presented a Petition from forty-eight Licentiates of the College of Physicians against the revised code of bye laws promulgated by the College, which the petitioners described as containing restrictions not only unjust but illegal. The hon. Member in supporting the petition said, that though he did not mean to deny that the new code was an improvement in some important parts upon the existing bye laws, yet the restrictions which it continued upon the admissions to fellowships were not only most illiberal, but were altogether unwarranted by law. At present the Fellows must be either persons educated at one of our two Universities, or persons especially recommended by the President of the College. The new code preserved this narrow principle of election, or rather exclusion; and it was for this reason that the petitioners disapproved of it. The charter of the College, given it by Henry 8th, did not provide any manner by which the College should perpetuate itself. It merely appointed as Fellows certain persons, and all the members of the profession then practising in London; but no rule of perpetuation was laid down. The Medical Committee, of which he (Mr. Warburton) had had the honour to be chairman, had carefully examined, on these points, a gentleman (Mr. Wilcox) who had made the subject of medical jurisprudence the peculiar object of his studies. This gentleman stated his unqualified opinion, that the charter of Henry 8th having laid down no such rule for perpetuating this corporation, the College had no legal right to establish the restrictions complained of, but were bound to examine licentiates and judge of their claims to admission by their actual qualifications, and not with reference to the place where they had been educated.

supported the petition. After what had been so ably stated by the hem. Member for Bridport, he should content himself with declaring his full conviction, founded upon long experience and examination of the subject, that the College of Physicians, so far from having promoted the utility or honour of medicine, or raised the character of its professors, had been ever since its incorporation, a mischievous incubus. He trusted that the hon. Member for Bridport, who had already done so much on this important subject, would so occupy the leisure of the recess as to be able, immediately on the opening of the next Session, to bring forward a measure founded on the Report of the Medical Committee, putting the profession on an entirely new footing.

said, that he should before this have brought forward such a measure as that proposed by the hon. Member, but for two interruptions. First, the burning of the House, which involved the destruction of nearly two-thirds of the printed evidence of the Committee, which had consequently again to be written out from the short-hand notes, and printed; and secondly, the breaking up of the Ministry. He trusted, however, that in the beginning of next Session, he should be able to fulfil the hon. Member's wishes.

rose to present a Petition from Mr. Silas Pearse, of Plymouth, complaining of the conduct of some members of the late Board of Admiralty. The petitioner stated that a contract for 30,000 cubic feet of limestone for the purposes of the Plymouth Breakwater, having been advertised for by the Board of Admiralty, he tendered the same at the rate of 7d. a cubic foot; but that the tender of another party, Mr. Scott, was accepted, although the latter tender was actually 8¾d. a cubic foot, being not less than 1¾d.. a cubic foot higher than the tender made by the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that this alleged act of public and private injustice did not end here, for that the extent of the contract granted to Mr. Scott was not for less than 60,000 feet of limestone, although no more than 30,000 feet was advertised for. There was this circumstance too, connected with the doubling the contract, which marked the character of the whole affair—namely, that M r. Scott made an application for it before any public notice had been given of the Admiralty's intention to have 60,000 instead of 30,000 feet of stone provided, The source of this early knowledge, the petitioner stated, might be guessed at from the fact that Mr. Scott was frequently seen walking arm-in-arm with Captain Ross, the officer charged with making the contract. The first contract was accepted in January. Seven days after the dissolution of the Ministry, upon its appearing likely that some inquiry would be made on the subject, Mr. Scott wrote to the new Board of Admiralty, to the effect that "Though he had agreed with Captain Ross for 8¾d. a cubic foot, he was willing, lest blame might otherwise be imputed, to to take the whole 60,000 feet at 8d." Under such circumstances as these had a gross injustice been done, not only to a most respectable and responsible individual, but to the public. "What could be the motive of such an extraordinary course of conduct in the parties complained of?" was the next question. The answer to it in no respect improved the character of the affair. The fact was, that Mr. Scott had been an active canvasser, at the last general election, for Sir George Cockburn, who was the brother-in-law of Captain Ross, and for Mr. Dawson the then Secretary of the Admiralty. As the conduct complained of was wholly irreconcileable with public duty, a private motive for the proceedings of Captain Ross must be sought, and here was a very intelligible one. The high respectability and property of Mr. Pearse was put beyond a doubt, by the testimony of the two Members for Plymouth; and in addition to his own responsibility, Mr. Pearse had offered to give unexceptionable security. He must express a hope that the noble Lord opposite, a Member of the late Board of Admiralty, would be able, in the absence of Mr. DawsOn, to explain this affair satisfactorily. His own opinion was, that the case was one which ought to be investigated by a select Committee; and though it was late in the Session, as the documents connected with it were all ready at hand, the inquiry might be gone through in the course of a few hours.

had to thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in advertising him of the presentation of the petition, as he had thereby been enabled to communicate on the subject with Mr. Dawson, who was in Ireland. As, however, he had been ignorant of the details of the case, as now brought forward by the hon. Member, his communication with Mr. Dawson was necessarily of a limited nature. As for himself he could only say, that neither had the peculiar department in question been under his control, nor, if it had was he in a condition to judge of the details of every case, beyond what he knew of them from the documents laid before him. One of the petitioner's complaints was, that Mr. Scott had early information of the extended contract, as was stated, from Captain Ross; but, supposing the former portion of his complaint to be correct, it did not by any means follow that the information came from Captain Ross; for it was quite easy for Mr. Scott to have had a communication from Mr. Stewart, the superintendent of the works at the Breakwater, who of course knew what the extent of the contract was to be. In reference to the complaint that Captain Ross had received tenders after the hour appointed for not receiving them, though it was true that Captain Ross had received tenders after that hour, twelve o'clock, he had received none after the opening of the first tender. It was true, also, that the first contract taken was at 8¾d. the cubic foot, but the difference between this and Mr. Pearse's tender was not so great as had been represented. He had been that morning with Mr. Taylor, the civil engineer, upon whose calculation the statement made by the hon. Member was founded; and that gentleman now stated that the calculation by which he had estimated Mr. Pearse's tender, as at 7d. a cubic foot, was a mistake, owing to his having supposed the ton of lime-stone to contain fifteen, instead of the real quantity, thirteen cubic feet. The result of a correction of this error was, that Mr. Pearse's tender, instead of being 7d., was 7¾d. a cubic foot. Throughout the whole affair, however, the full understanding on the part of the Admiralty was that Mr. Scott's contract was for 8d., and this was the understanding on which they had directed Captain Ross to grant Mr. Scott the further contract of 30,000 feet of stone, "on the same terms as before." Mr. Dawson, however, would probably have enabled him (Lord Ashley) to explain the case more circumstantially, but, as he had before said, he had only been in a position to put the simple question to that gentleman, "Why had not Mr. Pearse's contract been accepted?" and to this question Mr. Dawson had returned an answer, which he (Lord Ashley) would presently state to the House. But the difficulties in this case arose out of the circumstance that Mr. Scott had sent two tenders—one to Captain Ross, at 8¾d., and the other to the Admiralty, at 8d.; and it did not appear that Captain Ross had communicated the tender made to him: the Admiralty thought that the contract had been made at the lowest price, viz., at 8d.; and when an additional quantity was wanted, it was not thought necessary to look out for another contractor. Why the contract of Mr. Pearse was not taken, was explained in the following passage of a letter which, as he before stated, he had received from Mr. Dawson:—"When the tenders came from Plymouth, a caution was sent with them, that Mr. Silas Pearse, who had had some previous dealings with Government offices, had not completed his undertakings, and was also represented to have been a bankrupt, was totally incapable of completing the contract, and was not a man to be dealt with. The Government had been so ill-treated and cheated in all its contracts regarding the Breakwater, that it was desirable, if possible, to treat with persons who could perform their engagements." When such a caution as that was received, he (Lord Ashley) did not think that the Government would have been justified in entering into a contract with Mr. Silas Pearse. Surely the hon. Member for Bridport would admit that the Government must have a regard to some other points in making contracts than the mere lowness of the tender. They must look to the punctuality of the contractor—to his character in business—to the quality of the material, and above all to his means of completing what he undertook. Having received the caution from Plymouth, it was impossible for Mr. Dawson to accept the tender of Mr. Pearse. He (Lord Ashley) had no more to say than to regret that the hon. Member had gone go far as to impute to the right hon. Secretary for the Admiralty, improper motives: he was most zealous in the public service, and anxious for the honour of the department to which he had belonged.

had received many letters from his constituents on the subject, and was desirous of saying a few words. He was surprised at what the noble Lord had ventured to say of Mr. Pearse's character without having any documents to support his assertion, and he appealed to the present Secretary to the Admiralty whether any such existed in that department. [Mr. Charles Wood was not aware of any.] On the contrary he had received from his constituents the highest character of Mr. Pearse. The noble Lord had striven, not very effectually to be sure, to show that one contract ought to have been taken instead of the other, and he had not been able to show that Mr. Pearse's offer was not the lowest; in the papers before the House it was stated that Mr. Scott's was the lowest offer, but the fact was otherwise. [Lord Ashley: It was the lowest received from any body whose offer ought to have been accepted.] That must depend upon the character of Mr. Pearse, of which some unfair representations seemed to have been made, in order to get him out of the competition. Could the noble Lord prove that Mr. Pearse's character was bad? He (Sir E. Codrington) believed that it was as good as that of Mr. Scott; and it was an additional reason for inquiry, that justice might be done to Mr. Pearse. It could not occupy much time, as the merits and demerits of the whole case could be seen at once. He begged to ask the present Secretary to the Admiralty who had put their initials to the two Nota benes in one of the papers; they were those of Mr. Taylor, the architect, but he believed they were not in fact affixed by him; they came in the middle of Mr. Taylor's calculations, but they were not his, and one of them purported to state that Mr. Scott, in his letter of the 18th of Feb., had made the lowest offer, viz., 8d. per foot. This, as was evident, was not the fact; and it was but justice to Mr. Taylor that it should be understood that the initials were not his, or at least that he had not placed them against the Nota bene. There was something extraordinary, if not suspicious in this circumstance, that although the tender for the first 30,000 feet of limestone was by advertisement, the second 30,000 feet was agreed for privately. If the proceeding had been public, he (Sir E. Codrington) had reason to know that the offer of Mr. Pearse would have been the same as for the first 30,000 feet; perhaps had he agreed to supply the whole 60,000 feet at once, his offer would have been as much lower as Mr. Scott's had been. He (Sir E. Codrington) also wished that a Committee should have an opportunity of seeing the letter from Mr. Scott to Mr. Dawson, as he supposed that such a communication existed. The whole case required close investigation, and minute sifting.

did not believe that the initials alluded to were those of Mr. Taylor, and agreed with the noble Lord that it was quite clear that the intention of the Admiralty was, that the contract should be for 30,000 feet of lime-stone, at 8d.; Captain Ross did not so understand it, and he made the contract at 8¾d. Mr. Scott's offer was not sent to the Admiralty in the regular form of a tender, but in a letter to Mr. Dawson, at the Admiralty.

said that the explanation of the noble Lord was most unsatisfactory, and he would move for a Committee on the subject to-morrow.

observed, that all seemed to turn upon the credit and character of Mr. Pearse, because he entirely agreed with the noble Lord that it might be extremely wrong in a Government office to take the lowest tender. It might be made by a person who had no means of fulfilling it, and injury would thus be done to the public service. If there were sufficient facts to establish that he was a person with whom no engagement should be made, the Admiralty would be justified in taking Mr. Scott'soffer. Therefore, the whole question was a matter of character, and it might be fit to institute an inquiry.

bore a favourable testimony to Mr. Pearse's character.

rose to ask a question of the President of the Board of Control on the interesting subject of the proposed communication with the East-Indies by the Red Sea or by the Euphrates. The East-India Company had agreed to take measures for establishing an intercourse by the Red Sea, but they had failed; and on Friday last the Directors had put up a notice, stating that the mails for April, May, June, and July, might not be carried forward to India. He did not impute blame to any quarter, because he was ignorant whether it was deserved; but he wished to press upon the Government, the East-India Company, and the Post-office, the propriety of taking immediate steps to forward the correspondence. He would take leave to say, that he much feared the attempt to establish a communication by the Euphrates would not succeed, but he had better hopes of the route by the Red Sea. It was a strange fact, that one hundred millions of the King's subjects had no direct communication with Europe.

would say a few words in answer to the hon. Member. The notice of the Court of Directors was given to prevent mistakes, which they feared would occur if it were delayed, The Chair- man of the Court of Directors had proposed it, and he had concurred in it. As to a steam communication with India, he feared that there was too much reason for the fears expressed by the hon. Member. The East-India Company had not taken the steps expected from them for a direct communication from Suez to Bombay, by the Red Sea, but by private letters from Bombay it appeared that a steam-boat was to sail from thence to Suez on the 12th of July; but it had already twice attempted the passage, and had been obliged to put back. It was his duty to mention, that last week the Board with which he was connected, and the Directors of the East-India Company, had come to a determination to build two large steam-vessels to be placed on the Bombay station; but the real reason why more earnest steps had not been taken for this most useful purpose was a regard to the dilapidated finances of the Company. The object was, however, one of a national importance, and should receive every attention. The hon. Member had thrown out an opinion as to the failure of the route by the Euphrates. What might be the ultimate issue, he could not pretend to say; but he had his opinion, and the last advices were favourable. He had letters from Aleppo and Antioch, both of the 19th of June, stating that all difficulty had been removed as to the conveyance of stores, and that some of them had reached a place on the road, and that they were on the road across the mountains to Bere. But supposing this expedition to succeed, it would still be the duty of the King's Government to take steps for the regular navigation of the Red Sea. The House was, perhaps, aware that the southwest monsoons blow there for two or three months of the year with so much violence, that gentlemen whom he had seen were of opinion that no steam-boat, of whatever size and power, would be able to face them. He would assure the hon. Member that all possible attention should be paid to the subject, and the Admiralty had issued orders to the Rear-Admiral on the Malta station, to make a full investigation of the facilities in that quarter, and a report was shortly expected from him. He hoped he had given the hon. Member a full, if not in all respects a satisfactory answer.

could not allow the Session to close without asking Ministers whether they had come to any determination, and what, respecting the office of Lord Chancellor and his judicial duties.

I am obliged to the hon. Member, and to the House generally, for the indulgence it has shown with respect to this arduous question. Ministers have been, of course, unwilling to come to any decision which might be thought hasty or inconsiderate, and hence has arisen much delay; but I intend to propose in the next Session a measure, by which a permanent judge for the Court of Chancery will be appointed. I need not say that the question of the separation of the political and judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor requires to be examined with great care, and weighed with extreme nicety; it may be necessary to make a provision for an additional judge; but that and all other parts of the subject call for mature consideration.

had given notice that on the reading the Order of the Day he should call the attention of the House to the Commercial Confederation between the Kingdom of Prussia and other states of Germany; if, however, the bringing forward the subject was in the least degree inconvenient to the noble Lord, he would postpone it. He had already brought the subject under the attention of the House; but in consequence of what had taken place lately, he felt called upon, before the termination of the Session, once more to press the subject on the attention of the Government. The commercial arrangement to which he alluded did not extend merely to Prussia, but also obtained with regard to the other States of the North of Germany. He could not help feeling that the confederation to which he alluded was of the most extraordinary character, and was framed somewhat in a spirit of national hostility. He conceived the matter to be of considerable importance; and he, as a commercial man, should consider himself guilty of negligence if he did not call the attention of the House to it. Prussia, not satisfied with what she had already done, was endeavouring to induce other parties to join in this treaty, and since last year she had gained over the important State of Baden. It was difficult to point out the course Government should pursue under the circumstances of the case: but still the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign affairs, should be directed to the subject. Undoubtedly, every nation had a right to fix the duties on the importation of goods into its own territories, but the tariff of Prussia imposed such heavy duties on articles of British manufacture, as to amount to almost a prohibition. Not satisfied with imposing these heavy duties in her own territory, she had induced other countries to follow her example, and to equalise the duties on all goods imported into them. By this means there was one general system of Custom-house regulations throughout the North of Germany, and the same duties were paid in all the districts. Prussia also claimed the right of raising these duties to any height it pleased. He could not help feeling that in the course pursued Prussia was influenced by some political considerations. He was sure that the noble Lord could not be ignorant that Prussia, under the pretence of these regulations, might be aiming a blow at the interests of this country. He need not allude to the jealousy entertained by both Prussia and Russia at the intimate connexion existing between France, Spain, and Portugal, and this country. Those two powers were fully aware how dangerous it would be to make a hostile attack on this country or her allies, but they thought they could injure her by means of vexatious commercial regulations. It might be said that the superior energy and ingenuity of the people of this country would overcome all the difficulties thrown in her way: admitting this to be the case to a considerable extent, still the enforcement of such vexatious regulations must prove highly prejudicial to the commerce of England. The avowed object of Prussia was to force England to make a change in her corn laws and timber duties. If they succeeded in forcing us to alter the present state of the law on those subjects, it became a question as to what was the best and most advantageous arrangement with Prussia. If a change became necessary, the noble Lord should endeavour to make it conditional on an alteration of the tariff. All that he required was, that the Government should take such a course as would ensure equivalent advantages to this country with those which were likely to be obtained by other States. He was anxious to obtain from the noble Lord some explanation as to the course intended to be pursued by the Government. The hon. Gentleman concluded by proposing that a copy of the commercial treaty between Prussia and the other Confederate States of Germany be laid on the Table.

did not intend to cast any blame on the hon. Gentleman for calling the attention of Parliament to the subject. It was natural, taking so warm an interest as he did in commercial affairs, and so deeply interested in them as he was, that he should be in some degree anxious on this subject. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had not been insensible to the proceedings of Prussia, but had anxiously looked to see how far the conduct of that State was likely to be prejudicial to the interests of this country. This, however, was not the first commercial union that had existed between the German States. Many years ago such a confederation existed between the northern States of Germany, and also one between the southern States. The system on which these Confederations were founded was, that there should be one system of Customhouse regulations for all the States. That was, that the goods which had paid duty on entering into one of these countries should not be charged with other duties on being taken into another of the States. They naturally adopted a system of this kind for the purpose of commercial convenience. He could not see that it followed from the mere existence of these confederations that it originated in a spirit of political hostility to this country, or even of commercial hostility. The country had no right on general principles to object to such unions of States. He repeated, England had no right to step out of the ordinary course of proceeding in consequence of the existence of these compacts between independent States. The hon. Gentleman said, that one of the objects of Prussia, in entering into this confederacy with other States, was to compel this country to alter and relax the prohibitory duties against foreign corn and timber. Whatever might be the motives of Prussia, this certainly could not operate on the other German States so as to induce them to join in the union, for they did not export corn or timber. He did not believe, that the present arrangement had been productive of any advantage to the manufacturers of Prussia. Possibly, however, the manufacturers of Saxony benefited by it; but Prussia, so far from being a gainer, was a considerable loser. With respect to the course to be adopted, he would only observe that matters were not sufficiently ripe to take any decided steps. He was at present unable to ascertain what was likely j to be the effect of these arrangements on English commerce, or what steps it might be expedient to take. In all these matters, he need hardly say, that the promotion of what appeared to be the best interests of the country would be the guide he should pursue. He was satisfied that the strict adoption of the principle of reciprocity would be found to be the best course that could be pursued. With respect to the negotiations with Portugal, it was only necessary for him to observe, that the subject would occupy the anxious attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and himself.

recommended that negotiations should be opened with each country separately with regard to its trade. Those who expected that England would be made the workshop of the world by forcing free trade on other nations would find themselves egregiously deceived. He was glad that his hon. Friend had brought forward the subject; and must say, that the reply of the noble Lord had been any thing but satisfactory.

entirely concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester in the view he had taken of the subject, and thought that it deserved the serious attention of the Legislature and the Government.

did not see, that because foreigners pursued an unwise system, we should persist in a system equally unwise. It appeared to him that it would be very inexpedient for this country to purchase its commodities at a dearer market, because the country in which they could be obtained cheaper would not adopt our more liberal principles of commerce; such a course as that must have the effect of weakening the resources of our own industry, and depriving us of the means of competing with other countries in the markets for manufactured articles.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question relative to a Motion of his which had stood upon the paper for several days past. What he desired to know was, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that no further sum should be advanced by his Majesty's Government towards the Thames Tunnel undertaking till next Session. If the right hon. Gentleman would enter into such an understanding with him, he would defer his Motion till next Session; but if the right hon. Gentleman declined the arrangement he proposed, he should feel it to be his duty to make his Motion to-morrow, by way of Amendment upon the Motion for taking into consideration the Orders of the Day.

said it was quite impossible for him to accede to what the hon. Gentleman had just proposed. To allow the circumstance of a Motion having been merely entered upon the order-book, there having been no discussion upon it by which the sense of the House could be arrived at, to interrupt the progress of the public business, would be to establish the principle that any Motion of which only notice had been given might interfere with the most important business of the country. He might engage to this extent—that due care should be taken that there should be no further grant without such a satisfactory report having been laid before him with regard to the expenditure which had taken place, as well as to the course which was to be pursued in future, as would enable him to justify whatever proceeding he might recommend. He was aware that this was a matter which required great consideration; the amount to be granted was a large sum of money; and the hon. Member might be sure that no one could have a stronger personal interest than himself in seeing that the money was not expended improperly, or that the grant was not made in a manner such as would not enable him to present to Parliament a satisfactory statement on the subject. He was prepared to say, with regard to the Motion, that he would be the last in the world to resist it, if it could be shown that there existed any ground for a Parliamentary inquiry. He was quite willing that any acts of his, or of the Government, should be made the subject of investigation; but if the Motion were only to inquire into the circumstances under which an Act of Parliament had been passed, that appeared to him not to be such an object as would warrant the House in granting an investigation.

on the Order of the Day being moved, would make his Motion.

Sir, it is, perhaps, scarcely worth while to animadvert upon the tendency of this Measure, as it will be admitted both by its supporters and opponents, that there is no prospect of its becoming the law of the land during this Session, nor,—I trust,—in its present shape,—during any future Session of Parliament. It must pass through the ordeal of an assembly in which the laws of truth and justice will not be set at nought—an assembly, in which institutions and vested rights will not, without, in careful investigation conducted under the auspices of its own Members, he invaded— an assembly, in which individuals holding responsible offices will not be condemned without a hearing. Sir, I object to the partial and vexatious inquiries conducted under the auspices of his Majesty's Government—inquiries in which they have appeared in two incompatible capacities—first, as the accusers of municipal authorities; and next, as appointing juries, under the name of Commissioners, without any power of challenge on the part of the accused, on the ground either of prejudice or incapacity. No one is more adverse than I am to the continuance of municipal abuses; but I strenuously object to a Measure, introduced at so late a period of the Session, for the mere purpose of acquiring power with the Roman Catholics, and with a perfect conviction in the minds of his Majesty's Ministers themselves, that the Bill cannot possibly become the law of the land. This Measure may be entitled "An Act to facilitate the restoration of Roman Catholic supremacy, and destroy the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, by transferring influence from property, which, in a preponderating ratio, is in the hands of Protestants, to Roman Catholics, who, in point of number, would in most cases, obtain the pre-eminence. This Bill might just as well contain a Clause enacting that the mayor and municipal officers of every Corporation in Ireland should march out with ropes about their necks, and Jay the keys of their respective towns and cities at the feet of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. In my opinion, no greater calamity can befal Ireland than the consolidation of Roman Catholic power, and I more especially protest against the ascendancy of my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, which has increased, and is increasing, and ought, if possible, to be diminished. To any such results his Majesty's Ministers, and their adherents, appear to be wholly indifferent; or, may I not rather say, that they are most anxious to promote them? It seems to me that they have no objection to what they consider (and what I deny to be) a Liberal Government and a Protestant Establishment; but that their love of power and office would prompt them to prefer a Libe- ral Government and a Popish Establishment, to a Protestant Establishment and a Conservative Government. I wish to abstain from using any disrespectful or uncourteous language towards my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin. I have often regretted the personalities with which he has been from time to time assailed. I am far from participating in the obloquy which has, I think, most unjustly been cast upon him from various quarters, because he accepts from that portion of the Irish people whose views he advocates in this House, an indemnity for relinquishing the emoluments of that profession, in which he is perhaps without a rival, and certainly without a superior; nay, I will venture to add, that I should some times also have been glad to have seen him promoted to any high judicial office, the duties of which I am persuaded that he would have discharged with consummate talent and great integrity. I do firmly believe, that his motto would have been cedant arma togœ, or in other words, if he had assumed the judicial ermine, I am convinced that he would have laid aside the cuirass of political turmoil. But I am persuaded that it is the paramount duty of all those who are anxious to uphold the Protestant interest in Ireland,—or, I may add, in Great Britain,—to concur in resisting the machinations which he, and those who belong to his persuasion, are engaged in, for the purpose of subverting the Protestant Church in the Sister Island, and substituting a Popish Establishment in its room. This object would, I think, be greatly promoted by the provisions of the crude and crafty Measure which is now before the House, and against which I shall content myself with thus briefly protesting; because I know that all opposition would be utterly unavailing to any measure however anti-Protestant, or anti-national, which his Majesty's Ministers might think proper to introduce.

remarked that there was in Scotland an hallucination of the mind that was called "second sight;" and it appeared to him that his hon. Friend was labouring under a delusion of that kind. The imagination of his hon. Friend ran away with his judgment; and his religious feelings were so excited—they were so Quixotic—that if he did not see giants in windmills, why he turned the windmills into giants. This Bill had seriously nothing to do with religion; creeds could not interfere with it; its object was one which every friend to the country must wish to see attained. It was to give to those who contributed to the support of a Corporation a right to have the regulation of their own affairs. Why the question of religion could be brought into such a subject he could not imagine. It really required a poetic imagination to mix up religion with such a question. The Bill was an admirable Bill for the present state of society in Ireland. It for the first time set aside every species of distinction, and gave to the people of Ireland practically the power to regulate their own concerns. That was the object of this Bill; and when his hon. Friend introduced the subject of religion into the discussion upon such a Bill, he would ask his hon. Friend if he attributed to the Protestant religion the abuses in the Corporations of Ireland. Why he would be the greatest enemy to the Protestant religion who would connect it with peculation, robbery, and the waste of public money. He defended Protestantism against such an imputation. This Bill would put an end to the monopolists—no matter what their religion might be. He had no apprehension that a qualification clause would be introduced into the Irish Bill; out of thirty members of one guild in Dublin, he was able to show that eighteen of them ought to be independent, for they had gone through the Insolvent Court. In Cork, upward of 70,000l., collected from 120,000 of the King's subjects, were under the control of 300 members of a Corporation. He did not think that there was any Member of that House that should congratulate himself that corruption would find protection elsewhere, and that this would be done in any place where there was an affectation for protecting the rights of the poor. He did not suppose that such a place existed; but if it was so, then it ought to be hotter than it was at present.

said, that it would appear from the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Sinclair) as if that hon. Gentleman considered that the entire of the cities and counties in Ireland, as far as related to the Roman Catholic inhabitants, were under the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Those who entertained such an opinion, knew nothing of Ireland, and were unacquainted with the intelligence of the people of that country. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin owed his influence to this—that the people sympathised, with his efforts to redress the grievances of Ireland. Should that hon. and learned Gentleman go in opposition to the wishes or the interest of the people they would fling him off, and leave him to seek for influence and power elsewhere. With regard to the people of the city which he represented (Cork), both he and his colleague could state that the persons who would be qualified under the proposed measure were independent and intelligent men, and well calculated to undertake the direction of their own affairs. The towns and cities of Ireland were as well entitled to the privileges about to be conferred by this Bill as were those of England or Scotland, and no temporary opposition could check the call for, or impede the progress of, liberal institutions in that country. It was in vain to think of governing Ireland any longer by a party. She was resolved to obtain her rights by one mode or another, and it would be better to meet them by fair and just legislation. To shew the necessity of Corporation Reform in Ireland, he would conclude by observing that the whole power of the Corporation of Cork, was concentrated in a small body called the Friendly Club, which managed all the Corporate funds and appointed to all Corporate offices.

;—The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that Ireland will have certain measures, either by fair or foul means, and desires the House to anticipate her wishes. Now this should not be the principle on which Government ought to proceed. The principle should be—what in justice ought Ireland to have, and what in justice ought to be denied to her? This having been inquired into and ascertained, let the motto be fiat justilia ruat cœlum.

was not the advocate of Corporate abuses, on the contrary, he would endeavour to remedy them; but he did not think this was the proper mode of proceeding to do so.

objected to the third reading of the Bill, but at that advanced period of the Session he could not think of detaining the House by entering at length upon the subject. He should content himself, under the present circumstances of the case, by entering his protest against the Bill.

moved the further consideration of the Report of this Bill, and said that its object was to extend the same principle upon this subject to England, Ireland, and Scotland. The absurdity of a pecuniary qualification, still more of one of a landed nature, was evident; some of the worst scamps in the country were men of property. Its inutility was also equally obvious, from the evasions which were constantly practised of the existing law. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would support the measure, and remove such a mockery from our statute-book. Even if the House were disposed to keep up the qualification, they ought surely to extend it to all kinds of property, not confine it simply to landed property.

agreed fully that the present system of qualification was oftentimes injurious, but was not prepared at once to say, that at this period of the Session, and in the present state of the House, so many Members being absent who might he desirous to take part in the discussion of the subject, they ought at once to pass such a measure as the present, doing away with all qualification whatsoever—or even a Measure admitting a qualification of other kinds of property. He should, therefore, wish that the proposed Bill should not proceed further.

considered the principle of the Bill a sound one.

was glad that the noble Lord did not oppose the principle of the Measure, and hoped that his hon. Friend would comprise in it some provision abolishing the necessity for the declaration required of Members at the time of election, and for the description of which he was bound to give in of his qualification at the time of election.

, after the statement of the noble Lord, had no alternative but to withdraw the Bill, at the same time he must say, that he had in nowise altered his opinion on its principle.

proposed an Amendment, to the effect that "The Chief Remembrancer be restrained from engaging in any other office not connected with his duties as Remembrancer."

observed that there was an Act already in existence, by which he believed that the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridport would be answered.

was favourable to the principle of excluding judicial functionaries from seats in that House; but as the ease in question was already provided for he supposed the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

rose, pursuant to notice, to submit three resolutions to the House respecting the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament. The object of his first resolution was to extend the time for giving in the plans, estimates, and specifications for building the new Houses of Parliament. The time for furnishing the plans, &c, was limited to the first of January next, beyond which period they would not be received. Now, he conceived that the effect of thus restricting the time within such narrow bounds would be to deter many young and aspiring artists from entering the field of competition, and he was assured by several architects, that if they and their clerks worked incessantly for the next four months, they would not have time to give in their plans and proposals by the 1st of January. He hoped, therefore that there would be no objection made to extend the time so as to give all parties a fair and equal chance. The second resolution related to the removal of the ruins of St. Stephen's Chapel, but as the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had assured the House that the removal of the ruins should not take place until the plans for rebuilding the Houses had been decided upon, and as the Committee had expressed an opinion to that effect, he would not anticipate any objection to the second resolution. The other resolution was to this effect—that in order to secure to the public the benefit of a fair competition, the several plans, when sent in, should be exhibited in some place adapted to the purpose, and there hung up in public view, in order that they might be inspected before any decision should be made. The hon. Gentleman handed in the resolutions; and on their being put from the chair,

said, that as far as regarded the removal of the ruins he did not think that the House was called upon to pass any resolution upon the subject, particularly as his hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, had admitted that a promise had been made that the ruins should not be removed until the plans for the new Houses had been agreed upon, and indeed it was obvious that there would be no occasion to remove the old buildings until the new works were begun. At the same time, however disposed he might be to admire ancient ruins, he did not think that in a country like England, where the spirit of improvement was advancing with such rapid strides, that ruins, however ancient, should be preserved solely on account of their antiquity, or that they should for a moment be put in competition with the convenience or interests of the public. With regard to extending the time for receiving the plans, he conceived that as there were now four clear months allowed for sending in the proposals, there was ample opportunity allowed to give all parties the advantage of a fair competition, and he certainly could not admit the justice of the argument used by his hon. Friend who moved the resolutions—namely, that the time ought to be extended, in order to give young artists a fair chance. He considered, that in a work of so much importance, young artists were not the most desirable persons to be selected, and that it would be much better to make the selection from the plans of able and experienced artists. As to the proposal that the plans should be hung up for public inspection, he believed it would be wholly impracticable; for even if Westminster Hall were selected for the purpose, it might be found incapable of affording sufficient space for the exhibition. At all events, the Government had no place at their disposal for such a purpose; but if the hon. Mover of the resolutions would himself point out any fit place where the plans might be hung up, he would be happy to meet the hon. Member's views.

rose to submit to the House a motion, the object of which was the payment of the witnesses examined before the Yarmouth Bribery Committee. Men who came forward with a view of exposing bribery and corruption, and putting a stop to it, should not be exposed to loss in their exertions. The Committee up stairs had declared that all the allegations contained in the petition formerly presented had been fully borne out by the evidence. The grossest bribery and corruption had been proved, and it was shown that hundreds of electors had taken bribes. He should not then move that payment be made to the witnesses of the expenses they had incurred, but should content himself with moving that there be laid before the House copies of all memorials for the payment of the expenses incurred before the great Yarmouth Bribery Committee, and not discharged by order of the Chairman of the Committee.

observed that the Treasury was always ready to pay any expenses incurred before Committees, when the charges were certified by the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee. The Treasury could not make any payments without this form, unless by the direct authority of the House. He should, on all occasions, be ready to support a motion for the payment of what was fitting. In general, parties should be led to believe that if they instituted proceedings of this kind, they did so at their own expense; but when there was such a clear result as there was in the present case, and the public had gained such advantages by the exposure of these corrupt practices, it was right that the public should share the expense.

thought it better, before they took any steps, to wait till the evidence was before them.

was of opinion that it would be desirable that there should be some fixed rule as to whether witnesses should be paid or not, instead of leaving the matter to the Chairman of a Committee. Any sum proposed to be applied in the elucidation of such matters as had been disclosed before the Committee would be well expended. He was satisfied that it would be extremely unfair to throw the charge of these proceedings on individuals who had the public spirit to take up such subjects.

observed that the Committee had no direct precedent which would justify their ordering the payment of the witnesses; they therefore thought it better to leave the matter to the House.

cautioned the House against opening the door to applications of this nature.

felt it right to observe, if the House adopted the suggestion of his hon. Friend, that a resolution ought to be put on the journals, declaring that it should not be drawn into a precedent.

should be sorry to open the door widely to applications of this kind; but the present case was peculiar. Returns ordered.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the Repeal of the Act 60 Geo. 3rd, c. 9, relative to the Newspaper Stamps and Political Pamphlets. He did so in the anxious hope that his right hon. Friend, who had felt it his duty to refuse to take off the stamp duty on newspapers, would assent to the motion. He was fully aware of the grounds on which his right hon. Friend refused to take off the newspaper stamps, but the same objections did not exist against the proposition he now made. There was no duty imposed by the Act he wished to have repealed; and if it were taken off the Statute-Book the revenue would not lose anything. It was one of those obnoxious measures introduced in 1819 by Lord Castlereagh, and he must say it was a disgrace to the Legislature which sanctioned it.

seconded the motion. If the newspaper tax were taken off, and the present Act continued, the sale of cheap political publications would be prevented. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said the other night, in condemnation of the newspaper tax, and after his expression of regret that the state of the finances did not enable him to repeal it, he (Mr. Wakley) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the present motion.

observed if the motion really stood on the ground urged by his hon. Friend, he should not have been indisposed to do what was required; but as the case really stood, it was impossible for him to assent to the motion. The objection to the repeal of the newspaper tax was solely of a financial nature. As long as the revenue of the country was in its present condition, it was impossible for him to assent to the proposition. With respect to the present motion he would only observe, that he might as well remove the tax on newspapers altogether, as adopt the present suggestion. Under the operation of this Act alone were they enabled to punish the publishers and venders of unstamped newspapers. He was anxious to consider the whole subject with a view to a satisfactory result, but they were not then in a position to discuss it. Let them have their discussion on the question and he did not doubt he should be able to show that it would be better, with reference to the reduction desired, that the whole question should be entertained at once. On Friday a motion was to be made on the subject and he should then be prepared to state his views upon it.

was at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to preserve this Act for the sake of a Clause it contained, enabling him to enforce the stamp laws; surely he could preserve one portion of the Act, and repeal the other. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to justify his prosecution of those who had violated the stamp laws by saying it was necessary to protect the fair dealer, but what he complained of was that the fair dealer was not protected at this moment. The Twopenny Dispatch was said to circulate 40,000 copies, and the Police Gazette nearly as many. These unstamped publications were sold for a long time without any particular interruption, to the destruction of some of the most valuable of the stamped weekly newspapers. At last a daily paper, without a stamp, made its appearance; and that having attacked the monopoly of the daily press, means were found for putting it down immediately. The question ought not to be considered as one of finance, it ought to be viewed with reference to the political education of the people. He hoped the hon. Member for Middlesex would succeed in expunging from the Statute-Book this most disgraceful relic of a disgraceful period.

was sorry to hear the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he wanted the power which Lord Castlereagh had provided by the Act which went by his name; particularly as there were not less than nineteen other Acts on the same subject. He held in his hand a list of no less than 518 persons who had been prosecuted under what was called the "Trash Act;" under which any political publication of less than two sheets was liable to be seized unless stamped. He would just state an instance which would show what was the operation of that Act. When the Combination Laws were repealed, some gentleman wished to publish a cheap compendium of the existing laws on the subject, for the benefit of the poor. They took the opinion of Mr. Justice Tindal on the undertaking, and he told them that, if they repeated the publication they would be liable to be seized; and, on that ground, they were obliged to drop the proposal. Thus the present state of the law gave a power to every individual, acting under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to put down every useful political publication of the kind. And he was certainly greatly pained to hear, in that House, an advocate for the odious Castlereagh Act, which was condemned by every individual almost in the Administration and in the House at the time, as a measure which ought never to have been introduced; and (he must do Lord Castlereagh the justice to say) which was never acted upon in his time with the severity with which it had been of late applied; the revenue was efficiently collected till Lord Grey came into office; and then came the list of 518 prosecutions, up to March 24th last. There never before that period was a prosecution instituted under the plea of that Act with respect to the stamp duty; the revenue was collected without it; and, he must say, it was shameful to think of the Government keeping the country under the operation of that Act at the present time. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman was to go into the subject on Friday, he would withdraw his motion, but he hoped another Session would not pass over without the whole being repealed. It was but policy in the Government to give the people the means of obtaining cheap political knowledge; that they might know which were good measures and which were bad; who were their real friends, and who were not; for they were told now that the other House was the only real friends to the poor; and that the House of Commons were their oppressors and their robbers; he (Mr. Hume) wanted the means of removing the bad effect of that impression; but he could not do it, nor any one else, without being subjected to convictions under that Act, which shut the doors against so much useful information which the people might otherwise obtain. He therefore intreated the right hon. Gentleman not to let another Session pass over without repealing that Act.

thought that the hon. Member for Liskeard need not have indulged in observations of so much severity, the right hon. Gentleman having declared that he could not spare the money, and it being of the last importance to preserve the public credit.

said it had been frequently stated that, under Lord Grey's Administration, there had been 500 stamp prosecutions. It was no such thing—it had been contradicted before, and he contradicted it now. The hon. Member for Middlesex would find, if he examined the returns, that 460 or 470 of those prosecutions the Government had little to do with—they were prosecutions on the informations laid by informers.

said, that those who allowed such a law to continue in force, were responsible for its consequences.