but strange to say, that if there be a religious ceremony, the marriage is void if that ceremony be performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman, one of the parties being a Protestant, or having been a Protestant within twelve months previously. This pressed heavily upon the conscience, and it pressed heavily upon the Catholic, because it was the Catholic who called for the ceremony, matrimony being a Sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church. He asked, what was this but persecution, and persecution towards the Catholic exclusively? as a marriage between a member of the Established Church and a Dissenter, was not invalid, although that religious ceremony was performed by a Dissenting minister. By several Statutes Catholics were prevented from marrying with Protestants. He could never understand the policy of those Statutes, as proselytism must be the policy of every new religion; and such policy could not be better advanced than by free intercourse and intermarriages. The Act of Henry 8th, prohibiting the English from intermarrying with the Irish, was not more absurd in reference to the policy of settlers in a country than those Statutes were in reference to the propagation of a new religion. If those Statutes had been repealed, Catholics and Protestants might intermarry by law. There had been other severe and penal Statutes inflicting the severest punishment, even the punishment of death upon Roman Catholic clergymen performing the ceremony between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Those Statutes had also been repealed. They had, he said, removed the penalties from the priest. He now called upon them to remove the penalties from the parties. Catholic and Protestant were by law allowed to marry. The Legislature could not, and ought not to prevent their so doing. In mercy to the individuals, he called upon the House to repeal this barbarous Act. It was frightful to think that all the children of those marriages were illegitimate, the marriage being ipso facto void. So that not only the parties themselves, perfectly innocent, but ignorant of the law, might suffer, but the innocent children of the marriage must necessarily suffer. He asked, was this just or humane? But this was not all. Under the protection of this Act, the grossest villany and depravity might be perpetrated. A man knowing the law, determined upon the ruin of an innocent female, and having failed to seduce her from the paths of virtue, might get the ceremony of marriage performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman, and might afterwards repudiate that woman as his wife. A man meaning' everything honourable, but ignorant of the law, might marry and have the religious ceremony performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman; he might get tired of his wife—he discovered the law, and he also might repudiate his wife. But whether the wife were repudiated or not, the children are illegitimate. He asked, whether this law ought to be allowed to remain? There had been similar penal laws in Scotland relating to marriages between Catholics, Presbyterians, and Protestants. These Acts have been repealed, and now Roman Catholics might marry with Presbyterians or Protestants in Scotland—and have the marriage performed by Roman Catholic clergymen, and the marriage was good. So that the persecution under this Act was not only exclusively Catholic, but exclusively Irish. In England there was a Marriage Act, but it pressed alike upon the Protestant, the Dissenter, and the Catholic. It might be said, why not have a ceremony also performed by a Protestant clergyman, in which case the marriage would be good under the 33rd George 3rd. But he asked, why should such a ceremony be compulsory. It was persecution again—it was another interference with conscience, as one of the parties might object to such a ceremony. All that he asked, all that would be effected by the repeal of this Act would be, that if a Protestant, yielding to the conscientious feelings of the person whom he was about to make his partner for life, allowed the ceremony to be performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman, his doing so would not vitiate the marriage, and render his children illegitimate; for let it be recollected, he said, the marriage would be good without any ceremony whatever. He might state to the House many cases to show how injuriously this act operated with regard to individuals, but he would be content with stating two:—The first was the case of a marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic, the religious ceremony having been performed by a Roman Catholic Clergyman only. A large personal estate descended upon the wife, which the husband possessed, and laid it out entirely in the purchase of land. He died intestate, and the wife claimed her dower; but the heir at law resisted such claim, and successfully, by proving that one of the parties was a Protestant, and that the religious ceremony had been performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman. The next case was one he stated last year, but it could not be too often stated. An officer in the army in a town in Ireland, married a lady about twenty-four years since, and the religious ceremony was performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman. There was issue of that marriage one child, a son. A large estate descended upon the father, which he enjoyed during his life; he died leaving his son very young, who was made a ward in court, in a suit in which many members of the family were parties, including his uncle the remainder man. This son was considered and treated as the legitimate son of his father, and was allowed the sum of seven hundred pounds a-year for his maintenance. Upon his coming of age, and upon his requiring that he should be let into the possession of the estate, his uncle the remainder man, turns round upon him and says "I have discovered that your mother professed herself to be a Protestant within twelve months before her marriage, and as the religious ceremony was performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman, the marriage is void, and you are illegitimate"—so that this man has now to prove, at the distance of twenty-four years that his mother was not a Protestant at that period, or did not profess herself to be one. If he should fail he will be left without a shilling. This was the operation of the Act, and he (Mr. Lynch) put it to the House whether such a law should be allowed to remain. This act operated most mischievously upon the public interest. It endangered all titles and rendered the enjoyment of all property insecure. Marriage was a necessary link in all titles. Every purchaser was obliged to require evidence of the marriage of the party under whom the title was derived. But while this Act remained on the statute book, it would also be necessary for him to inquire into the religion of both parties and to inquire by whom the religious ceremony was performed. Evidence might be procured upon all these facts, and the purchaser might be satisfied, but how could he be secure that all the circumstances of the case had been disclosed to him, and if they had not, he might, at the distance of twenty years, be deprived of the estate which he had purchased with the fruits of his hard labour and earning. He again asked the House was this a state in which the law should be left? This act which he sought to repeal had the effect of bringing the administration of the laws into disrepute, for both judges and juries would exert themselves in every way to evade such a law. They would as in the case of capital punishment, and as alluded to by Blackstone, be guilty of what was called pious frauds and perjuries. The consequence was the lessening of respect for the administration of law in general. A remarkable instance of this sort occurred in France. After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, an act very similar to this was passed, enabling a Huguenot becoming a Catholic to repudiate his wife. Some cases of glaring villany and hard ship having come before the courts, the judges absolutely refused to execute the law, and finally it was repealed; but in the meantime the administration of justice suffered. It would, no doubt, be urged on the other side, that a general measure should be brought in regarding the law of marriage in Ireland. He thought so too, but he was of opinion that nothing effectual could be done without a good system of registration, and this must be a measure brought forward by government; but whatever might be applied to Ireland respecting the law of marriage in that country, this act, he said, must be repealed. This anomaly must be got rid of, Why not do it now? It would also be urged that the repeal of this act would tend to clandestine marriages. He was at a loss to know how it could have that effect. All marriages might now be performed in Ireland at any hour of the day. The repeal of this act would not, therefore, alter the law in this respect. There was no publication of bauns, or obtaining a license required in Ireland. There were laws against clandestine marriages in Ireland, and against the marriage of minors. He did not propose to alter any of these laws. If further laws were necessary he would not refuse his consent; but then they must be equally applicable to all. Besides, they had to rely upon the respectability and character of the Roman Catholic clergymen in Ireland, and the law of the Roman Catholic Church was, that no religious ceremony is valid in that church that is not performed by the parish priest or some one deputed by him, and in I the presence of two witnesses and the priest is enjoined to inquire into the prohibited degrees, which are more severe in the Catholic than in the Protestant Church; and those Gentlemen who oppose the repeal of this act on this ground, and who would not allow the validity of a marriage between Protestant and Catholic, celebrated by a Catholic priest, are not shocked at, and take no steps to prevent, the marriage of the celebrated Joseph Wood, at the Haymarket, in Dublin, or his successor. Upon these grounds he besought the House to repeal this act, and for this purpose to read the Bill a second time.

said, he had listened with attention on a former occasion to the speech in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced this Measure, and from full consideration of the topics urged in that speech, as well as of the provisions of the act, itself, he felt it his duty decidedly to oppose the Measure proposed by the hon. and learned Member. In offering himself to the House, he wished to be distinctly understood, that he should be very far from opposing a Measure which had for its object to effect a total improvement in the law relating to marriages in Ireland; but, on the other hand, he felt himself bound to oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he heard from him, that his object in bringing forward this Bill was to repeal the enactment of the 19th Geo. 2nd, which made null and void all marriages celebrated by a Roman Catholic Priest between parties who are Protestants, or where one of them is a Protestant and the other a Roman Catholic: for he must be allowed to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Act in question was the only check now left against the performance of clandestine marriages in Ireland. He (Colonel Perceval) opposed this Bill, therefore, not because he was averse to a change in the Marriage-law, but because he thought that it would introduce a greater evil by removing the check which the law had provided against clandestine marriages. And why had the law interposed the provision making marriages celebrated by a Roman Catholic Clergyman, where Protestants were parties concerned, null and void? It was because the Roman Catholic Clergyman would not allow of the interference of the religious regulations which were absolutely necessary in a Protestant state! The Roman Catholics considered it a degradation to them that the law of the land required that such marriages should be first solemnized by Protestant Clergymen; but why had the legislature imposed this necessary preliminary? It was not that the law gave, or aimed at giving, any exclusive rights to the Clergyman of the Established Church, or allowed him to celebrate the marriage, but that he is by the law of the land the Clergyman of the parish where the marriage is to be solemnized, and the person appointed by law to make the necessary inquiries as to the parties between whom it is to take place. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that Protestant Clergymen and Roman Catholic Priests can, and do, celebrate marriages at any hour of the day or night, without the publication of banns or the obtaining a license; but he (Colonel Perceval) differed toto cœlo from the hon. and learned Gentleman in this respect. He (Colonel Perceval) had not the great advantage of being a legal man, but he would, nevertheless, say that, as the law stood, no Clergyman of the Established Church could legally celebrate marriage unless the banns had been three times published, or a license obtained—and a license could not be obtained until the proper officer appointed for granting it was satisfied of the propriety of granting it, or if either of the parties was under age, until the consent of the parents or guardians of that person were obtained. This he believed to be the law, and although he was aware of the disadvantage under which he (Colonel Perceval,) who was not a legal man, laboured when opposed to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, yet he would endeavour, as far as he could, to make out his case by reference to the law as it stands. By the 62nd canon of the Ecclesiastical Law, it is provided that no Clergyman of the Established Church shall, on pain of suspension during three years, celebrate marriages between any persons without banns or license, nor at unseasonable hours, nor in any private place—nor, if the parties, or one of them, be under age, without the consent of the parents or guardians of such persons. Here was a distinct provision against the evils which he feared. One great objection he had to giving this unlimited power to the Roman Catholic Clergyman was the impropriety of celebrating marriages at unseasonable hours. With respect to the places at which the ceremony might be performed, the hon. Gentleman had certainly brought forward some insulated cases; but he (Colonel Perceval) was satisfied that the marriages between Protestants, and Protestants and Roman Catholics, were generally performed in the open Church. He could not tell whether this law which he had cited was, properly speaking, the act of the Legislature or not, because he was not sufficiently learned in the law to be aware of the fact; but he could say that it was the Ecclesiastical Law which the Clergy of the Church of Ireland were bound to respect, under which they were liable to suspension and under which they could not with propriety encourage clandestine marriages, or celebrate them, without having first given every opportunity of ascertaining whether there was any lawful impediment to their solemnization, or if the parties were under age, without obtaining the consent of the parents or guardians. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that was a persecuting act under which the Roman Catholics suffered. He (Colonel Perceval) denied that it was a persecuting act, or that they suffered, or had any reason to complain of the law requiring that all marriages between Protestants and Roman Catholics shall first be solemnized by a Protestant Clergyman. Why was this regulation imposed? It was, as he before said, because the Roman Catholic Clergyman did not conceive himself to be under the influence of the law in this respect; because he disavowed the right of interference in any Ecclesiastical concerns; because he did not submit to the necessity for the publication of banns, to the legality of licenses, or to the examination which ought always to be entered into before persons are allowed to marry; because the Roman Catholic Clergyman wished to have an uncontrolled power of solemnizing marriages, when, where, and under what circumstances he pleased, and without ascertaining those facts, the knowledge of which was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the parties concerned. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what he supposed to be a security—the presence of two witnesses; but he (Colonel Perceval) must be allowed to say, that any idea of security to arise from such a source was absurd, because there was good reason why proof should be given before witnesses as before the Ecclesiastical authority, of the non-existence of any moral objection. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said, that Roman Catholics were prohibited from celebrating marriages, where Protestants of the Established Church were parties; but he said, that the Dissenters also were under the same disability, and he referred the hon. and learned Member to the 21st and 22nd Geo. 3rd, c. 25, declaring the marriages of Dissenters by Dissenting clergymen valid, but making an express exception of cases where either party was of the Established Church. [Mr. Lynch: No!] The hon. Gentleman might say "no" but the statute-book says "yes;" and he (Colonel Perceval) would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the act itself. The Act now proposed to be passed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would put the Roman Catholic Clergy in a bet- ter position than the Dissenting Clergy; but the legitimate object of all enactments on the subject should be to discountenance the predominance of any one sect in Ireland, and to give to clergymen of every persuasion the power to solemnize marriage, if those precautions are taken beforehand which are rendered absolutely necessary by the solemn nature of the contract, and which were sanctioned by universal practice. The Act it proposed to repeal was the only one now in existence which prevented the Roman Catholic Priest solemnizing marriages when and how he pleased. He put it to the hon. and learned Member whether it was dealing fairly with the Protestant Established Church to give permission to the Clergyman of another persuasion to come in and celebrate marriage, where Protestants were parties concerned, just as they pleased, without instituting those inquiries, and taking those precautions, which were absolutely necessary for the welfare of the individuals. He put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was fair to sweep away the only check that was now left on the performance of clandestine marriages. He did not wish, God forbid that he should! to interfere between them and persons of their own religion; but he did wish to prevent them from coming into families professing another faith—rendering themselves accessory to abductions—and being ready at any time to celebrate marriages if they were duly paid: all which this Bill would allow them to do, without any check whatever. An Act passed in the 12th of George 1st, which made it a capital felony for a Clergyman of either religion to contract marriages of this description, the severity of that penalty caused the Act to be imperative, because parties would not prosecute when prosecution would subject the offender to such severe consequences. To do away with the penalty it was, that the Act which the hon. and learned Member now proposed to repeal, the 19th Geo. 2, was passed, making the marriage contracted under such circumstances void, but repealing the penal enactment of the former. A Bill was introduced two sessions ago by the Attorney-General for Ireland, repealing that part of an Act passed in the 32nd, Geo. 2nd, which imposed a penalty of 500l. in lieu of the former severe penalty, without substituting any other in its place, the consequence of all which was, that while the Protestant Clergyman was still subject to severe penalties for non-performance of his duty in the due celebration of marriages, the Roman Catholic Priest was subject to no punishment whatever. No man in the House was more anxious than he was to see a general Marriage-law brought in; but until some such measure as that was passed, he felt it his duty to oppose to the utmost extent any legislative enactment which would take away the preventive to Roman Catholic Clergymen from entering as they pleased into families of persons of another persuasion, and marrying individuals without the consent of their parents or guardians. He would read a passage from a letter which he had received on the 14th May, the day on which the second reading of this Bill was to have come on, from an Archdeacon of the Church of Ireland, and in which he stated two occurrences of themselves sufficient to prevent the Legislature from granting this power to the Roman Catholic Clergy.—The writer says, "I will state a circumstance which occurred in this place on Thursday last. A young man, aged nineteen years, applied to me for a licence to marry a woman of forty. I asked him if they were Roman Catholics; but he said they were Protestants, and, looking at the disparity of ages, I refused to grant the licence. He then immediately went to a Roman Catholic, priest, who, for the sum of 1l. 5s., married them directly. If such things as these are allowed to go on, there will soon be an end to that authority which parents ought to possess during the minority of their children. A worse case than the above occurred in another place: a priest married a young gentleman, eighteen years of age, to his mother's maidservant, which had such an effect on the mother that she died in consequence of it." The Protestants, he repeated, did not wish to interfere with the power enjoyed by the Roman Catholics when exercised among themselves; but they did object to its operation in the families of Protestants, unless under proper restrictions. As the law stood, the parties are obliged to go before a Protestant clergyman, who could not, except under severe penalties, celebrate marriage without first making inquiries necessary for the satisfaction of the families of the parties. The Protestants did not object to extend the same power to the Roman Catholic clergy, without the necessary consequence of nullity in the marriage, if they would submit to go through the same precautionary system as was gone through by the Protestant clergy, and give every publicity to the intentions of the contracting parties as would make the necessary inquiries previously. He would be the first to support a general Marriage Bill which should contain such a condition as that. The hon. and learned Gentleman in one of his arguments seemed to infer that while the Roman Catholic priest was, comparatively speaking, prevented from celebrating such marriages, persons of the Protestant faith, even Laymen, could do so with impunity. Any general Marriage Act must remedy such an evil as that, or it would be utterly inefficacious. The moral feeling of the people of Ireland led them at present to wish that marriages should be so celebrated as to render them valid, morally speaking, as well as in point of faith; and he certainly thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow that moral feeling full play, and should not introduce any measure which would tend to the increase of clandestine marriages, by giving to the Roman Catholic clergy a power to celebrate marriages without their being under necessary precautionary restrictions. Under all these circumstances, hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman might be induced not to press forward his Bill now, and feeling as he did his inability to compete with the hon. Gentleman in argument, he should still attempt to discharge what he felt to be his duty, by moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

said, it was no disparagement to the hon. and gallant Member to be ignorant of law, but lest his statements might have made an impression on the House, he begged to put the matter right. He admitted that if the gallant Member was right in point of law, the Act then under discussion ought not to pass. As the law at present stood, however, nobody suffered but the innocent children, and them alone; and he would ask, was that a state of things to continue? The guilty clergyman, the guilty father, escaped; but the law at present inflicted its direst penalties on the innocent children. The hon. and gallant Officer was totally ignorant of the law of marriage in Ireland; he had said; that a marriage between two Protestants was not valid, except celebrated according to the canons of the Church of England, or by licence; that, in short, it was attended by some precautions.. Now, he would not dispute with the gallant Officer as to extent; but, in fact, there were none.

I stated, that if the clergyman celebrated the marriage improperly, he was liable to be deprived, ipso facto, for three years, of his benefice.

admitted, of course, that the marriage-maker, the clergyman, was liable to punishment, except he had no benefice; but then the marriage itself was perfectly valid, and that was a resource to the very worst class of clergymen in Ireland. As soon as they were deprived for misconduct, they set up as marriage-makers. They might marry whom they pleased, and where they pleased; and the Bishop had the power certainly to degrade him, but the marriage notwithstanding was a legal marriage. A man of the name of Wood, a couple-beggar, had resided for nearly thirty years in the Haymarket, and was in the constant habit of marrying persons for half-a-crown. Those marriages in all cases in Ireland were decided to be legal; and in one instance, in the case of a prosecution for bigamy, in a family with which his (Mr. O'Connell's son) was connected, Wood's book, after his death, was admitted by the Court as evidence. But when Wood died, did his trade die with him? No such thing. Another degraded Protestant clergyman took it up, and at the present moment was following his vocation. There was one man who had been actually married by him four times, at 1s. 6d. each time. That was the state of the law at present; and the practice was even now going on. There was in fact no Marriage-law in Ireland. There were sectarian Marriage-laws indeed; every Protestant clergyman could marry, when he pleased, the Presbyterian, the Catholic, the Episcopalian. By leaving the statute in existence, they would not punish either of those two clergymen, however improperly they might have married parties; but upon whom did the penalty fall? Upon the issue of the marriage? Now, ought that anomaly to remain. He wished to have the Bill go into Committee. It was a curious fact, that in England the Marriage-law was the strictest, and in Scotland the loosest, of all the nations of Europe, In the latter, it was only required that the parties should sign a written contract; and yet there was no people in the world more distinguished for prudence in marriages than the Scotch. In Ireland, the law was a kind of medium between the two; but there was one great anomaly, and that ought to be taken away, and the law made equal to all. Sectarian prejudices being then at an end, nobody, whatever his prejudices, could come forward with such cases as those which they had heard. On what ground was the hon. Member's Bill opposed? Because there were "sectarian prejudices." Why the Catholic told them that the law was of a sectarian character, and till it was repealed it would continue so. When the present measure had passed, the law would be equal to all, and then the general Marriage-law ought to be discussed with the calmest temper, and settled, after a careful examination, with the most rigid impartiality.

objected to the Bill, while he was free to admit the anomalous and imperfect state of the whole Marriage-law in Ireland, and as ready as any hon. Member to support an enlarged and general measure for its revision and improvement. The only effect, however, of the Bill then proposed would be, to remove the single obstacle to the celebration of clandestine marriages by Roman Catholic priests—and although as was agreed on the other side, such marriages might be performed without the clergy, yet the disinclination of the people to be married by any other than a regular clergyman operated as a moral check in that respect. It was very remarkable that though within the last two years the subject had been legislated upon by the present Attorney and the late Solicitor General of Ireland, they both had purposely and advisedly omitted the enactment which it was by that Bill sought to introduce, rendering such marriages valid, and by that means repealing the 19th George 2nd, which was passed expressly to annul marriages, celebrated by Roman Catholic priests, between Protestants and Roman Catholics, notwithstanding the severe penalties which at that time were in force against Roman Catholic priests for celebrating them. He had not objected to the Bill of the present Attorney General (Mr. Perrin), abolishing those penalties, because he considered them extreme, and out of proportion to the offence; but he deprecated the present Bill, which, without improving the Marriage-law in Ireland generally, would do away the only practical impediment to clandestine marriages being performed between Members of different religious persuasions by the Roman Catholic priesthood.

did not see why because the Attorney-General was not in his place, they should not go on then without him. He had a great respect for that hon. and learned Gentleman and believed that if he were in his place he would be among the best supporters of the Bill, Let them not wait then, however, for that learned Gentleman to remove a great practical grievance from the Marriage-law of Ireland. With respect to the measure, it proposed to repeal a statute, the effect of which was to render null and void all marriages celebrated by Popish priests between Protestants and Catholics. Now let the House look at the inconveniences arising from the present state of the law, and compare them with the expected consequences pointed at by the gallant Colonel, and the right hon. Gentleman. Was there one thing in the whole world more difficult to be ascertained before death, much more, subsequently, than the religious belief and profession of any particular party? Who was to make the inquiry? Who was to pay the penalty? Put a case: an unfortunate woman, ignorant of the state of the law, relying upon the assertions and the promises of him who led her to the celebration of the marriage, who told her that she had but to answer "Yes," to the questions proposed to her, and that her marriage would be good. Relying upon the faith and assertions of him in whom she would of all others naturally place the most unlimited confidence, the marriage took place: what happened? First he would suppose an investigation took place; and her religion was discovered to have been Protestant. Upon whom fell the penalty? not upon the priest; not upon the seducer;—no, but upon the unfortunate woman, and her children! Was that justice? Was that equality? Was that the law of Ireland? Or again: the marriage existed for years: a question arose as to the title of an estate: an inquiry took place as to whether the parties were both Roman Catholics at the time of the marriage: the witnesses were dead: the fact could not be proved; the children were declared illegitimate; and the estate fell to the next heir. Now, such a law was a disgrace to civilized life. It was rendering uncertain that contract, which of all others ought to be the most certain: it was putting into the hands of a party, those rights and privileges, which ought to be most sacredly preserved by every nation which looked to the happiness of its subjects. Clandestine marriages were great evils, against which he (Dr. Lushington) had raised his voice for many years; but prior to the year 1754, marriages were single contracts "per verba de prœsenti!" they ought to prevent improper marriages, but when once the marriage was performed, the contract should be valid. It was no remedy, but in ninety-nine cases out of 100, instead of a remedy, it was a penalty, to render the marriage null and void. It blasted the prospects of the parties for ever, and then talked to them of a "remedy." Let the Legislature prevent the marriage if it could; but let the knot, once tied, be tied for ever. Upon those grounds, he (Dr. Lushington) hoped the Bill would ultimately go farther in its provisions. He hoped it would be rendered retrospective, and that the Legislature would seriously direct its attention to the whole Marriage-law of England and Ireland, so as to afford reasonable security against clandestine marriages; but to make them when once contracted endure for the lives of the parties.

concurred in much that had fallen from the learned civilian, and considered that it was most preposterous after the law had inflicted capital punishment to superadd a penalty of 500l. He concurred likewise in the view taken by the learned doctor of the evils resulting from clandestine marriages, and it was that consideration which induced him to urge the advocates of the Bill rather to bring in one general Marriage-law, and not by the present measure to remove the only bar which then existed in Ireland to clandestine marriages. He was not one of those who desired to see the law remain in its present state; on the contrary, he should cheerfully support an extended measure of improvement, but it was because he felt anxious for that larger measure that he did not think it wise to proceed with the second reading then moved, the more especially as the Law Officers of the Crown for Ireland were not then in their places.

said, that although he had not the advantage of hearing the sound and skilful opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor-General for Ireland, he could not but feel that there was quite enough of law in the House to justify him in consenting to the second reading of the Bill. He hoped that before it went into Committee the Law Officers of the Crown would be in the House.

was in favour of the measure. He was at a loss to ascertain how the gallant Member (Colonel Perceval) had obtained such a knowledge of canon law, but on consideration he supposed it was acquired during his recent connexion with the Ordnance Department. The Bill was read a second time.

moved the second reading the Bill, for limiting the duration of the Poll at elections which contained only two enacting clauses; viz.; on the limiting the poll at elections to one day in counties; and the second for effecting the same purpose in boroughs. The experience of the general elections since 1832, sufficiently proved that all the freeholders in the most extensive counties could be polled in one day, inasmuch as no less than 1,000 voters had been taken in that time atone, booth, whilst the average number which it would be necessary to take would only be 600. At the general election in 1832, three-fourths of the electors polled in one day. Taking ten of the largest counties, he found that out of 44,561, persons who voted, 37,075 voted on the first day. The results of the boroughs, in the elections was still more favourable to his view, and he therefore could have no doubt that it was feasible to take all the polls in one day. The chief object of his Bill was to defeat the intentions and wishes of those who, by holding their votes till the second day, expected to obtain a bribe after the struggle had commenced.

said, the practicability of the Bill was shown clearly on the evidence given by the town-clerk of the borough he represented, both before the Corporation Commissioners and the Committee of the House on the subject of election proceedings. The number of electors in Liverpool exceeded 11,000, and the officer to whose testimony he referred proved that the poll there could easily be taken in one day. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

did not rise to oppose the second reading, though be doubted the expediency at the present moment of proceeding with this single measure. It could not be forgotten that the hon. Member for Middlesex, the chairman of the Committee which had recommended this and other measures of large importance for completing the machinery of the Reform Act, had given notice of a Bill having a similar object to the present. Besides this, nothing could be easier than to include all the details and provisions of this Bill in the Registration Bill which had been introduced by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. His only anxiety was to prevent the confusion which might arise from so much legislation on the same subject. One general act might comprise all these details, and approving, as he did entirely, of the principle of this Bill, he should not oppose its second reading, in the hope that the hon. Member for Hastings would postpone its future progress until the other measures to which he had adverted were fully before the House.

also thought that the Bill might be embodied in one of those before, or about to be before, the House, especially in that Bill for the better registration of voters. He had great doubts as to the policy of limiting the poll to one day only, particularly in counties. It was extremely questionable whether all the electors could be brought up to the poll in one day in wide and populous districts, like the one he had the honour to represent. Under these circumstances it would be advantageous, in large districts, to allow the poll to remain open for the same period as at present.

said, that in the West Riding of Yorkshire there were 7,000 voters. On a late occasion the total number polled was 16,000, of whom 13,000 were polled in one day. He was assured that double that number could with perfect convenience have polled in the same time. It would be a great benefit to the country to have the elections take place in one day, for, generally speaking, corruption took place on the night between the two days of polling.

concurred in the observations of the learned Attorney-General and thought that if more general measures on the subject were not proceeded with, the present one might be carried into effect. If polling were to be limited to one day there should be a more speedy mode adopted than the present one of taking the poll.

approved of the principle of the Bill. It would be a great improvement of the law; and, wishing to see its provisions extended to Scotland, he should, when it got into Committee, move the omission of the Clause restricting its operation to England.

concurred in the propriety of extending the provisions of this bill to Scotland, but thought that it would be necessary in that case to provide some remedy to prevent the tendering of unnecessary oaths for the mere purpose of creating delay. He thought that the best mode of preventing such a trick would be to introduce into the bill a clause providing that if at 4 o'clock, when the poll now closed, there were any electors unpolled who wished to poll, they should give in their names immediately to the returning officer, and that the poll should be kept open the next day till they were all polled.

opposed the Bill. Ill health, bad weather, and many other circumstances which it would be tedious to enumerate, might prevent an elector from voting on the first day of the poll, and therefore, in his opinion a second day ought to be allowed.

gave his cordial support to the Bill. He had just returned from the election in Yorkshire, at which a greater number of votes had been polled than at any other election which had taken place under the Reform Bill, and he knew that in one of the most populous districts, at which he happened to be, at 1 o'clock on the first day of the poll, a large majority of the electors had polled by that hour. Indeed, the chief business of the day was then over, as not more than 5 or 6 electors afterwards straggled in. That circumstance proved that it would be as satisfactory to the electors as to the elected to have the poll terminated in one day.

thought that it would be most desirable to secure the passing of this Bill in the present session, as it was impossible to tell how soon they might be seat back to their constituents.

wished not to be misunderstood. No one was more desi- ous than himself that this enactment should pass in the present session, and it was only in the hope that it would form part of another bill already before the House that he had wished all further proceedings to be postponed for the present. If the bill to which he had alluded should be in any danger, he would willingly support the present measure.

entirely agreed that it was desirable to have the poll taken in a single day, for a second day only tended to encourage bribery.

also concurred in the opinion that the second day afforded a decided advantage to the candidate who had the longest purse, and, therefore, he should give this Bill his support.

thought that voters should be-allowed to vote where they resided, and not where their property was situate. He agreed that this Bill would be a great improvement.

wished to have the provisions of the Bill extended to Ireland.

supported the Motion, and hoped that the good example it would set for England would be extended to Ireland.

also supported the Motion. In his view of the subject the poll should proceed without interruption. Any objection taken to a voter might be made at the time when the vote was given, and heard afterwards, when the only question which could be raised would be as to the identity of the person to whom the objection was made.