said, that pursuant to the notice he had given, he would now rise to move as an Amendment on the first Order of the Day, the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the advance of public money which had been made to the Thames Tunnel Company. At nearly the close of such a long and wearisome Session, he was aware how difficult it must be to get the House to attend to fresh matter. As, however, he had no other object in view than to save the money of the public, which was the paramount duty of that House—as he was not himself to blame for the delay—and as the subject, moreover, was not one of very great difficulty, he hoped the House would afford him its attention during the short statement that he had to make to it. Having brought this transaction already under the consideration of the House, and having upon that occasion detailed at some length the grounds upon which he should move for this inquiry, it would not be necessary for him to go into those details again, and he could, therefore, save the time of the House. On the former occasion he had moved, in addition to the Treasury minute which had been laid on the Table, for copies of the Reports of professional men, if any such had been made, before the money had been granted, respecting the existing state of the Tunnel, the estimated expense of completing the same, and the probability as to the future re-payment of the money advanced. It appeared from the production of only this single document, that previous to the granting of the money there had been no Reports received from professional men as to the existing state of the Tunnel; that no estimate had been made out as to the expense of completing it; and that no security had been given for the future repayment. On the contrary, it appeared that on the present occasion the public money had been advanced without any of those guarantees and securities usually deemed necessary in all such cases where Parliament or the Government advanced a loan out of the public purse of the nation. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth, who on a former occasion announced himself as one of the Directors of this Company, had then stated, that he (Mr. Walter) was altogether in error if he supposed that the sum required by the Company had been advanced by the Commissioners under any individual Act of Parliament framed for that purpose. In fact, that hon. Member then asserted, that such a statement was altogether without foundation, and that the Commissioners who had advanced this money, had so advanced it under the ordinary powers vested in them. Now, if Gentlemen would only look at the document laid on the Table, they would see in passage after passage, that reference was made to the 3rd and 4th William 4th, cap. 121—which was the private Act of the Thames Tunnel Company—as the express and sole authority for the advance of this money; and had it not been for that Act, it was not too much to say, that the Commissioners would have refused the advance of this money (for it did so happen that they had already twice previously refused to advance it); it could be nothing but the force of this Act of Parliament applied to them that could induce them to alter their minds and make the advance in question. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth, on the former occasion when the subject was under discussion, stated, that he (Mr. Walter) might have obtained all the information he required by applying to him. Now, he (Mr. Walter) in bringing forward the subject, had not preferred any charge against that hon. Gentleman, or against any other individual. If, how- ever, he had applied to him, or to any one connected with the Company in the first instance, it might then be said, that he had availed himself of private information to which he should not have had recourse. He had determined, therefore, entertaining, as he did, a strong conviction of the impropriety of this grant, upon seeking the means of investigation through no other but public sources. From such sources all the information he possessed on the subject was derived; and he might now be permitted briefly to advert to the circumstances connected with the progress of this Thames Tunnel Act through the House. He trusted that in doing so he should not be considered as transgressing the bounds of that propriety and personal respect due from one Member to another; but he must say, that it did appear to him very singular to find one Director of this Company, on the 1st, of April, 1833, moving the second reading of this Bill, which authorized the advance of 270,000l. to the Company, and another Director of the same Company on the same occasion presenting a petition to Parliament praying for aid to the said Company—a petition which was rejected on the ground of being a money petition, and not having received the sanction of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had also upon the former occasion defied him to prove that there had been any irregularity in this proceeding. Now, he begged leave to say, that it was one of the Standing Orders of that House, under the head of "Applications" for public money, that the House would not proceed with any Motion, Bill, or grant for any sum of money arising from the Crown, but in a Committee of the whole House. He would ask, if that form had been complied with in the instance of this Bill? He would ask, whether the House had been apprized at the time by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, of this transaction? He was convinced that not a dozen Members knew of it at the time; and he was further convinced, that if the general body of the Members of that House had been apprised of it, they would have been sure to reject such a grant, as former Boards of Treasury had done. He had no intention to cast any imputation upon the noble individual who had formerly filled the office of Finance Minister, but he would nevertheless say, that public business roust not be con- ducted upon the ground of personal confidence, and that names, however respectable, should not be placed in the room of that investigation and inquiry which the public interests in cases of this kind imperatively demanded. It was evident from the absence of those other documents, for which he had moved, and which should always accompany a transaction of this kind, that the money had been advanced in the most naked and unguarded manner. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the former discussion, had talked of this work as one of national importance, and one which would be productive of great national utility when completed. The right hon. Gentleman, too, as well as he remembered, had spoken of the work as one of a stupendous nature. He, however, would say, upon the authority of competent judges, that it was a work of stupendous folly—a work which he did not believe any one would undertake to complete, if all that was already done were given him. Of this he was sure, that a score of floating bridges might be established on the Thames for the money which this project would ultimately cost. He had not moved for a mass of papers which he might have moved for, because their production would be expensive, and he thought that the papers already laid before the House sufficiently entitled him to have a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the transaction. It would there be seen that the Commissioners for the issue of Exchequer-bills, had departed from their usual course of proceeding under the stringent authority of this Act of Parliament—that this Act was obtained in an informal manner—that the public money so advanced would lead to no useful result, and that there was no security whatever for its repayment. As he would not be entitled to a reply, he would now meet one or two objections which might be started to his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, that he would take care, before any further sum of money was advanced, to use proper caution and inquiry. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would do so, and the effect of such investigation on his part would probably be to prevent the issue of any more money for this purpose; but that would not be sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman's care should extend further; he should endeavour to get back a portion of the public money which was already granted, and which might be justly said to be placed at present in a dangerous situation. If the Directors were men of strict integrity, seeing the inutility of the project, they would be anxious to return any portion of the public grant that had not been already consumed. As to any parallel cases, he was sure there were none similar to this. The Commissioners might, in a few cases, have advanced money on security of works, but never till their own surveyor had examined into the validity of the security. The Act of Parliament, which he might say was smuggled through the House, had been their guide, and had enforced their submission in the present instance, for no inquiry had been made. If this Committee should be refused, the country would then see whether there was any difference between the present and other Administrations, in which the broad shield of Ministerial influence was cast over the supporters of Ministers, simply for this reason, and for this reason only—because they were the supporters of Ministers. He could assert, with some knowledge of public transactions during the last thirty years, that there never was a case more entitled to investigation, or one in which the refusal of inquiry would be more reprehensible. He trusted the House would grant this Committee, the labours of which would not be burthen-some, and would not extend beyond a few days, in order to enable them to make their Report. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the introduction of a Bill, entitled 'An Act to amend the Acts relating to the Thames Tunnel Company,' passed in the 3rd and 4th of his present Majesty's reign; and to inquire further respecting the advance of 30,000l. by the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer-bills in aid of Public Works, under the provisions of the said Act, with a view to prevent the advance of public money without full and adequate security for the repayment of the same."

said, that no one could be more anxious than he was that the whole transaction referred to by the hon. Member should be investigated from the beginning to the end, and he would say, on the part of his noble Friend, over whom the hon. Gentleman seemed to suspect that the Government would throw "the broad shield of protection," but whose character needed no such defence, that nothing could possibly give more satisfaction to his noble Friend than an investigation of the whole subject. Before, however, the House should agree to the hon. Member's Motion for a Committee, let it for a moment examine the case which the hon. Member had endeavoured to make out. Now, what was this very grave case, as the hon. Member brought it forward? The hon. Gentleman said, that it was a standing rule of the House that no grant of public money should be made, except in a Committee of the whole House, and then he asked whether a great irregularity had not therefore been committed in passing this Act. Now, if the hon. Member had looked at the Act narrowly, he would have seen that it did not come under the Standing Rules of that House; indeed, there was scarcely a Private Bill that passed that House that did not take similar powers to obtain a loan of Exchequer-bills, and it was scarcely necessary to add, that such Bills were never committed to a Committee of the whole House. This very Session a Private Bill, containing a clause similar to that in the Bill in question, had passed that House, and it was only because the Treasury objected to it, that it was thrown out in another place. There were many instances in which similar powers were taken by Private Bills, and nobody, except the hon. Gentleman, would ever imagine that it was a grant of public money. He must ask, whether the hon. Member seriously supposed that a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the passing of an Act through the House of Commons. Such a thing had never been heard of before; unless, therefore, the hon. Member should make out some case, some appearance of a job, something having a primâ facie case to support it, he could not conceive how he was entitled to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the passing of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman stated that there were no official documents furnished, and he (Mr. Baring) would grant that statement was true. But the Treasury minute stated that Lord Althorp had taken upon himself the whole responsibility; his noble Friend had been extremely interested in the advancement of this great public work, which he justly regarded as one of national importance; he had inquired minutely into all the cir- cumstances connected with it, and having done so, he took upon him the responsibility to advise the grant. The same thing was frequently done in similar cases by those who filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury found that in the Bill a discretionary power was vested in them as to making the advance by the loan of Exchequer-bills. The course followed in that instance by the House was the usual course followed in such cases, namely, to leave it to the discretion of the Treasury when and in what manner the advance should be made. In the year this Act was passed, an advance was refused, as the Treasury did not feel they had sufficient funds at their disposal to meet it. In the next year, however, a million was voted for public works, and out of that sum the Treasury thought it right to make this advance; and though this was a case in which what might be deemed sufficient mercantile security could not be given to the public, though it was one in which the repayment of the money could not be made perfectly safe, yet when it was considered what an interest was attached to the progress of this great public work, when they referred to the universal interest it had created on the Continent, when it was recollected that scarcely a foreigner visited our shores who did not go to see this magnificent work, he was sure it would be admitted that the Treasury had a fair right, and were perfectly justified in advancing this money. As to the charge of carelessness advanced by the hon. Member, he must say that this power had been exercised with great care and caution by the Treasury. A minute had been drawn up by him (Mr. Baring), under the direction of Lord Althorp, affording the greatest security that could, under the circumstances, be afforded to the public against loss. That minute was now on the Table of the House, and any hon. Member, by referring to it, would see that it was a most cautious one. He was sure that a reference to it would prove that the discretionary power exercised by the Treasury in this instance, in advancing a portion of the money voted for public works for a work of this magnitude and importance, had been exercised with the greatest possible caution, and that the Government of the day was not chargeable with carelessness or neglect on that point. To be sure, the hon. Gentleman had been good enough to say that he did not impute improper motives to the noble Lord (Lord Spencer). It was a great stretch of generosity on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Baring) was much obliged to him for declaring that his noble Friend had not been guilty of a job. Again he thanked the hon. Gentleman for his kindness; but he was sure of this, that no one who knew his noble Friend would do him the injustice to take the slightest notice of the no-insinuations of the hon. Gentleman.

must beg to recall the attention of the House to the charges which the hon. Gentleman had made in the former discussion on this subject, and he would demand of him, in the face of the House and the country, to justify those charges now. He quoted from the hon. Gentleman's speech, as given in The Times newspaper:—"The money which had been advanced, and which he had no doubt was lost, was not of so much consequence as the deviation from the established law of Parliament. He believed it to be the rule of the House that money should not be granted without the leave of the House; and this Bill, authorizing the payment of 270,000l., had been got through totally without the knowledge of the House, under the disguise of a private Bill." The hon. Gentleman had not said one word on that subject to-day. To be sure, he had talked of smuggling an Act through the House; but he did not state it as a fact. It would be rather curious indeed to find him state any grounds for such an imputation, for such it would be upon the House. He (Mr. Hawes) was as ready to have any part of his conduct canvassed as the hon. Member for Berkshire could be. But how did the facts really stand with regard to the passing of this Bill? The Thames Tunnel Bill was read a first time on the 1st of April, 1833, it was read a second time on the 4th of May, it was committed on the 17th of May, it was reported on the 9th of July, and it was read a third time on the 8th of August. Surely that was a considerable time for a Bill to take passing through the House. But the hon. Gentleman seemed surprised that on the day it was read a second time, a petition should have been presented in its favour. Why, there was nothing more common; indeed, that was the most appropriate time for the presentation of such a petition. It was, he believed, presented by his gallant Friend the Member for Devonport, and it came from the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of the tunnel, who felt anxious for its completion. The petition was withdrawn on a point of form. But as to the Bill, was it a Bill authorising the advance of 270,000l.? He (Mr. Hawes) would deny that it was any such thing. It was merely a Bill giving the Lords of the Treasury power, if they thought fit, out of the money that had been voted for public works, to give an advance in aid of this work. How stood the fact? At the period that the Bill passed, the Commissioners had not 30,000l. in their hands; but in the next year a million was voted for public works, and the advance was then made. Let not the hon. Gentleman imagine that this was done without precedent; an Act of Parliament was passed on the 7th of June, 1824, to amend former Acts respecting the issuing of Exchequer-bills for public works, and it authorised the Lords of the Treasury, if they thought fit, to advance sums of money for that purpose on security. That was the precedent for this Bill: it was the 5th of George 4, c. 71. Now, here at once was a precedent for this Bill. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: There were ten or twelve such Acts.] He would then ask the hon. Member to make good his assertion, that this Bill had been smuggled through the House. He would ask him to state any one single act that justified such a charge. The hon. Gentleman was extremely cautious in attacking individuals, and yet very ready to deal in general imputations. When the hon. Member had said that the Bill was smuggled through the House, he had called on the hon. Member to say who it was that had so smuggled it. He challenged him, in the face of the House and the country, to make good a single charge he had brought forward. Now as to the character of the work for which the money was advanced. The work, the hon. Gentleman was pleased to say, might be considered by some a national work, but he was disposed to look upon it as one of "stupendous folly." Now, he (Mr. Hawes) held in his hand an extract from a journal, which he could not say was at present any authority with that House or with the hon. Member for Berkshire, but which was a journal of large circulation, and which, therefore, when it directed attention towards a work as one of a national character and importance, must be taken as some evidence of the public opinion on the point. He repeated, he did not know whether the journal in question was any authority with the hon. Member, or with the House; it was certainly none with him (Mr. Hawes). The journal to which he was referring was The Times, and he would just call the attention of the House to a leading article in the The Times of July 4, 1828. It was in the following terms:—"A meeting, at which the Duke of Wellington is to be present, takes place to-morrow, in support of the Thames Tunnel enterprise. After stating this fact, and soliciting the attention of the public to it, it would be unjustifiable, and even absurd in us to represent the enterprise as one which, under the most favourable circumstances, is likely to yield a beneficial return of interest for the capital employed, at least for a very long time to come. But at the same time it must be considered as a noble undertaking; and so much the more noble will it prove, should it be concluded, as it is found to be environed and impeded by unforeseen difficulties and accidents. Whoever contemplates the project in this light, will feel it to be his duty to lend it support, and to press its progress from higher motives than those of personal interest—from a desire to do honour to his country and the age in which he lives. We cannot deceive any one, if we would, as to the pecuniary prospects of the undertaking; but we would not withhold the incitement of a more generous principle of action." Now, here surely was strong evidence to prove the fact that the public mind was generally possessed with a favourable feeling as to the national character of the work, and the importance of completing it. He had said enough about the Bill. This article, it would be observed, appeared when the Duke of Wellington was in office; an application was at the time made by the Company to the Government for a loan, and a long investigation took place before the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) as to the security. Lord Althorp was called in both by the proprietors and by the Duke of Wellington to state the result of his inquiries. His Lordship made a report, in which he stated that the lowest income that might be expected from the tunnel would be 15,000l. a-year. He would now read the answer of Mr. Goulburn. The hon. Gentleman read the answer, which was to the effect that the report had been considered by himself and the Duke of Wellington, that they had no reasonable doubt of the security, but that, owing to the heaviness of existing engagements, it was not intended to place in the hands of the Commissioners any further sums of money that year for advances in aid of public works. Now, here was the approval of the security on the part of Mr. Goulburn. He would now read a letter on the subject from the Duke of Wellington, prefacing it with the remark, that the noble Duke had always taken a generous and lively interest in the success of the project. Indeed, it was one in which men of all parties took the greatest interest; for the deputation which went up to the Duke of Wellington on this occasion was headed by Lord Morpeth and Sir Robert Inglis. The hon. Gentleman here read the Duke of Wellington's letter, which was dated in 1829, and was to the effect, that he thought it better that the question should not be brought before Parliament that Session in the way of direct aid from the Treasury, but that he hoped the subject might be brought forward next Session, and he trusted their Lordships of the Treasury would approve of that course. Here, surely, was an approval on the part of the Duke of Wellington of the principle of advancing public money in aid of this work. As to the Treasury minute, he (Mr. Hawes) would, as a director, say, that it was extremely strict and severe. The hon. Gentleman had said the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had refused to grant the money. It was convenient for him to make this statement; but it was not the correct one. The answer of the Commissioners was, that as the work was of a nature that did not admit of any contract for its completion, or the giving the Board such security as they must require, they did not intend to advance any money without special legislation on the subject. It was obvious at once that it would be impossible to execute the work by contract, as the contracting parties could not give security for the preservation of the work already done. With regard to the sum already advanced by the Exchequer, namely 30,000l., he held in his hand a detailed statement up to June, 1835, of the expenditure of that money. He did not feel it necessary to defend himself on this occasion, as the hon. Member had not thought proper to attack him by name at all. He would, however, say, in the face of the House and of the country, that the hon. Gentleman had made charges which he could not justify as he ought, and that he (Mr. Hawes) was therefore entitled to say, that he had brought forward a case totally unfounded, and entirely unworthy of the notice of Parliament.

said, he should like to know if it were the intention of Ministers to oppose the appointment of this Committee. For his part, he thought that it was a subject well deserving the attention of Parliament, especially when so large a sum of money was to be advanced under the authority of an Act of Parliament. He greatly doubted the expediency of advancing 246,000l. out of the public funds for carrying on a work of this nature. Certainly, where such a sum was advanced, there should be strong evidence as to the goodness of the security and the importance of the work in a national point of view. Now, he did not think that the hon. member for Lambeth had at all negatived the assertion of the hon. member for Berkshire, that this Act of Parliament was one authorizing the Treasury to advance money, nor had he proved that when the Act passed the Members of the House, generally speaking, were at all aware that gave so sweeping a power. He would not say that the Act had been smuggled, but they all knew how private Acts were passed, and he must say, that so large a sum as this should not have been voted without discussion. The hon. Member (the Secretary for the Treasury) stated, that this Bill contained only a clause similar to clauses contained in other private Bills that had been often previously passed. Now, as that hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that the Treasury had prevented a Bill with a similar clause from passing the Lords, the Treasury should, if it knew of the Clause in this Bill at the time of its passing, have stopped its progress. The hon. Member for Lambeth challenged inquiry as to the passing this Act, while the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury opposed any such inquiry. Now he, (Lord G. Somerset) cared little about the Act of Parliament, but he did care about the advance of so large a sum of money for this particular purpose without any chance of its being repaid. He did not think that it ever would be repaid. It was neither more nor less, therefore, than a grant of the public money completely and entirely given away. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the authority of the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Goulburn in 1829; but did they propose any Act for that purpose in 1830? As far as he recollected, the Duke of Wellington then took this course—he did not propose a grant of public money for the work, but he contributed a sum out of his private fortune towards it, on the principle that it was a national work, the funds for the completion of which should be supplied by private subscription. He (Lord G. Somerset) did not know on what grounds it was calculated that this 246,000l. would complete the work. The subject appeared to him one that suggested a fair inquiry. He was not for giving 246,000l. of the public money away for the completion of a work, the final completion of which was doubtful, and the national utility of which was equally problematical. It was not a work that connected a great tract of country. It certainly would connect two very populous portions of this great city, but that would not entitle it to be dignified with the character of a national work. If inquiry were refused now, at all events it should be granted next Session. He thought that no time should be lost in inquiring into such a transaction.

had not addressed the House before, because he was quite willing to let the case stand upon the speeches of his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury, and his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, who had stated the whole of the case, and had completely met the assertions of the hon. Member for Berkshire. On a former occasion he had objected to this inquiry on the ground that such an inquiry had never been asked before; but this he would say, that if the hon. Gentleman would bring any kind of charge against the department with which he was connected, so far from resisting such an inquiry, on a future occasion, he should be most anxious that the whole of the proceedings, quoad the Treasury, should be investigated. But as to the present motion, who had ever heard of ah inquiry into the circumstances connected with the passing of a former Act of Parliament? Even if he were disposed to grant such an inquiry, it could not be granted except in an extreme case, and when they had all the facts before them, Indeed, the House would have no right to institute such an inquiry, unless it was shown that the Bill in question had been improperly passed. No Gentleman could support such a motion, unless he believed there had been something wrong—something like smuggling of the Bill through the House. Now, there had not been the shadow of a case of that kind made out in the present instance. The hon. Gentleman indeed asserted that the forms of Parliament had been departed from. He did not then fill the office he now occupied, and therefore he did not need that gracious vindication of his character, which the hon. Gentleman had with such zeal and generosity extended to his noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman asserted that this Act should have been committed to a Committee of the whole House. Now, no money was actually voted by this Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman's doctrine was correct, not a single private Bill containing any clauses concerning a loan from the Exchequer Commissioners could be passed without going through a Committee of the whole House. But, great as was the knowledge which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think he possessed, he passed a most undeserved imputation upon the former House of Commons, and upon the former Speaker, when he made such a charge; the fact, however was, that the hon. Gentleman was not able to produce a single case to show that there had been, in this instance, a departure from the rules and orders of that House. In answer to his noble Friend who had spoken last, he would just quote a precedent under a former and of course a good Government, as his noble Friend was a member of it. He could quote twenty such precedents, but one was sufficient. He referred to the 10th of George 4th.—an Act which was passed for explaining and amending former Acts for the formation of the Ulster Canal. This Act was passed on the 1st of June, 1829, and it contained a Clause, empowering the Ulster Canal Company to take a loan of 120,000l. from the Commissioners of Exchequer-bills. Now, here was an Act precisely similar to the present, and he imputed not the slightest blame to the Government of the day when it was passed. There was no doubt that this was a most interesting national work. The Duke of Wellington had stated that it was such, and had expressed a hope at the time that the Government of which he was the head, might be enabled to bring it forward for consideration in the next Session. It was true that he had not done so, but his feelings with regard to the work, might be gathered from an Act passed during his Administration, the 9th of George 4th., chap. 63. It was an Act enabling the Tunnel Company to borrow sums of money for the completion of the work, and in the 22nd Clause the power was given to them of applying for a loan to the Commissioners of Exchequer-bills, and it gave the power, as it expressly stated, without reference to personal security. The Treasury had determined to advance the money, because they felt that this was a great national undertaking, which it would be a national disgrace to leave unfinished, and to a certain extent a reflection upon the country at large, that the individuals who had spent all their money in carrying this project to its present extent should be left to lose every thing without any effort being made on the part of the public to finish the work. Again, he would assert that there had been nothing unusual in the course taken—that it was warranted by precedents of various kinds of adverse Governments, and that the Treasury was fully and entirely justified in what it had done. He was ready to admit, however, that they were bound to proceed with the greatest caution—that they were bound to see every 6d. advanced properly expended, and to examine the results as they went along, in order that if a reasonable doubt should arise that the sum in question would be sufficient to complete the undertaking, they should, in discharge of their duty to the public, stop any further advances for that purpose. He could assure the hon. Member, that not an additional 6d. would be issued without a full examination of the expenditure. He pledged himself to that course during the recess, and then when the House met in February it would be for the House to determine whether he had advanced any money without sufficient grounds. If the hon. Gentleman should think so, then let him move for a Committee of Inquiry, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be ready to second his Motion. One of the propositions of the hon. Gentleman was, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should endeavour to get back the portion of the money already advanced—advanced, it should be recollected, upon the faith of an act of Parliament. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not commit such a breach of faith, even though it might earn from the hon. Gentleman that same generous consideration for his character which the hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to bestow on that of his noble Friend (Earl Spencer.) The noble Lord opposite said, that no further money should be advanced without due inquiry. He again pledged himself to that course. Then let the hon. Gentleman move for a Committee of Inquiry into his conduct next Session, and, he repeated, he would himself second the Motion. He had stated his objections to this Motion. It afforded, indeed, a singular instance of the happy effects of the investigations of some hon. Gentlemen who concerned themselves in Parliamentary proceedings, and the results of whose most important and most distinguished labours generally declared themselves in the discovery of some extraordinary mare's nest. The hon. Member for Berkshire was most renowned in that species of discovery. He had found out certainly, in the present instance, a very extraordinary mare's nest, and he wished the hon. Member joy of his discovery.

said, that he had seconded the Motion upon the principle of economy, and because he thought the public should be fully satisfied on such a subject. After, however, the Motion had been met so handsomely and so fairly by the Members of the Government, he would not say another word, unless to express his wish for the success of the undertaking for which the money was to be advanced.

said, the work was one of national importance. It was so viewed by the Duke of Wellington, who had stated, that if finished, it would be of great military utility. He maintained, that the money was only lent, and that it was lent upon good security. As a Director, he would say, that no persons were more anxious for the fullest investigation and inquiry, than the Directors and proprietors of this Company. Let the hon. Member move for such inquiry, and he (Sir Edward Codrington) would second the Motion. With regard to the petition which he presented on the day the Bill was read a second time, he begged to say, that that was the most proper moment for presenting a petition.

said, that after the assur- ance which had been given, that no more money should be advanced without the most rigid inquiry, he would withdraw the Motion.

would avail himself of the opportunity to express his regret that the Government had extended no relief to the agriculturists. Their claims had been preferred and supported by unanswerable arguments. All other classes were relieved but the unfortunate agriculturists.

would not be drawn into irregular discussion; but, as it was the fashion, in and out of doors, with particular parties to attribute unfeelingness to the Government regarding agriculture, he must complain that the hon. Member, after all that had passed, lent himself to such opinions. On the hustings many Members had made vehement protestations on this subject—he did not say that the hon. Member had done so; and yet a good many of those vehement advocates of the repeal of the Malt Tax, when the question was brought on, had voted against that repeal. After that he thought it was rather hard thus to attack the Government. He maintained that there could not be relief to manufactures without benefiting agriculture. It was probable that the moment this Bill passed there would be many persons taken off the roads who were now engaged in breaking stones. In one case forty labourers would be thus released. Would not taking them off the rates be of any benefit to agriculture? If the hon. Member desired to see the reasons for opposing the repeal of the Malt Tax fully stated, he would refer him to the speech of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) on that occasion.

expressed regret that, as it was sought to afford relief to this particular branch of manufacture, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not reduced the duty altogether; for by that course there would have been no necessity to keep up the machinery for collecting a small rate of duty.

said, he had not yet heard any substantial reason assigned for transferring the duty of registration from the assistant-barristers to revising-barristers appointed by Government. The only one offered was, that it was advisable to separate the political from the judicial functions. That proposition might be most true in the abstract, but he denied that the registration of voters was a political duty. The only point to be ascertained was, whether or not the applicant was in possession of such a qualification as the legislature intended should entitle him to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. For that purpose, all the inquiry necessary was into the nature, extent, and circumstances of his farm, and the rent; but in order to stamp upon this duty the name of "political," it would be necessary that the barrister should be acquainted with the political sentiments not only of the claimant, but also of the candidates for the county or borough to which they belong. In no other point of view could this be thought a political duty; and he would assert, with the utmost confidence, that no such considerations influenced the assistant-barristers. It might be said that the system proposed was similar to the English. It might be; but in England, there were no officers analogous to the assistant-barrister—no machinery existed—and one had, of necessity, to be created. In Scotland, the duty of registration was left in the hands of the Sheriffs of counties—no new set of officers was created. Why, then, in Ireland make an unnecessary change? There of all places, it was most unadvisable to make the change proposed, because the right to vote was much more difficult to ascertain. The qualification was so undefined, and capable of such different construction, that the barristers appointed annually,—(without any departure from their duty,)—might be guided either to restrict or relax the franchise, in accordance with the political complexion of the Government of the day. The decisions of the assistant-barristers were likely to be in accordance with the intention of the Legislature. Experience had proved it in almost every appeal, either to a Jury, or a Committee of that House. Their decisions had been confirmed; whilst all the decisions, with scarcely an exception, which had been reversed, were those of the revising-barristers, appointed under the Reform Act. Look at the scrutiny on the Carlow Election. Almost all of the votes which were declared to be fraudulent and bad were those of men having farms, varying from three to ten acres, paying 20s. to 25s. per acre, and admitted to the register, not by the Chairman of the country, but by the revising-barrister appointed by Government, under the Reform Act. Other cases might be cited to support this view of the subject; but it was unnecessary, the fact was equally important and indisputable. It was desirable that every man fairly entitled to the franchise, according to the intention of the Legislature, should obtain it without difficulty; but it was equally desirable to exclude a class of fictitious voters, little better than those under the old system. For this purpose, it would be better not to take the duty from the assistant-barristers; and, therefore, he should move, as an Amendment, that the 6th Clause be omitted from the Bill.

could assure the hon. Baronet, that there existed no intention to throw any imputation upon the assistant-barristers. It was the wish of the great majority of the assistant-barristers that they should be relieved from the onerous duties imposed upon them since the passing of the Reform Bill.

did not doubt that such was the desire of the assistant-barristers, and it was a very natural one, as well as a strong proof of the absurdity of the charge against them—that they desired to promote particular political interests by their manner of registering. The question was, what course would be most advantageous for the public? Clearly, to retain as revising-barristers, that most estimable body of men, the assistant-barristers, whose station and character placed them above real suspicion; though, from what occurred daily in that House, it was plain that no station or character could save any public functionary in Ireland from the most base and slanderous imputations.

supported the Clause, because the assistant-barristers had quite sufficient duties to perform independently of that from which this Bill would relieve them; and no objection could reasonably be made to the appointment being vested in the Lord-Lieutenant. The Judges had not the appointment of the assistant-barristers and when an appeal was given by the Bill to the Judges, no person could maintain that any slur was intended to be cast on those learned personages.

said: The noble Lord must admit, that to give the appointment of the revising-barristers to the Government, was going out of the course adopted in England, and was not carrying out the principle laid down in the preamble of the Bill. In England the Judges appointed the barristers; but it was proposed that in Ireland they should not do so. Why was this to be? Was it because certain persons rose up in that House and attacked the Judges of the land, and most unjustly charged those learned personages with being political partisans? Was it because the Government was obliged to succumb to those hon. Members? Was it for these reasons, he would ask, that the attacks were permitted which, without the apparent sanction of the Government, would have been only worthless and contemptible? The country could not look with confidence to these appointments, unless they rested with the Judges. He therefore objected to the Clause, as being calculated only to please a certain party in that House, and to cast reflections upon the assistant-barristers. He agreed with his hon. Friend, the Member for Donegal, that it would be better to have the Clause omitted. The Clause appeared to him to be a perfect job; placing at the disposal of Government eleven places of 300l. a-year each. He called on the House to look at the registries in Ireland which had been conducted by the revising-barristers, and those which had been conducted by the assistant-barristers. If hon. Members compared the two, they would find that the former were full of objections, while to the latter there were no objections. The Committees of that House had, in every instance, by their decisions, stamped the registry conducted by the registering-barristers as bad. Those Committees which, notwithstanding the unmeasured attacks that had been made upon them in that House—notwithstanding that they had been taxed with perjury,—those Committees, who had looked at the question dispassionately, had, no matter what were the politics of their Members, pronounced it as their solemn opinion, that the registry in Ireland was deluged with fictitious voters, and it was this class of voters which the 9th Clause of this Bill was intended to preserve. The assistant-barristers in Ireland were men of the highest character, and above suspicion: they were, generally speaking, men of standing in the profession, and properly qualified to control the registry. For these reasons he should support the Amendment; and if it were lost, then he should move an Amendment in accordance with the preamble of the Bill, to the effect that the appointment of revising-barristers shall be given to the Judges.

insisted that assistant-barristers in Ireland were influenced by political partialities. Their conduct, indeed, in registering voters was unjust in the extreme, The Act of Parliament made it imperative upon the barrister to call over the list of persons claiming to register, three times. The obvious meaning of that was, that the claimants should have an opportunity of answering to their names. But he knew an instance where an assistant-barrister called the list over three times before eleven o'clock on the first day of the registry, and those who happened not to be present were disfranchised. He should feel it his duty to vote against the Amendment.

said: The hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed the Committee, had brought an unfounded charge of partiality against the assistant-barristers, as well as a most unjust accusation against an individual. The mode prescribed by the Reform Act, with respect to calling over the lists, was the mode adopted in the case the hon. Member had adverted to. The Reform Bill made it imperative on the barrister to go through the registry before he entered upon any other business; and the charge, therefore, of the hon. and learned Member for Clonmel resolved itself into this, that the barrister did not drive a coach-and-six through an Act of Parliament. Nothing could be more impolitic than to register voters whenever they chose to appear; for they would come forward when those who had objections to urge against their claims were absent. He should vote for the Amendment, because he saw no reason why a new machinery should be created when competent machinery already existed. The Solicitor-General for Ireland seemed to suppose that the assistant-barristers had not time to do the duty. They were the paid servants of the public, and were bound to devote their time to the public. If an assistant-barrister could not spare time, let him resign his office, and another would be easily got to do his duty. If revising-barristers were to be appointed, the noble Lord (Morpeth) must, of course, make the appointments on the suggestion of some person, and it required not the spirit of divination to point out who that person would be. It was clear that the revising-barristers would, in fact, be the friends and partisans of the administration which appointed them.

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had said more in favour of the Clause, as it now stood, than against it. It was surely better that each man should have his own particular business assigned him, than that he should be required to be a Jack-of-all-trades, which would be the effect of the Amendment.

said it was impossible that the assistant-barristers should perform the duties prescribed by the Bill, and therefore it was necessary that revising-barristers should be appointed. He could corroborate the statement made by the hon. Member for Clonmel, as to the mode adopted by the assistant-barristers in calling over the lists. In his own country he had known freeholders who had to proceed fifteen miles to the place where the registry was conducted, and on their arrival they found the list had been called over, and they were therefore obliged to return fifteen miles more without being registered. It was plain that the assistant-barristers could not perform the duty of registry consistently with the due performance of their other duties; and, therefore, the question the House had to decide was, whether they would vest the appointment of the revising-barristers in the Judges or the Government. In his opinion it would be preferable to vest the appointment in the Crown.

said, the Clause was a most useful one, and the Bill could not go on without it. If the nomination of the barristers were given to the Judges, and the appeal from the decisions of the barristers likewise to the Judges, the Judge would be placed in this ludicrous position,—first, the Judge was to appoint the barrister on the score of his abilities; and then the Judge was to decide against him, because he was a blockhead. It was denied by Members on the other side of the House, that the Judges were political partisans; but was there, he would ask, no such thing as favouritism in the Irish Courts? He recollected three Chief Barons in Ireland. He knew the son of one of them. Out of seventy-four cases that were to be tried, this son held seventy briefs. Well, that Chief Baron died; and the next term his son did not hold a single brief. And the House, after the statement of this fact, was to be told that there was no favouritism in the Irish Courts. The Chief Baron to whom he had alluded was succeeded by another, and his son was in full business, so long as his father remained on the Bench. But his father left the Bench, and the year following his son dwindled into a private country gentleman, all his business having left him the moment his father retired. Did not the Irish Judges, he would ask, allow their sons-in-law to become politicians, and had not this an injurious effect upon the suitors in their Courts? He would instance a case. At the last election for Dublin, an attorney came to him and said that he was most anxious to vote for him, but he feared if he did so, it would injure his client, who had a cause to be heard by the Judge whose son-in-law was a candidate. The Irish Judges, too, were politicians. In England he never heard of an instance of the Judges going down to vote at contested elections, but in Ireland they went most ostentatiously. With respect to assistant-barristers being men of great business, the fact was not so. The appointment was usually looked to as a sort of termination to their labours, and he hoped that before long they would be prevented from practising at all. The country attorneys soon found out that no name looked so well at the foot of a declaration as that of the assistant-barrister of the county. He objected to the assistant-barristers being removable at pleasure. They ought to hold their offices during good behaviour, and ought not to be confined to one particular county. He would prefer to have them ambulatory; for whenever they remained long in one county, they became tied up with the gentry, and were looked upon with suspicion by the people. He had presented a petition against one of those assistant-barristers a few days since, detailing some circumstances which, upon investigation, might not, perhaps, prove the barrister to have acted wrongly; but all he now contended for was, that the assistant-barristers did not give satisfaction. He would recommend that the barristers should not go the same Circuit twice in succession.

rose to defend the conduct of the assistant-barristers in Ireland. It was his conviction, notwithstanding the attack made upon them by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that they had always given their decisions in the most impartial manner. Never having heard any specific charge brought forward against any of the assistant-barristers, with the exception of the one which had just been made, and which he hoped had been proved to be totally and completely futile; and believing that they had most conscientiously, impartially, and efficiently discharged their duties as revising-barristers,—and thinking that the revision of the registry could not by any possibility be placed in better hands than theirs,—he would give his cordial support to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend.

Felt real pain at the necessity cast upon him in consequence of the gratuitous and undistinguishing slander of all those in authority in Ireland, poured forth, as usual, by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. O'Connell), to interrupt the detail of business,—which he had hoped the House would have been allowed to attend to in Committee, by making some reply to the charge. How plainly did such conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman prove, that to remove from the assistant-barristers the duty of the revision of voters, which he (Mr. Shaw) was anxious to retain in their hands, would fail altogether to prevent the imputations which were so unsparingly, and without the slightest regard to facts, heaped upon the highest and most distinguished of the superior Judges—men who, in truth, were above all suspicion in their character and conduct; but not a whit the securer on that account from the virulent attacks of the hon. and learned Member. To be sure, Judges in Ireland, as well as elsewhere, must have sons and sons-in-law; and, were they to be debarred from being candidates for Parliament, or shut out from any other just object of ambition; or, to have such gross and disgusting charges made against any Judge connected with them? The Judge alluded to by the hon. Member, in his insinuation as to the Dublin election, was one of the most incorruptible men that ever adorned a public station. He was glad the hon. Member had not named the attorney who, he said, suspected—forsooth!—that that Judge would be influenced in his judicial decision by the fact of his son-in-law being a candidate for a seat in this House, because he (Mr. Shaw) not knowing who that attorney was, could now say, without the possibility of intending personal offence, that he must have a low and vulgar mind and be a disgrace to his profession. Assistant-barristers were not virtually, though in strictness they might be, removeable at pleasure; and the unprincipled attacks to which all men in judicial office in Ireland were subject rendered it the more necessary that they should possess character and station sufficient to repel such attacks in the minds of all reasonable and well-thinking men. He greatly objected to the power of registration being vested in the mere occasional appointees of the government. The public generally—let the hon. and learned member (Mr. O'Connell) reproach them as he pleased—knew how to appreciate the assistant-barristers of Ireland. He for one hoped they would not be made ambulatory for he was sure their character did not require it, on the ground suggested by the hon. Gentleman and he thought it would impair their usefulness, and prevent the possibility of their courts being as well regulated as they now were. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked if he was more a political partizan in denouncing the Judges than Gentlemen on the other side of the House were in defending them? He said the cases bore no parallel; but he would suppose that the present Attorney-General for Ireland, or the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the Solicitor-General, were, as it was very likely they soon would be, raised to the bench. They were undoubtedly much greater political partizans, in the fair sense of the term, than any Judge now on the Irish bench ever had been. Yet he should blush to think there was any Member on his side of the House who could so far forget all that was due to truth or decency as to speak of those hon. Members as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had spoken of the present Irish Judges. Such conduct was degrading to them all as Irishmen and it must tend to bring disrespect upon all the constituted authorities in Ireland.

feared that if he acceded to the proposition of making the appointment of the revising-barristers permanent, he would render himself liable to the charge of monopolising patronage. As the Clause stood, it left it in the power of succeeding administrations to appoint the revising barristers if it should deem fit.

contended that the crown ought to have the appointment, and quoted from a speech made by Sir R. Peel in 1829, to show that the right hon. Baronet had at that period contended for the same principle.

wished to know the reason of five years being introduced, as the necessary standing of a barrister to be appointed under this act; in England no time was required—a revising barrister might be appointed the day after he was called to the bar; and in Ireland, whenever it had been deemed expedient, to demand a qualification of a certain number of years standing, six had been the number always required; it had been so for the barristers appointed to register under the Reform Bill—it was so for the assistant-barristers, and indeed all other legal appointments.

said his objections to this Clause were rather increased than diminished, since he last addressed the House upon the subject. It was his intention to move such Amendments in the Clause, as would cure the defects in the present fictitious registries of Ireland. He thought all the registries should be reopened before the registering-barristers.

objected to opening the registry generally in Ireland. This would put all the voters in Ireland to very unnecessary trouble and expense, which ought to be avoided, if possible. There might be, and he had no doubt there were persons improperly placed on the registry; but then, it must be remembered, that there were as many for one party as another—and, in his opinion, neither party would gain by a general revision. Balancing the inconveniences that would arise on both sides, he was of opinion that it would be better to leave the matter as it was.

said, that having expressed an opinion yesterday that it was better to open the registries generally, and having changed his opinion since, he thought it but fair to state his reasons for the change. He was now of opinion, that all voters on the registry had a vested legal right to continue there. They had a vested right for eight years. Under these circumstances, and out of respect for the vested rights of the voters, which ought not to be lightly taken away, he should vote for the Clause as it stood.

had been greatly surprised the night before at the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) agreeing in the objection—the very first objection made to this Clause—that its effect would be to render valid all the fraudulent voters which had been improperly admitted on the registry in Ireland—and he did not wonder that the hon. Gentleman had since changed his mind. The impression in Ireland was, that this was the real motive of those who urged the present Bill, and he (Mr. Shaw) should suspect it, if they refused to make the obviously fair Amendment in this Clause which he meant to propose, It was not to open all the registries, but merely to apply the very principle of the Bill itself, as admitted by its supporters. That principle was, to give an appeal from the revising barristers to the judge, both in the case of improper admission and rejection, and to let that be final. He did not object to that principle, but he required that it should be applied as well to votes that had been as those that might be hereafter improperly admitted, and he asked, in common justice, that there should be a power in the case of all votes which had been already improperly admitted, to appeal to the Judge before they were permanently fixed on the registry. The right hon. Member moved an Amendment to the effect of his speech.

If it were considered inexpedient to open the registry generally, he saw no reason why he should comply with the modified proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. By the Bill the House shut out an appeal to the House of Commons.

said, that it appeared to him that the noble Lord was not taking a common sense view of the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw). It was agreed on all hands that a number of persons had been improperly placed on the registry, and the question was, were they to be permitted to remain? The Solicitor-General for Ireland bad stated a debit and credit account, and had come to the conclusion that both parties were alike in that respect; but he imagined that the learned Member for Dublin took a different view of the subject; and although he founded his change of opinion upon his respect for vested rights, he thought it might be attributed to the fact of the hon. and learned Member having ascertained that a much greater number of his supporters had been improperly registered than of his opponents. He called upon the House to adopt the proposition of his right hon. Friend, and to follow out the avowed principle of the Bill, and purge the registry from the fictitious votes that had been improperly placed upon it.

said, he did not often agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw), but he thought the suggestion made by him was founded in justice, and ought to be acceded to. He thought it unfair to shut out an appeal to the House of Commons against those who had been improperly registered for the last three years, without giving an appeal somewhere. He could state, of his own knowledge, having been Chairman of the county Galway Election Committee, that voters to a great extent had been fraudulently made—and he instanced some cases in his own county of a similar nature.

was not a little surprised at the change of opinion in the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; still more so, at that of the hon. Member for Dublin, who had yesterday so forcibly spoken against that Clause, and whose great experience in matters of this sort would, he thought, have prevented his adopting an opinion to be in a few hours so hastily abandoned. The only argument made use of was, that this power of appeal might be vexatiously used; but if Gentlemen would turn to the 13th section, they would see that was provided against by the power vested in the barrister—of giving costs to the amount of forty shillings. Really, from what had fallen from the right hon. the Solicitor-General (for Ireland) the evening before, when Members on both sides of the House were unanimous in calling for an alteration of this Clause, he supposed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had risen for the purpose of moving the omission of the words which had been so universally condemned; for his own part, he had no hesitation in stating his opinion remained unaltered, that the objection to voters ought not, as was proposed, be confined to matters which had occurred since this registry, but ought to be open, that the question of value, if objected to, should be examined into and finally decided on—that that decision should be conclusive—that a petition should not be allowed against the qualification of some votes, while the registry was conclusive as to the qualification of the rest—in fine, that the expense and uncertainty of Committees of that House should be got rid of for ever. The effect of the Clause as it now stood, was to do away with the power of questioning the value, at the expiration of five years, from the registration of the present voters, which at present existed, as they might be opposed in value on their claiming to register, and to perpetuate, at least for their lives, such persons now on the poll who had been improperly registered. This, he considered, was not desirable for either party, no matter what their politics might be, nor was it consistent with the principles of justice; and he trusted that the Government would not any longer oppose the Amendment.

agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) as to the necessity of revising the registry. He knew it as a fact that persons who had been watched at one Sessions, for the purpose of having their claims objected to—had gone to another Sessions forty miles off, and got registered. In his opinion, the effect of the present Clause would be not merely to perpetuate those fictitious voters for five years, but for the lives of the parties. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Callaghan) if it were not the fact that a number of persons in Cork had been registered as ten-pound voters whose houses had only been valued at five pounds. He did not wish by any means to harass the voters, but he thought justice demanded that the registries should be purified.

hoped that the noble Lord (Morpeth) would not give way on the present Question, as he was convinced that if a revision of the registry were granted, there would be no termination to it. A bar of lawyers would be employed to object to every voter, and, on the whole, the investigation would be one of the most vexatious nature. The registry for Cork, under the Reform Bill, lasted for thirty days. Barristers and attorneys, amounting to twenty persons, were employed by the Conservatives, and paid out of the Conservative fund, to throw every impediment in the way of those who came to register on the liberal side. The same staff was still kept up, and would be similarly employed if the proposed alteration in the Clause were agreed to. As the hon. Member for Mallow had appealed to him, he must say that he did not believe any such cases existed as those referred to. He (Mr. Callaghan) knew it was the fashion to say that there were a great many bad voters in the registries. He (Mr. Callaghan) was not one of those who pretended to say that there were not some, but he had no doubt they were very few. A list of 11,000 bad votes was given in before the Committee who tried the merits of the Cork Election Petition, and out of this list the then sitting Members were only able to bring forward five cases, and only established two. He, therefore, thought he was entitled to belief, when he stated that the number of bad votes placed in the registry in Cork were very few indeed. He was perfectly satisfied that if the Amendment were carried, the registries in Cork would not be concluded for six months. He considered the double appeal, as it was proposed to give, would be fraught with the greatest possible inconvenience, unless proper care were taken to guard against frivolous objections being raised by parties not personally interested. Lord Spencer, in introducing the Reform Bill, said, that no individual was sufficiently interested in another person's being registered, as not to warrant him in preferring an objection. The case was different, however, where an individual was refused his franchise, and where that person considered himself aggrieved by such refusal, an appeal was granted. If an appeal should now be granted both ways, a pauper freeman would easily be found to object, and the parties would then have to go before a judge; and, therefore, he thought security ought to be required for the costs, in the event of the objection turning out to be frivolous. On the whole, he thought the tendency of the Amendment would be, unnecessarily to harass the voter; and sure he was, that it would cause the cry for universal suffrage to be greater than ever.

possessed some information with respect to Cork, and would beg to ask the hon. Member whether there was not a Local Act which exempted from taxation all houses rated at and under five pounds. Now, he believed that there were a number of persons upon the registry who had petitioned the Grand Jury to exempt them from taxation, notwithstanding that they had registered as ten-pound householders. These facts he was ready to prove at the Bar.

said, it was quite true that all houses rated, under the private Act alluded to at 5l., were exempted from local taxation; but then the mode in which the valuation was made ought to be generally known. It was no usual thing to rate a house that was really worth 100l. a-year at 50l. The two things were, therefore, quite compatible—namely, that a man might not be rated to pay taxes, and yet have a house worth 12l. or 15l. a-year. It might be true, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Bandon, that persons who had registered as ten-pound householders had memorialized the Grand Jury to remit the taxes. A desire to get off taxes could not be a just foundation for stating that the person did not possess a sufficient qualification to entitle him to be registered. He must be permitted to bear testimony to the fairness with which the barristers conducted the Cork registry. They did not grant the franchise to any man merely on his own swearing. They examined his neighbours, and did not register him until a minute investigation had taken place. The Corporation employed persons, and paid them to swear that the voters did not possess a proper qualification; but the barristers very properly refused to take the swearing of men as evidence who had been paid for the purpose.

appeared at the Bar, and stated that he was directed to report to the House from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the nature and constitution of Orange Lodges in Great Britain, that Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman, Deputy Grand Treasurer and Deputy Grand Secretary of the Orange Institution of Great Britain, had that morning appeared before the Committee, and had been informed of the Resolution of the House, that he was bound to produce the book alluded to in his evidence; and he was asked whether he had brought the book with him; he said that he had not, and persisted in refusing to produce it.

observed, that there was but one course to pursue, after the course so pertinaciouly persisted in by Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman—namely, that he should he committed to Newgate for a breach of privilege of the House. He concluded with moving "That Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House."

wished to observe, that two or three friends, with himself, as a deputation from an Orange Institution, had that morning waited upon Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman, to request him to comply with the wish of the House. That gentleman, however, said that he could not conscientiously comply with the desire of the House. He (Mr. Maxwell) regretted the determination that Colonel Fairman had come to, but felt bound to state what he had, in justice to the Gentlemen who were in the habit of acting with Colonel Fairman in common with the Orange institution.

expressed a similar opinion; and added that the Deputy Grand Secretary of the Orange Institutions in Ireland had produced a book before the Committee up stairs, in which there were some entries respecting that institution, although it was a private document. He was sorry that Colonel Fairman did not follow this example.

remarked that every indulgence had been shown to the witness by the Committee, and he had repeatedly been urged to produce the book.

submitted to the House whether the Committee were to be stopped short in their inquiry in consequence of the witness having withheld the book in question. He had no hesitation in saying that the inquiry before the Committee would be greatly impeded if the book were not produced. He was of opinion that the Sergeant-at-Arms should be sent to Colonel Fairman's house to search for the book.

said there could be no doubt as to the power of the House in cases of this kind. They had precedents that would fully justify them in adopting the course suggested by his hon. Friend, namely, causing a search for the book. This point was decided last night by the ease referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, namely, when the Sergeant-at-Arms accompanied Captain Sandon to his lodgings to search there for papers having reference to the inquiry respecting the Duke of York. That case, however, differed in some respects from the present, for the person offered to go and fetch papers, and it was thought not right to let him go except in the custody of the Sergeant. This precedent was not so strong as one he had found in the Journals. He alluded to the proceedings adopted with regard to the Directors of the South-Sea Company in 1720. On the 23rd of January, 1720, the House ordered that all the papers of Mr. Robert Knight, the cashier of the Company, should be seized, and a deputation of Members was directed to proceed to his house and search. At the same time four Directors of the Company were expelled the House, and two Members were ordered to proceed and search their houses for papers, &c, connected with the South-Sea Company. These papers were then referred to the Committee of Secresy appointed to investigate the affairs of the Company. According to this principle there could be no doubt as to the power of the House or its right to send for persons, papers, and records. Again, when the debate took place as to what was to be done with respect to Captain Sandon, there appeared to be no manner of doubt as to the power of the House in this respect. He should propose that the House should adopt similar proceedings to those pursued in the cases he had mentioned, namely, that the Sergeant-at-Arms should accompany Colonel Fairman to his house, and search for the book. In order that there might be some Motion which would enable the House to discuss the subject, he would propose that the Sergeant-at-Arms go immediately and search the house of Colonel Fairman for this book.

suggested to his hon. Friend, that unless it was intended to act on this Motion, it would be inconvenient to propose it. The House should take care to act with due caution in a case of this kind, and he felt that it would be very inconvenient if this motion was made and discussed, and not agreed to. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that there was no doubt as to the power of the House in cases of this kind. If his hon. Friend did not press the House to a Vote on his motion, and it was withdrawn, it might lead to inconvenience.

was only anxious to raise a question on which the debate might turn, and to preserve the order of the proceedings of the House.

said that he considered, in the view of the case expressed by the noble Lord, unless there was some urgent cause for the adoption of this mode of proceeding, it might be found to be attended with considerable inconvenience. There could be no doubt that when the House was engaged in an important investigation, and when impediments were thrown in the way of inquiry, that its powers were very great, and ought not to be curtailed. Unless, however, in cases of necessity, this power ought not to be exercised. He would submit to the hon. Member whether this would not be the best course to pursue in the present case.

, to give hon. Members an opportunity of delivering their opinions, would move that the House do now adjourn.

thought this person should be compelled to give up the book. The Committee had learnt from the Assistant-Secretary, that all the letters connected with Orange affairs began in a particular way. There could be no difficulty, therefore, in selecting them. This individual had also in his possession a large portion of the recent correspondence of the Orange Institution. He was sorry to vote for depriving Colonel Fairman of his liberty, but it was impossible to refrain from doing so under the circumstances of the case. He would move, if no other Member of greater experience did so, that the Sergeant-at-Arms proceed to Col. Fairman's residence and search for this book.

said, that the precedent adverted to by the hon. Member for Bridport, namely, the case of the individuals who were implicated in the South Sea transactions, in 1720, did not apply to the present occasion. The individuals concerned in the former case were implicated in a charge of fraud, and in such a case the House might very properly be called upon to exercise its powers, for the purpose of producing the evidence of that fraud. But in the present case no such charge, no pretence of such a charge, existed. On the contrary, it was contended that the book demanded of the witness by the was proved not to be the property of, or devoted to the business of, the Orange Associations, but to contain in great part matters connected with the private affairs of the witness. Now, under such circumstances, he believed a Court of law would never oblige a witness to produce any book or document of the kind, though he believed that it would sanction the witness's having the book before him, in order to refresh his memory.

observed, that it was quite clear that the hon. Member for Bradford had not listened to the previous discussion on this subject. If the hon. Member had done so, he would have been aware that the House had yesterday come to the resolution that the book should be produced. It was not a private book, because it was well known to contain matters relating to the Orange Society. The witness was asked twenty times to produce the book, and read those parts from it which related to the Orange Institution, and he pertinaciously refused to do so. The witness also admitted that this book was the only record of the transactions of the Society for a certain period. If the House thought fit that the inquiry should stop, of course it could make a virtual order to that effect, by allowing this book to be withheld.

regretted that the advice of the Speaker had not been followed, and a stop put to the present discussion. He was anxious to protest against hastily adopting any proceedings in this matter, and thought that it would be better to postpone the subject, or adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bradford.

was surprised at the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford. It was a thing of every-day notoriety, that witnesses in Courts of justice were called upon to produce letters and books under the writ subpœna duce tecum.

hoped that his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, would persist in moving that the book be sent for. After so many precedents, he thought that the House ought not to hesitate as to the course to be pursued.

said, it having been decided that the book should be given up, Colonel Fairman was, in his opinion, bound to obey the order of the House, but he hoped the House would not attempt to exercise such a power as to send to the witness's private residence to seize the book. The better course would be for them to proceed against him for his refusal to obey the order of the House.

said, he had been waiting to see whether the House would have courage enough to support its Committee. If his hon. Friend would withdraw his motion for an adjournment, he would now give notice that he would make a motion tomorrow, the object of which would be to obtain possession of the book.

had no hesitation in saying, that he thought the House had the power to seize the papers of individuals; but it was only on great and extraordinary occasions that it ought to use that power. And he would add, he believed it was a power which would never be lost to the House except by the misuse of it. No doubt that in the South-Sea case the House properly exercised the power when it gave an order for the papers of several individuals to be seized; on that occasion the House disposed of estates by an Act of Parliament, which was considered a penal act. That was a great occasion calling for an extraordinary remedy. With respect to the other case, his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport, in bringing it forward, admitted, with his usual candour, that in one particular it did not apply to the case now before them. The individual there stated his readiness to produce the paper before the Committee. Having been found guilty, however, of prevarication, the House did not choose to trust him on his simple promise to go to his home to fetch the note, but ordered him into custody, and sent the Sergeant-at-Arms with him to his lodgings in order that he might give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms, who was to produce it to the House. If they exercised the power in this case, they might come to a very different issue. In the former case the witness having said that he was willing to produce the note, no doubt, took his keys with him, and gave up the possession of it; but Colonel Fairman had refused to produce the book, and it was most probable that he would continue to refuse. If, then, they sent the Sergeant-at-Arms to his house, with an order to seize the book, he would probably have to break open the desk, or other place in which it might be deposited. He did not deny the power of the House to do this, but it would be carrying the exercise of the power further than was done in the case of Captain Sandon. He approved of the House voting in this instance, that the refusal of Colonel Fairman to produce the book was a breach of privilege, and that for such an offence he should be committed to Newgate; but he must say, he should be sorry if the Motion to which the hon. Member for Middlesex had adverted were made, and still more sorry if it were carried. His vote would be given decidedly against any such motion.

thought the course recommended by the hon. Member for Middlesex justifiable under the circumstances.

said, begging the noble Lord's pardon, he would declare that the present Question, respecting Orange Lodges, was of much greater importance than any question relating to a set of miserable speculators. The evidence showed that a regular conspiracy had been organized in the civil and military institutions of the empire—an execrable conspiracy. He admitted he had used too strong a term, and apologized for it; but he would say that a most dangerous conspiracy existed, which gave rise to the most abominable party and religious feelings. Captain Sandon, it was true, consented to give up the note, but he did so in a fright, and the order the House made was not conditional; it was a simple order that the Sergeant-at-Arms should go and seize the papers.

said, that he thought the House would do well as far as possible to keep within the ordinary course of tribunals with respect to witnesses, and the production of evidence; and he believed that it was the general practice not to enforce the production of books or documents against the inclination of the parties. At the same time, he would admit that there certainly might, and sometimes did, exist cases in which the salus populi suprema lex might render it necessary to pursue a different and more compulsory course. But, he would ask, was this such a case? Would the inquiry before the Committee become a nullity for want of the book which the witness declined to give up? An hon. Member behind him said, that the book was not essentially necessary, but that it was only on account of the contempt of the witness that the House should be called upon to act, and vindicate its dignity. And how was it proposed to punish the offender for this contempt? Why, by compelling him to bring forward a book which he did not care a single farthing about. His conviction, therefore, was, that no case had been made out for the interference of the powers of the House in the present instance. He could not coincide with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, namely, that it would be construed that the House, if it dissented from the Motion of the hon. Member for Bridport, did so because it was afraid of doing its duty, and vindicating its privileges. The House was, very properly, jealous of its rights and powers; but yet it was tender of using those powers, so irresponsible in their nature, except in a case of commensurate importance.

explained, that he had not said, that the production of the book in question was of no importance to the inquiry before the Committee. On the contrary, he had stated, that he believed the contents of the book to be highly important.

rose to call the attention of the House to a breach of privilege of a very gross nature, which had been committed by the proprietors of the Dublin Evening Post, by the publication of an article commenting in a libellous and calumnious manner upon the conduct of himself and other hon. Members in that House. Before proceeding further, he begged to assure the House that no personal or vindictive motives urged him to the course he was now pursuing, in which he was only actuated by a sense of what was due to the dignity and character of the House. The House would, perhaps, recollect that upon the recent debate on Orange Lodges, he had stated, that he had not been aware of the existence of Orange Lodges in the army until the time when he heard it stated to be the fact in the evidence before the Committee of that House. Since he had made that declaration, he had been the object of repeated attacks in the Dublin Evening Post, which it was well known was the organ of Government on the other side of the water. The hon. Member then read extracts from these articles, the first of which was as follows:—"But then, as to Maxwell and Verner, who were so stupidly lauded by O'Fudge for their courage and constancy, as if they did not turn their backs upon their wretched dupes, when the treason they were practising in the army was brought home to their door, as well as to that of the 'Illustrious' Duke, as if they did not 'lie' when they declared they knew nothing of Orange Lodges in the army, although they actually signed warrants for their establishment; yet these men are held forth by the treacherous scribbler, who is catering to the worst passions of the Orange mob, as their champions and heroes. Aye, verily, champions and heroes, who threw down their arms when the deadly charge was made, and to save this carcasses told most notorious—(we shall be delicate)—fibs; thus leaving their followers to bear the odium, and to incur the danger of promoting a sedition in the army; while they, the contrivers of the treason, shelter themselves from the responsibility by hazarding." The second paragraph which the hon. Member read was, we believe, as follows:—After commenting upon some remarks which appeared in a contemporary Journal, the Dublin Evening Post went on to say, "'A farce?' Was it 'a farce' which compelled Maxwell and Perceval both to lie—both to assert, in the face of the Commons of England, that as a fact which every man who heard them must have known, as the unfortunate men themselves were fully aware, to have been a falsehood namely, that Maxwell and Perceval were ignorant of the existence of Orange Lodges in the army though they actually signed warrants for the purpose? Was it 'a farce' which made these people disgrace themselves even in the eyes of their own followers?" He would make no comments on the paragraphs, but move that they be read by the Clerk. The paragraphs were accordingly read by the Clerk. The hon. Member next moved, that the writings which the House had just heard were a breach of the privileges of the House.

said, that in the first paper which had been read, there was no allusion made to the House of Commons, and therefore it could not be considered a fit subject on which to raise a breach of privilege.

said, the article contained a direct allusion to what had been said by hon. Members in that House. He would ask the Clerk to read the paragraph again, in order to satisfy the hon. Member for Middlesex on this point. The Clerk again read the paragraph,

said, he could not see that there was a single word in it about anything which took place within that House.

said, the article was headed "Orange Affairs—the Debate." He would read some further extracts from it, and hon. Members would then judge whether it referred to the House or not:—

said, that he was not going to controvert the position that these articles applied to the speech of the hon. Gentlemen—he would take higher ground. He would appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who were themselves concerned in this matter, and ask them whether, on the whole, they thought that it was necessary to their own vindication, or consistent with their duty as Members of Parliament, to proceed any further? They lived in times of great excitement. The House well knew, that scarcely a night passed in which some one hon. Member or another in the debate within the walls of this House was not carried beyond the strict rules of order and propriety. The excitement which existed in the House extended far beyond it. And let not the hon. Gentlemen for one moment imagine, that attacks were directed solely against themselves. If hon. Gentlemen felt it in the slightest degree necessary for the vindication of their character to bring under the consideration of the House every newspaper attack that was made, there would not be a night on which the proceedings of the House would not be interrupted by such motions. Any Gentleman might complain of a breach of privilege—any publication of anything that occurred in this House was a breach of privilege. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not imagine that in what he was saying he wished to defend individuals who made such attacks as these. The present was certainly a very gross and improper attack; but he begged to say, that worse terms were continually applied to him, and he could go to bed and sleep undisturbed by any dreams of newspaper devils drawing his curtains in the dead of night. Bad as were the terms of reproach in the publication brought under the notice of the House on this occasion, he must declare he thought even them less objectionable than attacks which had been made upon himself and his friends, in a supposed report of a speech which described them as Radicals, Infidels, and Republicans, and God knew what besides. But were they to come down to the House to complain of the morning papers, the evening papers, and the weekly papers, whenever the public conduct of hon. Members was spoken of in terms of which they disapproved? Undoubtedly there was great excitement existing at this period; in proof of which he might state, that he had known even the private confidence of social intercourse violated to furnish matter for individual attack. It had happened that what had transpired at his own table, when among Members of Parliament—Members of this House were present—had been made the subject of misrepresentation and falsehood in the course of the very next day. This was a fact with which some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were acquainted. He might be told, that a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be thin-skinned—that that illustrious individual in the Zoological Gardens, the Rhinoceros, was alone entitled to a thicker skin; but he put it seriously to the House whether they would consent to constitute themselves a censorship. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that his character did not need such a protection. If these attacks were taken up by the Whig or Reform party, he would say, that they exhibited undue sensibility. For himself, he would stand on his character; he would not submit to a vote of this House. With a view to prevent a recurrence of such attacks, the best way was to disregard them—to let them pass by unnoticed. They could not offer a greater bounty on personal attack, founded on falsehood and misrepresentation, than by making those responsible for it, the subjects of such proceedings as these; they were by these means at once raised into importance, and grew into giants. He would not move the Order of the Day, but would confidently leave the matter to the hon. Gentleman's consideration.

felt as little annoyed as any other hon. Member at newspaper defamation; but when this attack was but a continuation of a series of the foulest and most malignant falsehoods, circulated all over Ireland for a month against his character and conduct—when he was charged with being a deliberate liar, with abetting treason—he, as a Member of that House, should fail in his duty, if he did not bring the matter before the House. It was the duly of Members to vindicate the character of the House, and he for one would do so, and persevere in his Motion.

said, he had personally as great a contempt for the libels of that paper as any man could have, neither would he have noticed the present paragraph, had it not been a continuation of long-repeated attacks, holding up him and those who agreed with him to public reprobation. Had the paragraphs been of an ordinary kind, he would have disdained to notice them; but when they not merely ascribed to him and his friends principles they repudiated, but marked them out as objects for the hatred of the people, he could not but urge his hon. Friend to persevere.

would act impartially between both sides of the House. For himself, he had been the subject of constant attack these twenty years, yet he never minded it. When the gallant Admiral (Sir Edward Codrington) was assailed in the most violent manner by a morning paper he brought forward the matter, and, having vindicated himself by this course, abandoned all future proceedings, at the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). He (Mr. Hume) then expressed a wish, that further proceedings should be stopped; and he hoped, now that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion. The hon. Member moved the Order of the Day.

said, the question was at present one of breach of privilege, as it referred to what occurred in the House; and, as such, the House ought to deal with it. As to the vile calumnious paragraphs about him, and as to the parties who furnished them, he had the greatest contempt for them. He knew the quarters from which these slanders flowed, and he was little hurt by them as an individual; but as a Member of Parliament, he felt called upon to assert its dignity. If the Government authorities—and this paper was the reputed organ of the Government, and the vehicle for the spleen and vindictiveness of its underlings—called him liar, traitor, and what not, he cared but little. This he did not say with any view to offend the Members of the Government, for he entertained for them individually great respect. But the Dublin Evening Post seemed to possess a character all over the country as the organ of the Government, and as authorized by it to libel every one who differed from it in opinion. He despised these attacks as a private individual, for to care about them would show they were in some measure true; but as a Member of that House, independently excercising his right, he was bound to notice them. Every right-minded man—(to use the expression of the hon. Member for Dublin in his remarks upon him, Colonel Perceval, the other night)—must be satisfied, and was satisfied, that the solemn denial of himself and his friends of the knowledge of the existence of Orange Lodges in the army was perfectly true. There was no low pothouse in Ireland, no place of public resort, where this paper was not read, and the slander which it disseminated under the sanction of the Government would make a proportionate impression on the people. He hoped his hon. Friend would persevere, and afford the Government an opportunity of either shielding the paper or repudiating all connexion with it.

observed, as to the paper in question being the organ of the Irish Government, that he begged once for all to disclaim any share on the part of that Government in carrying their opposition to their political opponents beyond the fair limits of public disagreement and causing it to degenerate into personal attacks. At the same time, he did think that if the Irish Government were to look about them, they might find, in other portions of the Irish press, much ground for recrimination. Even in a paper belonging to this side of the water, so humble an individual as himself had been made the subject of a lengthened and laborious parallel with Pontius Pilate, and yet he had not thought of coming down to the House to ask for protection.

said, he must really admire the heroism of the hon. Gentlemen opposite in despising the attacks upon them yet calling for punishment at the same time. This was true magnanimity. If they wished his side of the House to believe that they did not mind these attacks, that they did not deserve them, then he would say that they did not believe them, and ought not that to satisfy them? Aye, but it seemed they wanted exculpation first and vengeance after. He hoped the Post was not, as was said, the organ of the Government, for no one paper ever abused another more than the Post abused him. For many years its only trade was to abuse him. There was never a man better abused than he was. He would give any man thirty per cent. yet beat him hollow in the way of receiving abuse. But when the sensitive Gentlemen opposite complained of the abuse of the Post did they not read the Evening Mail and the Packet, which were at least as hearty in their abuse of him and the Liberal party as the Post was of the Grand Master, the Grand Secretary, and the Grand Treasurer of the Orange Institution—those three "grands." The Post had been sinking forty to fifty per cent. for abusing him and those who agreed with him, but this debate would give it at least 300 additional subscribers: and all this god-send to the Post would be through the favour of these offended "grands." Why, his friend, little Conway, would make money of these Orangemen, and his hostility would not be for nothing. It would be said, "Oh, the three "grands" of the Orange lodges are about to fetch up Mr. Conway to the House of Commons for an attack on the Orangemen, and we must stand to him. But at what time was all this importance to be attached to a squib? When the Holy Alliance was concentrating their armies—when Spain was blazing with civil war—when England was agitated—and the infernal machine was playing away at Paris. What was this mighty motion? Why, to fetch away little "Rundy-tundy Conway," so they used to call him—of No., Trinity-street, the father of nine children—before the British Parliament, for hurting the dignity of the three Orange "grands." But, to be serious, Gentlemen should take care how they made themselves judges and prosecutors at the same time. The liberty of the press was a serious thing to be trifled with. If there was a paper that might raise a London mob about their ears, then there might be some excuse in putting it down. But who could say that the Evening Post in Dublin could do mischief to the Parliament? The Gentlemen opposite might be good-humoured, and no doubt they were when they liked it. Now let them show it by forgiving Mr. Conway. The gallant Colonel said he had accused the gallant Colonel of being a sound-minded man. Now he never did: but he would now, if he interposed to withdraw the motion. Mr. Twiss requested his hon. Friend to withdraw the motion. Mr. Maxwell would persevere in his Motion. Mr. Hume would divide the House on his Amendment.

said that, sorry as he was to make any objection to the Bill which might have the effect of putting an end to it, he could not allow the second Clause to pass, as he considered it directly inconsistent with the principle laid down in the first, it was also inconsistent with the promise of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington) when he promised, that next Session, a Bill should be introduced for making certain marriages in future good and valid, for the Clause in question distinctly and finally condemned to all intents and purposes all such marriages as absolutely null and void. Upon that ground, and as the Amendment suggested by him the other night, viz., the excepting from the operation of that Clause the case of a man desiring to marry the sister of his deceased wife, had not been acceded to, he should move that Clause 2 of this Bill be struck out. The Speaker suggested that the House should go into Committee to discuss the subject.

hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere in his opposition, because great fear had been expressed that the Bill would be lost, and in that case what would be the feelings of great numbers of persons who were anxiously looking for it with a hope that it would be passed into a law.

said they ought to legislate on correct principles and not insert a Clause wholly subversive of the principle laid down in the first Clause of the Bill.

said, the only question was whether the two Clauses were consistent. It was not right to purchase present advantage at the expense of future consistency. He considered the two Clauses wholly inconsistent, and the House ought, whatever their feelings might be, to proceed on that principle alone.

objected to the Clause as contradicting every principle, whether of law or of humanity, by punishing the children for the offences of the parents. If they sanctioned the principle that those marriages were invalid, they should alter the law altogether: the Clause was wholly inconsistent and contradictory, and he should vote against it.

could not agree in the opinions just expressed as to the contradictory nature of the Clause. What was more common than to forbid a thing for the future, but to say they would not interfere with those, who, either in carelessness or ignorance, had hitherto transgressed? At present, marriages were continually contracted, which were productive of the greatest inconvenience and confusion, and he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Shaftesbury, (Mr. Poulter) that such marriages, for instance of a man with his wife's sister, ought to be permitted. If it was intended to introduce next Session a measure of mitigation, there might be some reason for postponing the Clause, but he could not agree to any alteration in the degrees of consanguinity now existing, and he considered there would be no inconsistency in allowing the second Clause to remain in the Bill.

said there was no question as to the first Clause. As to the second he begged the House to consider the present anomalous state of the law as to marriages. As the law now stood the marriages alluded to were not void, but only voidable; at the instance of any malicious person a suit could be instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court, and the marriage could be declared void. Now, under these circumstances the Legislature was driven to do one of two things, make the marriages absolutely void, or absolutely valid; it was impossible to leave the law in its present state; for no error could be greater than that of leaving the law on so important a subject in a doubtful situation. But then if the House were to declare those marriages valid, the effect of such a provision would be, to shock the prejudices—the powerful prejudices—of a very large proportion of the British population, and prejudices the more powerful, because they were of a religious character. Now he could not but respect religious scruples, though they might be erroneous, and he was sure his hon. Friend, the Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter) would admit that the existence of those prejudices formed a powerful argument against the rendering those marriages valid. They were driven, therefore, since they could not leave the law in its present doubtful state, to the alternative of making those marriages, for the future, void. There could be no hardship in that, for the House would then declare plainly its intentions, and by so putting the law at rest would prevent people from, as it were, cheating themselves; and, under the impression that valid marriage might take place in future, allow a relaxation of morals which it was very desirous not to encourage.

said, that nobody he thought would contend that such marriages ought to be allowed; as the law now stood, they were not void but only voidable, and he thought it advisable to set the question at rest by making them for the future either void or valid; that was his intention in inserting the 2nd Clause in the Bill.

said, what he agreed to was the remediable part of the Bill, but he considered, that as they could not at this period of the Session deal satisfactorily with this important subject, they should leave the subsequent part of it open to deliberation in a future Session; he thought they had acted safely in striking out the Clause, leaving the rest of the Bill to operate.

considered the rejection of the 2nd Clause as a virtual rejection of the Bill, he was sorry the hon. member had done so, and he should therefore, not trouble the House with any further Amendments.

considered it perfectly consistent to declare marriages already consummated, and marriages, the parties to which were dead, to be valid; and at the same time to make all future similar marriages void. He should have supported the Bill in its original form, and he considered that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury had reduced it to a perfect absurdity.

regretted that the inquiry was not conducted with the harmony which was desirable. For his own part, he desired to appeal to the House and to the Chair to know whether the Committee was or was not a Committee of Inquiry, and whether it was not acting improperly in assuming much higher powers? If the powers attempted to be assumed by the Committee were granted, the liberty of the subject would be seriously endangered; and thinking that the proceedings of the Committee were most tyrannous, he objected to continuing his attendance, unless he received an assurance from the House, that the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of General Darling was not a Committee vested with judicial powers. In that Committee charges had been brought against General Darling, which were charges of murder or of manslaughter; the Court before which those charges were to be tried had been appointed by the hon. Member who conducted the prosecution; and the witnesses who were examined were not sworn. Under these circumstances he thought that justice could not be done. He must regard the Committee as the most democratical species of Star Chamber ever established, unless its functions were confined to the mere business of inquiry. When he first attended the Committee, he heard an hon. and learned Member, who possessed great weight in that House—he meant the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—state, when an hon. Friend of his (Sir Henry Hardinge's) moved that the Committee-room be cleared of strangers, that the Committee ought to be an open Committee, because it partook of the character of a criminal court, and had judicial functions to discharge. He had also heard the hon. Member for Tralee speak about employing counsel to conduct the prosecution. Now, if these hon. Members were right in the view they took of the character of the Committee, then, in his opinion, a precedent of a most dangerous and tyrannical nature would have been established, and he declared that nothing should induce him to sit on that Committee, and thereby be a party to the establishment of so improper a precedent. It would be in the recollection of the House that the appointment of the Committee was opposed by the Government, but that they were overpowered by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin and the question carried against them. He had in the Committee proposed a resolution declaring that it was merely a Committee of Inquiry, but he was met by the previous question. He had intended to follow up that resolution by another directing that strangers should be excluded, but he was told that the Committee was a Judicial Court, and ought therefore to be open to the public. He had also to complain of the manner in which the Committee had conducted these proceedings. General Darling was informed, that the first charge that would be gone into would be the grants of land made by him; and General Darling prepared himself accordingly. On the day of the meeting of the Committee, however, the hon. Member who conducted the prosecution changed his line of proceedings, and entered on the case of the soldiers Sudds and Thompson, which, in fact, amounted to a charge of murder, and allowed General Darling only twenty-four hours to prepare his defence. A proposition was made to give General Darling a period of ten days for that purpose, but it was negatived by the Committee. He considered that General Darling was harshly treated, for he had been five times tried, and five times acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman was about to detail the circumstances relative to the different inquiries which General Darling's case had undergone, when he was interrupted by

, who thought that those matters had no connexion with the conduct of the present Committee.

said, he only alluded to the subject in order to show what was the scope which the investigation was taking. The accusation against General Darling, in the cases of Sudds and Thomp- son, was that of murder or manslaughter, and into that accusation a Committee of the House of Commons was entering. Now, he wished to know from the Chair if the Committee of Inquiry did not exceed its powers in so doing? If the answer was in the affirmative, he trusted the Committee would retrace its steps, and confine itself within its due limits, if, on the contrary, the House should decide that it was competent for a Select Committee to investigate a charge of a criminal nature—if it was competent for such a Committee to convert itself into a Star-chamber, and in that capacity to assail even the liberty of the subject—he, for one, would have nothing further to do with it. Nothing was more monstrous than the course in which the Committee was then proceeding. Would it be believed that the prosecutor had gone so far as to produce irons, alleged to have been used in the case of Sudds and Thompson; which irons, it was subsequently discovered, had been fabricated in London. The hon. and Gallant Member concluded by requesting to know from the Chair whether there was any precedent for such a proceeding as that he had described, and particularly whether a Select Committee of the House of Commons could convert itself into a criminal tribunal for investigating a charge of murder! Certainly, in his view, nothing more iniquitous, more tyrannical, or more unjust than the conduct of several of the Members of the Committee, could be conceived.

thought that the right hon. and gallant Member ought in fairness, before charging the Committee with improper conduct, to have called for the production of the Minutes of their proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman said, he was induced to call the attention of the House to the subject, because he heard a certain observation made by the hon. Member for Dublin. Now, he did not think that the Committee, or that House, ought to be bound by every inconsiderate expression that might fall from any Member. He believed that the conduct of the Committee was guided solely by a desire to do what they considered their duty. He admitted that he had moved the previous question on the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, declaring the Committee to be simply a Committee of inquiry, because he thought that the Committee needed not to be told what their duties were, and because he saw no advantage in affirming a mere abstract proposition. He had also opposed the Motion for the exclusion of strangers from the Committee-room, because any Member by noticing their presence had the power to cause the room to be cleared. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Committee had assumed extraordinary powers, but he should like to know in what respect the rules of the House regulating the proceedings of Committees had been violated? The right hon. Gentleman, while he denied that the Committee ought to be considered a judicial tribunal, had, nevertheless, not scrupled to apply the term "prosecutor" to the hon. Member for Tralee.

said, he had made use of that term for the sake of brevity, and with no offensive intention.

continued: He said that it was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that certain charges against General Darling had been drawn up, but that had been done entirely at the desire of such Members of the Committee as usually voted with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. With respect to the statement that the hon. Member for Tralee intended to employ a solicitor to assist him, he begged to inform the House that that intention was only formed after an expectation had been raised that General Darling would employ counsel.

trusted that it would not go forth to the public that General Darling had any desire that the inquiry into his conduct should not be completely public. For his own part, however, he hoped that the evidence received by that Committee would not be printed; because, as General Darling had not had time to prepare his defence, it would most unjustly affect his character.

understood that during his absence from the House, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had designated him as the Member conducting the prosecution against General Darling. He had, on a former occasion, disclaimed all intention of assuming such a character, and he therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the expression.

said, that he had designated the hon. Member as the person conducting the prosecution, because it was on his Motion that the Committee was appointed, and it was by him that the different witnesses were summoned. He meant to say nothing offensive, and if the hon. Member would supply him with another expression, descriptive of the leading part he took in the Committee, he (Sir Henry Hardinge) would readily adopt it.

thought that he might, with greater propriety, be designated as the Member conducting the inquiry. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had also alluded to a set of irons, which, at his suggestion, had been manufactured. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, that in procuring those irons he had been actuated by an improper motive?

could not undertake to say what the hon. Member's motives were. He was bound to believe that the hon. Member had no motive but that of justice, although he certainly regretted that the irons had been introduced.

remonstrated against the vagueness of the charges brought by the right hon. Baronet against the Committee, and called upon him for a particular accusation.

said, that having been appealed to by the right hon. Baronet for his opinion, he was bound to say (as we understood the right hon. Gentleman), that the zeal of the Committee, and their anxiety efficiently to discharge the important duties intrusted to them, might, perhaps, have carried them somewhat out of the sphere of their duties. He hoped, therefore, that they would now proceed on the distinct understanding, that it was a Committee of Inquiry merely. The House itself had no judicial power such as that which had been adverted to, and therefore, could not delegate such a power. With respect to the exclusion of strangers, there could be no doubt that a Committee had as much right to order that exclusion as the House itself.

still thought it necessary to call on the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had designated the Committee as a democratic star chamber, and charged it with tyrannous conduct, to state one fact which could justify such a charge. He, as a Member of that Committee, would be ready to defend it.

repeated what he had already said, that when he made a Motion with a view of ascertaining what the powers of the Committee were, the Committee refused to entertain it. He also stated, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin described the Committee as a judicial body, and that the hon. Member for Tralee had expressed an intention of employing a solicitor to conduct the inquiry. Under these circumstances, he thought it right to state to the House, that he would be no party to such a tyrannical act as that of allowing a Committee of the House of Commons to usurp the functions of a Court of Justice.

appealed to the House, whether the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman warranted the use of such language as the right hon. Gentleman had applied to the Committee? It surely did not become those who desired to exclude strangers, and make the proceedings of the Committee perfectly secret, to accuse the Committee of being a Star-chamber. He hoped the time would come when the vote of Members of every Committee would be made public. He knew that he had never given a vote which he desired to conceal. He was willing to allow General Darling every facility to prepare his defence, and though the right hon. Gentleman might cease to attend the Committee, he (Mr. Aglionby) would continue to discharge his duty, and would ask the witnesses every question the answers to which were likely to be advantageous to General Darling. The hon. Member concluded by stating that the irons had been manufactured solely for the purpose of being exhibited as a model of the set placed on the soldiers Sudds and Thompson by General Darling's order.

thought that the whole proceedings had been irregular from first to last. As long as it was a matter of explanation between the Members of the Committee he did not like to interfere, but now he felt bound to protest against the greater portion of the discussion. He thought if there was one matter more than another, they ought to be cautious of interfering with, it was with the proceedings of a Committee of Inquiry then sitting—nothing could be more disorderly than to do so while the Committee was sitting. He was in hopes that after the question had been put to the Chair, the discussion would have terminated; since then nine-tenths of it had been irregular. He thought that no charges could be fairly brought against the Members of the Committee, or against the hon. and learned Member for Tralee. There was nothing to justify the interference of the House.

, as Chairman of the Committee, vindicated the integrity of its proceedings, and protested against its being stigmatized on account of expressions used by individual Members, and not adopted in subsequent Resolutions of the Committee. He denied that the Committee deserved the character of a democratic Star-chamber; it had acted within the strict line of duty.

said, that if the Committee were considered as a judicial tribunal, the presence of strangers was admissible; but if, as was asserted, it did not partake of that character, strangers were properly excluded. The object of excluding strangers was not to shelter the votes or proceedings of any Members of the Committee, but to prevent the case from being unjustly prejudiced. He complained that the Committee did not distinctly define its own character when called on to do so, but left the matters in doubt as to whether it was a judicial tribunal or not. He thought the proceedings of the Committee in this and other respects injurious to the privileges of the House and the best interests of the subject.