moved the second reading of the Aberdeen Public Schools Bill.

felt it his duty to oppose this Bill, which went to divert to a totally different purpose funds that had been left for a specific object. The fund in question had been left by Sir A. Hay, in the middle of the 17th century, for the maintenance and repairing of the bridge over the Don at Aberdeen; and the testator adjured those to whom the trust was confided, namely, the town-council and magistrates of Aberdeen, to fulfil it faithfully and for ever, as they would answer for it at the day of judgment. The late much calumniated Magistrates of Aberdeen had faithfully adhered to the terms of the trust and the intentions of the donor, but it was now proposed by the new town-council to take 6,000l. out of the accumulated fund of this trust, and apply it to the erection of schools in Aberdeen.

I am glad that the Member for the county of Aberdeen has chosen to oppose this Bill on its second reading, because if the House shall agree with him in thinking that its principle is unjust, and that it forms a dangerous precedent, it will of course be thrown out at this stage, which will save its promoters, the Magistrates and citizens of Aberdeen, whom I have the honour to represent, a great deal of unnecessary trouble and expense in a Committee up stairs. It becomes necessary for me, therefore, shortly to explain to the House the nature of this Bill. It is entitled a Bill for the erection of Public Schools in the city of Aberdeen; and to enable the corporation to erect such schools, they apply to Parliament to sanction the appropriation of 6,000l. or 7;000l., being the amount of an accumulated fund under their management, and I may add, in my opinion, which is under their complete control. My hon. Friend has stated the nature of that fund; the House will hear both sides; I will also state the nature of it. In the year 1605 a gentleman named Sir Alexander Hay bequeathed certain specific feu duties or annual rents amounting to 2l. 5s. 8d. sterling, for repairing and upholding a bridge over the river Don, with- in a mile and a-half of the city of Aberdeen, which had been built by King Robert Bruce. This bridge, which has stood the lapse of centuries, is now in a complete state of repair, and in all probability will stand for many centuries to come. It is the same "Bridge of Balgony" which is noticed by Lord Byron in a note to one of his celebrated effusions; and, singular enough, one of the schools which is proposed to be rebuilt at Aberdeen by this Bill, is that in which the noble bard received the elements of his early education. This bridge having been built during the reign of Robert Bruce, the House may suppose that it is a pretty solid structure; indeed, although the citizens of Aberdeen contributed largely for upholding it more than two centuries ago, very little has since been required to keep it in repair. That circumstance, as well as other fortuitous ones, and fortunate purchases by the corporation of Aberdeen, with the funds under their management, will account for the accumulation, which ten years ago amounted to 18,000l. Before I stale to the House how the greater part of that surplus was appropriated by Parliament, I ought also to state to the House what my hon. Friend opposite has not forgotten to dwell on, that the deed to which I have alluded provides that the Magistrates of Aberdeen shall apply "the rents and feu duties for the repair and maintenance of the said bridge, and for no other purpose, as they should answer to God at the last judgment." Well, Sir, notwithstanding this solemn adjuration, let us see how the former calumniated Magistrates of Aberdeen, as my hon. Friend calls them, dealt with this fund: none of your reformed town-councils, but good old Conservative, self-elected citizens. I find, Sir, among other items, the following:

1791	Building bridges at Ellon and Yttan, sixteen miles distant from Aberdeen	£52	10	0
	Repairing roads	100	0	0
1793.	A superb gold snuff-box to Mr. Secretary Dundas	105	0	0
1797.	Engraving plans	53	0	0
1798.	Voted aid to Government	157	10	0
1799.	Improving roads	200	0	0
	Copy plan of a new Bridewell at Glasgow	50	0	0
1802.	Act of Parliament for a House of Correction	100	0	0
1805.	Law plea about roads	68	0	0
	Patriotic fund at Lloyd's	52	0	0

Besides these sums, a considerable sum from this fund was annually expended in eating and drinking, and 360l. was expended for obtaining a new warrant to elect Magistrates, and to oppose the citizens when they applied to the Crown for a popular election, when the city was disfranchised, in the year 1818. It may be asked, were their appropriations proper and right? I answer, no. But, Sir, it is to such appropriations I object. Let Parliament look after this fund, and see that it is appropriated to useful and beneficial purposes. But, notwithstanding these unauthorised appropriations, which took place under the reign of my hon. Friend's "much calumniated Magistrates," the fund accumulated, in 1825, to 18,000l. sterling; and how was it applied? I will tell the House. The access to the old bridge is circuitous and steep, and the country gentlemen, some of whom are now opposing this Bill, finding it very convenient to have a more direct road, prevailed on the magistrates to build a new bridge. After much discussion the Magistrates applied to Parliament, and I hold in my hand a Bill authorising the appropriation of 14,000l. for building this new bridge, on which 17,000l., I believe, was expended; and I ask the House whether that Bill infringed on the principle for which my hon. Friend contends? I ask, whether building a new bridge be the same as maintaining and upholding an old one distant a quarter of a mile from each other? It will be said, that the Bill also provided for maintaining and upholding the said bridge. Assuredly it did, and Parliament will take care that the Bill which I now submit to the House shall not pass without a similar provision, which it expressly contains. I recollect, Sir, that the Bill to which I have alluded, was opposed in this House, not on its principle, but because it was thought by the salmon fishery proprietors that it would injure the fishery by being placed in a shallow part of the river, the old bridge being erected over a part which is four or five fathoms deep. Having failed to convince a Committee of this House the opposition was continued in the Peers, and the "solemn adjuration" was then alluded to in a Committee of that House, of which a right rev. Prelate formed one of a quorum. Particular emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel who opposed the Bill, on the solemn adjuration of Sir Alexander Hay. I was not in Parliament, but happened accidentally to be present, and what remark did the rev. Prelate make? "Why," said he "if a new and more commodious bridge is is to be built, provided there are ample funds to maintain and uphold the old one, I think the ghost of the testator may be appeased; for I can see no harm, if the funds were forthcoming, to build a church at the end of the bridge." Sir, I dare say the right rev. Prelate had just as much abhorrence to the invasion of trusts as these country gentlemen, who have sent in such violent resolutions against this Bill. I shall not detain the House longer. I do hope it will agree to the second reading of this Bill, the promoters of which are the Magistrates of Aberdeen, who come boldly forward to Parliament to sanction the expenditure of a few thousand pounds, which can be applied to no purpose so useful as that of promoting education in a very large and populous city. The opposes of the Bill are some of the gentlemen in the adjacent county; and should the House agree with them that this Bill is unjust in principle, and most dangerous as a precedent, I do hope and trust that the collective wisdom of this nation will lay down some rules for the future guidance of the Magistrates of Aberdeen as to the appropriation of this fund; whether it is to be thrown into the sea or the river Don, whether it is to be consumed by eating and drinking, or whether Parliament thinks it is a more legitimate object to present gold snuff-boxes to his Majesty's Ministers than to educate his Majesty's subjects, or to make approaches for the convenience of some of the gentlemen of the county of Aberdeen? I shall not detain the House longer. I hope it will deal with the question not as a party one; for I fear it is looked on by some individuals in the north in that light. I came here with no such feelings, and whatever the decision of the House may be, the promoters of the Bill, I am sure, will bow to that decision.

opposed the Bill, on the ground that it went to effect an entire diversion of the funds from the purposes to which the donor intended them to be applied.

differed toto cœlo from his hon. Friend. He trusted that the House would give its sanction to this Bill, which went to apply a portion of this surplus to the providing education for the people of Scotland. The Tories did not scruple to apply those funds to the providing gold snuff-boxes for Lords of the Admiralty, and good dinners for themselves, but they were shocked at a proposal for applying a portion of them to the education of the people.

thought they had no right to appropriate those funds to a purpose totally different from that intended by the donor.

said, they had heard no complaint of the misappropriation of those funds when spent formerly in eating and drinking, but a cry was raised now against expending any portion of them in educating the people. He thought they could not be better applied,

said, that having sat for twelve years as Member for Aberdeen, though he never got a vote from the old town during that time, he felt naturally anxious that the House would pass an Act like the present, calculated to promote the interests of the people there.

supported the Bill.

said, that the general practice in cases of this kind was to refer the appropriation of the accumulated surplus to the decision of the Court of Chancery.

observed, they had no Court of Chancery in Scotland.

said, they had surely a Court possessed of analogous powers there, and it was to such a tribunal, and not to that House, the appropriation of this money should be referred.

appeared at the Bar, and acquainted the House that Ms Majesty having been waited upon with the Address of that House, was pleased to return the following most gracious answer:— "William Rex.—I willingly assent to the prayer of the Address of my faithful Commons, that I will be pleased to take such measures as may seem to me advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange Lodges and generally of all political societies, excluding persons of a different religious faith, using secret signs and symbols, and acting by means of associated branches. It is my firm intention to discourage all such societies in my dominions, and I rely with confidence on the fidelity of my loyal subjects to support me in this determination."

rose to present a petition, signed by seventy of the largest paper-manufacturers in the kingdoms, some of them his own constituents, and paying, he believed, more than half the whole amount of revenue flowing into the Exchequer under that head. They were anxious that the case they had to present to the House should be considered at the present moment, thinking, as he presumed correctly, this was the period when the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should naturally and peculiarly be directed to the financial arrangements of the year. They had reason, in common, he believed and hoped, with the public at large, to suppose that the revenues of the country offered some prospect of enabling the right hon. Gentleman to effect a reduction in imposts to some considerable amount, and they wished to show to the House the reasons they had for supposing that their case yielded perhaps to none in urgency, and possessed claims on the attention of Government which could, whether in justice or expediency, be postponed to no other. The petition contained three principal grounds of complaint;—first, it complained that the amount of duty imposed on this manufac- ture was exorbitant; secondly, that the mode in which it was imposed was peculiarly oppressive to the manufacturer, encouraged fraud, led to the depression of the fair trader, and the defalcation of the Exchequer; further (and this was a circumstance which he was sure would meet the full and favourable consideration of the House), the petition complained that the tax was in its nature opposed to the extension of literature and the general diffusion of knowledge. With regard to the exorbitancy of the impost, it was sufficient to say, that contrary to the original intention of the Legislature, which in the reign of Anne, first enacted duties on the manufacture of paper, the ad valorem amount of the duty pressed most heavily on the inferior articles of the first class paper. Now, the notion he bad naturally entertained of the first class paper was, that it described the superior quality used for the nobler purposes of writing and publication; but not so,—in the first class was included every description of paper, other than brown paper, made of one particular material, tar rope, from which the tar had not been extracted; and the second class was confined to that made exclusively of old ropes or cordage. The object of the Legislature in the classification was to simplify them, but the mode which they adopted for that purpose had since turned out to be impracticable and absurd. The circumstances connected with the manufacture of paper and the manner of its manufacture have greatly changed since the Act first passed. That which was once a cheap and abundant material for making the second-class paper—he meant old rope, from which alone the law allowed that class to be manufactured—was now scarce and expensive, having more than doubled in price in a few years. This was owing to two causes—partly to the comparatively small wear and tear of rope in time of peace, and partly to the great extent to which iron cable was HOW used instead of rope. It was well known that other materials were introduced into the manufacture, which, though they made paper equally good, made it at a much lower price, in consequence of the cheap rate at which those materials could be purchased. It was well known to all who were connected with our cotton manufactures, that in every factory there was a vast quantity of waste or "refuse" cotton, of which hitherto no other use had been made than that of wiping up the oil which happened to drop on the floors on rubbing it from the machinery. The amount thus rendered almost valueless was about 1–12th of the whole of the cotton used. Some time back a gentleman applied this refuse to more useful purposes, and it was found to be available as a material in the manufacture of this second class paper, thus adding to the temptation to fraud on the part of the manufacturer, and occasioning a considerable loss to the revenue. It had been long notorious that the Act of Parliament which was intended to regulate the manufacture was constantly evaded by the use of articles other than those which that Act prescribed. It was well known that among the manufacturers in Scotland scarcely any tarred rope whatever was used in the manufacture of second-class paper. In Ireland, there was another article which, might be used with good effect in the manufacture of paper—he meant the refuse of flax, which, if the Act were modified, might be brought into immediate use. Many hon. Members were not perhaps aware, that though the materials with which second-class paper was directed to be made were as dear, and in some instances dearer than those from which the first-class paper was produced, the duty on the latter was 3d. in the pound, while that on the former was only l½d. He would beg to refer hon. Members opposite to the 14th report of the Commission of Excise Inquiry, at the head of which was the name of a Gentleman for whom all who knew him must have the highest respect, and whose name was a high authority for the correctness of the statements to which it was attached—he meant Sir Henry Parnell. If hon. Members would refer to that report, they would find that every page of it bore testimony to the frauds which were committed on the revenue in the manufacture of paper. These frauds were not unknown to the revenue; yet, though they were altogether ruinous to the fair trader, the Government had not yet done anything to remedy the evil. The gentlemen who had intrusted him with the charge of this petition had urged him to press the subject on the immediate consideration of Government, with a view to an immediate revision of the Acts under which the manufacture of paper was carried on. To show how injuriously the present state of the law operated to the fair trader and to the public, he would mention one case which was mentioned in the 14th Report to which he had already referred, A Mr. Phipps had entered into an agreement with the Navy Board to sup- ply a certain quantity of sheathing paper, for which the duty was 21s. per cwt; but another party came and made an offer to supply the quantity at 2s. per cwt. less than that which Mr. Phipps had mentioned. It was stated to the Navy Board, that the party who had made the smaller offer manufactured his from inferior articles, and paid only 14s. per cwt., while Mr. Phipps paid the full duty of 21s. per cwt. It was added, that the lower tender could have been made only by an evasion of the Act; but the Navy Board said, that they must take the article they wanted where they could get it cheapest, and in consequence Mr. Phipps, the fair trader, went to the wall. Another point of view in which he was anxious to present this subject to the consideration of the House, and which was sufficient to arrest its best attention, was the effect which the state of the law produced on literature- On this subject, they had the evidence of several gentlemen very extensively engaged in printing cheap literary works, such as Mr. Parker, Mr. Rees, and Mr. Knight. The last named individual, whose exertions had done much to diffuse useful knowledge in the country said in his evidence that the present laws relating to the duties on paper pressed hard on the class of cheap publications, that the duty varied from 1s. to 2s. 8d. on the octavo volume, and that, in fact, there was no profit on these cheap works, unless there was a sale of from 40,000 to 50,000; but if the duties were modified and equalised, the same work would produce a considerable profit with a much more reduced circulation. But there was a hardship upon printers and publishers in respect of this excise duty which did not press on other classes of the community who were subject to the excise. While others were allowed to pay the excise on the article as they wanted it for consumption—that was, for sale—the printer or publisher was in the first instance, obliged to pay the whole duty; and if he sold only a very small portion of the work, the loss of the duty on the remainder must be his. This pressed with great severity on publishers, and was a serious check on the diffusion of works of information and entertainment amongst the people. Another point to which he would beg the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the duty on stained paper. The addition of 1s. per pound, in addition to the 3d. already imposed, was, he was sure, no increase to the revenue. He would not say what means the right hon. Gentleman had to gratify the prayer of the petitioners for the reduction of the duty, for, whatever side of the house he might sit at, he was not disposed to embarrass any Government by calling for any reduction of revenue which the country might not be able to afford; but he joined the petitioners in expressing a hope and belief that the reduction for which they prayed would not prove in the result a diminution to the revenue. Various cases could be mentioned in which the reduction of the duty produced an increase of revenue by the increased demand for the article. The most simple and effectual remedy would be, to equalise the duty by removing the higher. The petitioners, he thought, had peculiar claims on the attention of Parliament. Some of the most ingenious inventions in machinery had been made by some of them, and applied to the manufacture of paper. Their prayer was a most reasonable one. They prayed the House "to take immediate steps for relieving them from this state of things, so deeply injurious to their interest, and also, in a great degree, affecting the workmen in their employ, and those in many branches of business connected with their manufacture, and they have no doubt that the result of the reduction recommended, will, as the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry anticipate, nearly double the employment of productive industry in this manufacture, and others dependent upon it, thereby preventing any permanent diminution of the revenue." In conclusion, the noble Lord earnestly entreated the serious attention of the House to the prayer of the petition.

said, that he did not rise to offer any objection whatever to the case which the noble Lord had so ably stated on behalf of the paper manufacturers. His noble Friend had omitted nothing which could excite the attention of the House and the Government to it. The fact was, that the subject was at the present moment under the consideration of Government, and if he omitted to enter into the discussion of the question at the present moment, it was not because he did not attach importance to it, but because he thought that nothing could be more injudicious than the premature disclosure of the intentions of Government with respect to the fiscal regulations which were to affect any branch of our manufactures. He trusted the House would rest satisfied with the assurance that the subject was now under consideration. At the commencement of the financial year, which would be early in April, when he had to bring forward the general statement as to the finances of the country, he should be enabled to state to the House the course which the Government would follow on the subject to which the petition referred, as well as other matters connected with the revenue of the country. The Government had been called upon to consider the claims of various classes of the community with respect to exemption from, or a modification of certain taxes, and when the proper time to which he had referred cause, he should be prepared to state the course intended to be pursued. It would be the care of Government to apply any surplus revenue which might be disposable to those reductions which were most likely to be beneficial to the country. He hoped his noble Friend would not think he undervalued this subject if he refrained from going into it at present.

thought, that whether they looked at the ordinary duty of 3d. in the pound on the additional duty for stained paper, the tax as at present imposed was most objectionable. In its moral effect on literature it might be called a tax on the raw materials of knowledge.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade. A question had been put to a noble Lord (the Marquess of Lansdowne) in another place on the subject of the intentions of Government with respect to the Timber Trade. It was understood from the answer, as it was published, that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on the subject of the Trade in the present Session. He wished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how the fact was.

had understood that the hon. Member had given notice of this question for to-morrow, but he was prepared to answer it now. The fact was, there was a misapprehension of what had been stated by his noble Friend in another place; what his noble Friend said was, that there was no intention to alter the timber duties at present, but he did not mean to convey that no measure would be introduced on the subject in the present Session. Any measure to be introduced this year would be operative only in the year 1837, so that it would not be necessary to bring forward the subject early in the Session; but it was intended to adopt the recommendation of the Committee of last year, and to introduce a bill on the subject in the course of the Session. He regretted that the hon. Member had not deferred his question till to-morrow, as probably the hon. Alderman, the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Alderman Thompson), would be then in his place, and if he were, it was his intention to put a question to the hon. Alderman, whether a report of a speech said to have been delivered by him at a meeting of the shipowners was correct or not. In that report the hon. Alderman was made to say, that it was the intention of Government to postpone any measure on the subject of the timber duties, in order that those interested and opposed to their views might be absent, and that Ministers might be thus enabled surreptitiously to carry their own measure. He would have asked the hon. Member for Sunderland, if the report were correct, on what authority he had made the statement, which, he must say, was utterly-unfounded in fact, and than which nothing could be more contrary to the practice of the Government.

wished to call the attention of the House to the report of the Commissioners of the Shannon, and the recommendations which they had made, pursuant to the order of last Session, for the guidance of the Government in the measures about to be laid before Parliament for facilitating loans for the purpose of aiding both public and private works in that country. He did not go the length of agreeing in the whole of their suggestions, but the Bill which he had since prepared, and hoped to be able to lay before the House in a few days, embodied the most valuable and practical of their propositions. These he would willingly carry into effect, without respecting the appropriation of the monies, and would (under the sanction of such arrangements as he soon expected to see carried into effect) have no hesitation in asking the confidence of the House to enable him to issue Exchequer bills in aid of the public works of Ireland. "When he received Colonel Burgoyne's communications, which were yet required to complete the requisite information, he should bring in his Bill, which he should, wish his hon. Friends to circulate in Ireland amongst their constituents, to obtain their opinions before the House was called on for its decision. He should at present content himself with placing on the Table the report of the Commissioners of the Shannon Navigation.

rose to bear testimony to the great benefits which had resulted, and continued to result, from the operation of the Act of 1831, referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For that Act the people of Ireland were largely indebted to him, and he (Mr. Lynch) was glad to find that his right hon. Friend was determined to follow up and pursue the plan for the promotion of public works in Ireland so wisely adopted by the House at his recommendation, and that of the noble Lord, then Secretary for Ireland. If he (Mr. Lynch) was not previously convinced of the absolute necessity of a wide and extensive measure of this description, the evidence which was given before the Committee of last year would have produced that conviction. The great want of Ireland was the want of employment for the people—the great misfortune of that country was the low price of labour. Notwithstanding the suppression of religious discord, an event which he trusted was now about to be accomplished, Ireland could never be tranquil or happy until the situation of the peasant and the labouring man was improved. This could only be done by education, and increasing the demand for his labour. Do that, and the revenue of the country would be increased. Do so, and the demand for English manufacture will also be increased. Do that, and the expense for police and the army might be diminished. Do that, and the misery of the poor man would be lessened, and comparative comforts and luxuries given to him. The greatest misery prevailed where there was the least employment, and where the lands were left uncultivated. The county of Mayo was a striking example. In Mayo there was the greatest misery and want—in Mayo there was the least demand for the labour of the poor man—in Mayo there was scarce a year passed without famine and great distress—in Mayo there was more uncultivated than cultivated land. By affording employment at home for the people they would lessen, the emigration to this country, so much complained of. Mr. Griffiths, in his evidence before the Committee, stated that he stopped 500 labourers coming over to this country by affording them employment at home; and, having mentioned the name of Mr. Griffiths, he could not avoid alluding to his great efficiency as a public officer, and his great zeal for the improvement of Ireland. The country offered every capability, and the Government and Parliament should, in his opinion, give every facility for improvement and the more extensive employment of the people; and this would be effected by the promotion of public works, and without any cost to the country; for, he was happy to say, that it appeared by the evidence before the Committee, that there was no apprehension of any loss from the loans made under the Act of 1831, and that all the instalments in respect of such loans, and the interest, had been regularly and punctually paid. The Act of 1831, beneficially and usefully as it had operated, was, in many respects, too light, and ought to be relaxed. He did not find fault with his right hon. Friend, for having so commenced, but now that the Act had been found to work well, and that no loss had accrued, or was likely to accrue, and as the Act had been found in many respects too severe, he was rejoiced to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intended to alter and amend the provisions of the Act. As his right hon. Friend did not state the alterations which he intended to propose, in particular, although he stated he was prepared to adopt many, if not most of the suggestions of the Committee, he (Mr. Lynch) was unwilling at that moment to go minutely into such suggestions, he would, therefore, confine himself to one or two observations. And first, in respect of the interest charged on the loans, it appeared to him most extravagant, that whilst Government could borrow money at a rate not exceeding two and a-half or three per cent., they should charge individuals borrowing from them, five per cent., and public bodies four per cent. Such dealings appeared to him in some degree to partake "of usury, for the Government were not only receiving greatly more than they paid, but the monies borrowed from them were immediately applied in the purchase of excisable articles, and thereby the revenue was greatly increased, and eventually the expenditure of the country would be diminished. No doubt, he might be told by his right hon. Friend, that this increased interest was demanded as a protection against losses, and to provide for the expenses of the Board. Now in respect to the protection against losses, he contended that such protection might be always had by taking good and proper security, and with respect to the expenses of the Board, that might be provided for by a small addition to the costs of Government, and by applying the premiums on Exchequer bills for that purpose, instead of giving them to the borrower as at present, but he also contended that the expense of the Board should be borne by Government, as was the case in reference to the Scotch Board, for which 5,000l. a year was granted. Now in respect to public bodies following the suggestions of the Committee, he would press the following alteration to be made—that instead of the annual instalment of four per cent., as required by the present Act towards payment of the principal in addition to the interest, which also amounted to four per cent., a fixed annual payment of five or at most six per cent, should be made, such annual payment at first to be applied in payment of interest, and then in reduction of the principal. He called for this alteration, because the annual payment of eight per cent., which is at present required, excluded many useful works and undertakings, and which could be accomplished if the annual payment was only five or six per cent. Without the reduction of interest, which, however, he hoped still his right hon. Friend would grant, the difference of time in repayment to the country would not amount to more than a few years; and besides all public works were less able at their commencement to bear the heavy burthen—and according to the present act the heavy payments were at the commencement, and the lighter ones subsequent. He would content himself with, these observations at present, and once more thanking his right hon. Friend for the Act of 1831, and the selection that was made in the appointment of Commissioner of the Board of Works, for a more upright, able, and efficient officer there could not be than Colonel Burgoyne, he would sit down on asking the following questions—whether the loan to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or part of it was repaid, and, secondly, whether it was the intention of Government to renew the Mail-road Act passed in 1834?

agreed that some alteration in the charges might be justly and beneficially effected. For instance, he did not think it fair that the borrowers should pay all the expenses of the Board, as the charges of other departments than those of public loans were now borne by it; and he would take care to have that alteration made, but he would make none in the rate of interest. Borrowers could not complain of this, for the ordinary rate to them was higher in Ireland, and Government, in attempting to assist one class, must not injuriously disturb existing arrangements, particularly such an influential point as the rate of public interest. However, he meant to give the Commissioners power in special cases to lower the rate of interest charged to facilitate certain works. He was not able to speak of the certain re-enactment of the Loan Act, but it was his intention to introduce a clause that would enable the Board to make a loan at once (without burthening the borrowers with the necessity of making formal application to his Majesty to lodge security as at present) in cases where they found the property of the applicants was perfectly adequate. He mentioned this to show his hon. Friend that he was not inattentive to the recommendations of the Commissioners; but he would not sacrifice a principle by interfering with the rate of public pecuniary transactions.

said, that it was thought by some that advantage would arise to Ireland if Government would advance money there at a lower rate of interest than ordinary; but this was an error, for if it was allowed that Ireland wanted the aid of capital from private individuals, and it confessedly did, great danger and inconvenience to the country at large would arise by interfering with the rate of their supply, which was ten times the yearly amount that Government afforded by these loans. He indulged no bad will to Ireland in the expression of this opinion, which he felt convinced was the true view of the case.

was happy to hear that such improvements were in the contemplation of Government for Ireland, but he "must enter his protest against the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that because the rate of interest was higher there than in England, the rate of charge on the loan should be proportionately high. How could they expect to encourage improvement in Ireland, if they sent Commissioners there in the capacities of Jews, to extort from the improving and industrious the highest premium from their pecuniary necessities? There were no private money-lenders there for such purpose, or whom the Government could injure by even dealing. The country was poor, and really needed assistance in the rate of interest, as well as in the extension of loans; and it was only justice that the borrower there should have the benefit of obtaining the money on the same terms that Government obtained it here for him.

In bringing forward a Motion for the regulation of Statute Labour in Scotland, I anticipate the opposition of those who admire irresponsible power, who benefit by the abuses it seeks to terminate, and also by those who think they know a better remedy than the one it contemplates, besides that of those who wish the continuance of abuses, that they may have some end advanced by declaiming: against them, have not the presumption to say, that my proposed measure of relief is the best that can be devised, or to deny that it is capable of improvement. All I pretend to say in its favour is, that it embraces the principle of taxation and representation, and affords publicity, control of expenditure to parties contributing the expended funds, and appeal from parties interested to a disinterested tribunal, when the general interest requires such resource. I leave the existing qualification of trustees intact. Many of them being interested in more than one parish, secures to the county a better prospect of ail parish communications being adequately maintained, and a greater probability of comprehensive and reflected views of good general management and united arrangements, than a tenant of land or house, or even a small landowner. To these, however, as locally the best acquainted with the wants of the parish, and as directly charged with maintaining them, and constantly affected by the frugal and impartial expenditure of the road-money, or the reverse, I propose to afford to them the representation of their interests, and the control of their contributions, which the power of electing trustees would confer. Although the tenant of land or house may be held to bargain for so much less rent when he offers to the landlord to occupy the property as the rote imposes on it, be does so with expectation to have the parish road to his residence fairly supported by that rate. It is hard that he should do so for a long; lease, and, if the landlord be a minor, lunatic, or female, be totally without the means of getting a just application, or even of offering a complaint—much less any power of appealing to any other tribunal than that which is composed of the order of those whose conduct renders the complaint and appeal necessary—the barons of the barony and the trustees of the parish being almost always identified in interests, if not in person. The occupier of a house and the owner being generally the same person, will be equally represented; but as I think mere occupancy gives a sufficient claim after a period of five years, I propose that it should give an elective privilege. The trustees would then be composed of owners of valued rent of 100l. Scots value, of a trustee elected by owners of valued rent under 100l. Scots, of a trustee elected by tenants of land, of a trustee elected by residing rate-payers owning houses, and of a trustee elected by rate-payers occupying houses as tenants. By this means the permanent and temporary rate-payers would be both represented, and both enabled to promote frugal, equitable, and judicious employment of their contributions, and such measures as would tend to secure good communications in every village and every parish, and a full but fair contribution likely to be realised and established. I would empower trustees so constituted and combined with trustees already qualified, to unite with other parishes, for the purpose of appointing district surveyors, collectors and clerks; but I would add, for the general interest, and for the individuals aggrieved, a power of appeal to the sheriff or justices of the county. The trustees on valued rent, being turnpike trustees, could employ or assent to the employment of the turnpike-road surveyor; and as the parish roads are the feeders and conductors to the turnpike roads, the public, as well as the local traveller, would benefit by his employment, and, the retention of the existing qualification of trustees of 100l. Scots valued rent, I should limit the operation of my Bill to burghs of borough landward parishes in the first instance, as it is framed for the purpose of relieving such districts from abuses complained of by their inhabitants; and I should print and circulate it in Scotland for a year previous to its enactment. Parliament and the Executive would thereby learn any and what objections, amendments, or alterations were desired by the country, and give it the sanction of the Legislature. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate Statute Labour in Scotland.

did not rise to frustrate the intentions of his hon. Friend, nor to bring forward any case to disprove what he had said with respect to the Statute Labour Roads in Scotland. But he could not think it would be advantageous to have a Committee appointed for the purpose of investigating the state of those Roads merely in a particular district; the proper course would be, in his opinion, to have a Committee on the whole subject generally, to take into consideration the public and private Acts under which they were at present placed, and the Amendments which it would be desirable to make in them. It was quite impossible that one Act, of the description proposed by his hon. Friend, could be made generally applicable to the whole of the country; and it would be, he had no doubt, the opinion of the House, that before they proceeded to alter the law in this particular, they should know what the law in general really was, and so be enabled to form enactments which would be beneficial to the whole community: he should, therefore, move as an Amendment, "That Select Committee be appointed to investigate the several Acts, public and private, regarding Statute Labour in Scotland, and the manner in which the conversion is exacted or levied, and applied to the several counties respectively; and to consider how the existing laws may be amended, and report thereon to the House."

said, he thought Scotland greatly indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing forward this subject; nevertheless he considered the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Edinburgh, would do much more to correct the evil so justly complained of throughout that country; he therefore hoped after the Amendment which had just been moved, that the hon. Member who had made the original Motion (to whose motives he gave the fullest credit) would consent to withdraw it.

would also join in hoping his hon. Friend would see the importance of his acceding to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Edinburgh. At the same time he must say, that no part of Scotland was more op- pressed than that which his hon. Friend represented, with regard to Statute Labour.

After the general expression of feeling by Members connected with Scotland, he trusted his hon. Friend would meet the proposition of Government in the manner so universally desired. The hon. Member for Dundee who knew more than any man, perhaps, upon the subject, had pointed out an Act which he thought the best model of legislation in Statute Labour; it was a Bill brought in for the county of For far which had acted most beneficially. He thought the Committee, having before them the whole of these Bills would be able to devise a more perfect remedy for ail the abuses existing in the law on that head.

also supported the Amendment, and trusted the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Maxwell) would withdraw his motion.

was most happy to find that his Majesty's Government were willing to take up the question, and willingly yielded to the suggestions of the influential Members for Scotland who had just spoken.

wished to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple, whether it was his intention to bring forward his motion for the abolition of military flogging, and, if so, whether he would press that motion to a division?

replied, that it certainly was his intention to move for the entire abolition of military flogging; and he assured the hon. Member that he would not waste the time of the House by introducing the motion if he did not intend to press for a division.

observed, that as the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Major Fancourt) had already placed a notice on the Motion-book, with the intention of bringing forward the subject of military flogging when the Mutiny Act should be brought before the House, it was not his intention to trench upon the ground which that hon. and gallant Member, had thus occupied. The only object which he had in view at the present moment in moving for the returns for which he was about to ask was to obtain such information upon the subject as would put the House in possession of the real facts, and without which it would be impossible for them, with due regard to the value of preparatory evidence, to proceed to the consideration of the question as to how far it would be safe and expedient to commute the present disgraceful and shocking punishment into one of a nature as effectual though not so abhorrent to civilised society. It was therefore, he conceived, necessary for them, previous to the introduction of the annual Act for the suppression of mutiny, to have laid before them some returns by which it might be ascertained how far the practice of corporal punishment had decreased in the army, and also how far the application of punishments in general throughout that branch of the service was in accordance with the mild spirit of legislation which had so fortunately and with so much success prevailed of late years in civil society. The House was in possession of no facts nor of any data which could throw a light upon the practice of Courts-martial, until the right hon. Member for Coventry had furnished some information, which was afterwards increased on the occasion of the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex on the subject of corporal punishment. That information was useful as far as it went, but it was not sufficient fully to elucidate the subject. It was the" opinion of persons of the highest military as well as civil authority, that the practice of flogging was worse than useless, and more so now than it had ever hitherto been. The experience of observant inquirers on this subject made them aware that the man who was once flogged was, in the majority of cases, a lost man; that he constantly fell from one act of disgrace into another; until in many instances the individual became little better than a flogging block in his regiment. It had been stated, by a very high authority, as a proof that milder punishments would be efficacious, that the effect of hard labour and solitary confinement had been tried with the happiest results in lieu of flogging upon the most brutal. On a former occasion he had expressed his intention of moving for returns which would enable him to trace a flogged soldier through his whole career, in order that the effects of this mode of punishment might be made more obvious; but he had, upon consideration, abandoned his intention, as the returns would be too intricate to be furnished, He, therefore, had contented himself with the returns stated in his notice, and he the more readily adopted the limited mo- tion as he looked with some expectations to the result of the labours of the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into this subject. He should, of course, refrain from touching upon the melancholy result of two recent cases of flogging, as they were not sufficiently before the public to enable people to form a correct opinion of the facts; but it could hardly be denied that the practice had again occasioned the loss of life in two instances. In expressing his opinions upon this revolting punishment, he by no means desired or meant to disparage the judgment of those high military authorities who had given their opinions that there was a necessity for its continuance; but he must be allowed to say that those opinions were anything but conclusive, and they must also, in some degree, be attributed to the circumstance that the long-continued practice of flogging had wedded the supporters of the system to it. He did not attribute to any military men the desire, or even the actual fact, of having misused their power, but perhaps they were not so able to judge of its effects, as to abuse or use, as those who were impartial witnesses of the circumstances. It was an extraordinary fact that, at the time of Sir Samuel Romilly's endeavours to lessen the practice of flogging in the army, the Bench of Judges were opposed to its abolition, and the Bench was composed of men not remarkable for their severity. It would now scarcely be believed that humane men of such high characters and standing would have set their faces against an attempt to ameliorate the lot of humanity, but the difficulty was solved when the penal code of that day was compared with the milder application of punishment now so happily and so efficaciously in vogue. He might state as an example of the fallacy of the creed which adopted severity of punishment as its criterion of obedience and due observance of the law, a circumstance which had come to his knowledge, upon the authority of a well informed person. In the colony of New South Wales an Order in Council was issued restricting Magistrates from inflicting more than fifty lashes upon convicts who had misconducted them, selves. The Governor was told, that it would be impossible to restrain those unhappy men in anything like subordinate bounds if this order was acted upon. The Governor, however, followed his own opinion upon the subject, the Order in Council was not rescinded, and most certainly the Government of that colony was not shaken, nor in any way disturbed in consequence. Thus the same results might, he was convinced, be looted for by altering the system in the army. He was willing to admit that military authority upon this point was very much, and deservedly so, looked up to by the community at large. But in the mean time the House ought to collect facts, in order that they might guide the exercise of their judgments by them. There was no difference in opinion as to the practice itself; all admitted it to be dreadful, but the real difference was as to the safety of doing away with it. He trusted, therefore, that the House would no longer sanction the Mutiny Act, without ample and convincing proofs of the necessity of this punishment and whenever the House should be called upon to renew that Act, he trusted it would require an exact statement from the Government of the mode in which the power of inflicting corporal punishment had been exercised during the past year. He hoped that the House would then be satisfied as he was, that the present brutal punishment could be dispensed with in the army, in the same way that violent and shocking punishments had been abolished in civil society; and that the milder and not less efficacious punishments of solitary confinement and hard labour would be subtituted, which would be much more in accordance with the feelings of the country and the spirit of modern legislation. He begged to move for a return of the number of soldiers who have suffered either corporal punishment or imprisonment, and wherever either corporal punishment or imprisonment has been inflicted on the same person more than once, specifying how often it has been so inflicted.

had long been convinced that the practice of flogging the army ought to be abolished, at least during the time of peace: with respect to its infliction during a war, and its absolute necessity to preserve discipline when the troops were on foreign service, he would offer no opinion; but as far as regarded its abolition whilst the peace continued he was the determined and constant advocate of that alteration in the Mutiny Act, and had on all occasions voted for it. He strongly approved of the motion, to which he would beg to add an amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he did not object to— [No, no.] He begged pardon, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman so but he would not hold him to the words of a private conversation. The amendment which he proposed was to add the following words:—"What the sentence was, and in what manner it was carried into execution."

was sorry his hon. Friend had entered so much at large upon the question to which the returns moved for referred, as he had been led to believe such was not his intention, but that he merely meant to move for the returns specified, and which he had intimated to him his noble Friend the Secretary-at-War, was ready to grant. The present was not fit time to enter upon the consideration of the great question of military flogging, and he wished very much that his hon. Friend had waited until the proper opportunity had developed itself. He had no objection to furnish the returns required. There would be some difficulty in obtaining the details required by the hon. Member as to the number of times the same man bad been, punished; but he would take such means as were within his power to obtain the returns correctly from each regiment, in order that the object of his hon. Friend might be answered. With respect to the observations which had escaped his hon. Friend as to the fatal result of the recent cases of punishment, he must say that there was nothing at present before the House to warrant them in believing that death had ensued from the actual flogging; and it was incumbent on them to be in possession of the facts before any judgment was pronounced upon them.

expressed his utter abhorrence of the practice of military flogging; and he never could be persuaded by any returns showing its diminution, either that it ought to be continued, or that the House, relying upon the humanity of the officers of the army, ought to be satisfied so long as the slightest vestige of so dreadful a practice remained on the statute-book. Two dreadful examples of its fatal inefficiency had recently occurred at Woolwich; they certainly could not at present be made a subject of consideration by the House, because the case was now undergoing investigation, but when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Fergusson) declared that the facts were not sufficiently before the House for them to form a judgment upon them, he must take the liberty of telling him that if those men had not been flogged, their deaths would not have ensued in such a manner and at this time. The whole array system was defective and re- quired revision. So long as the present mode of recruiting was persevered in, by which all the worst subjects in the kingdom were made soldiers of, so long no proper state of discipline could be maintained. Let the authorities endeavour to heighten the character of the service by rejecting disorderly and improper characters, and let them also put into practice the method enforced in the Continental troops, of degrading and dismissing the man who acts disgracefully, and that would be found as effectual in the English array as it was on the Continent, and would also enable them to dispense with the brutal infliction of flogging, which, the public, he was now convinced, were all of opinion was as repugnant to true policy as it was abhorrent to every principle of humanity and justice.

said, that he was far from being an advocate, abstractedly speaking, for the practice of flogging; but he was afraid, indeed he was certain, that the description of punishment recommended in its stead would go much further to degrade the soldier than the punishment now in practice. He denied that the punishment of flogging so far degraded a soldier that he could never after be respected or respect himself. He would state facts in support of his opinion. As one instance, he could name a case when he commanded a regiment of Dragoons during the war. He happened to be brigaded with another regiment, in which the gallant Member for Bath (General Palmer) then served. In that regiment there was a soldier who had been flogged for drunkenness, but who had afterwards conducted himself so well that he was made a non-commissioned officer, and was subsequently raised to the rank of sergeant-major. In the regiment which he (General Sharpe) commanded, an Adjutant was at that time wanted, and he applied to the noble Earl who commanded the other regiment to know if he could spare his sergeant-major, who appeared to be a most efficent non-commissioned officer. The noble Earl replied that he could; but that he felt it his duty to state that the man had once been flogged for drunkenness. Having regard to the character of the crime for which the man had been punished, and his subsequent good conduct, which had raised him to the rank of sergeant-major, he (General Sharpe) did not hesitate to take him into his regiment as his Adjutant, which rank of course entitled him to associate with the other officers of the regiment on a perfect equality. In this situation he continued to conduct himself with so much, efficiency, propriety and gentlemanly conduct, that he was beloved by his brother officers; and the noble Earl, his old Colonel, having afterwards had an opportunity of seeing how much he was liked in the regiment, and how well he conducted himself, made a special request to have him back again as his own Adjutant—a request which would not have been granted to any one else. He did go back to his old regiment, and soon after rose to the rank of Captain. Did not this case show that flogging did not degrade the man? But, let him ask, if this man had undergone the punishment of the treadmill, would he have been received as their equal by any body of officers in the British army? Most certainly he would not. He never would have been permitted to rank with gentlemen. The gallant General cited another similar instance where flogging a man bad not produced the degrading effects universally attributed to it, and maintained that the continuance of the practice was indispensable to the safety and the discipline of the army.

was surprised at the assertion of the hon. and gallant Member, that there was nothing degrading in being flogged; and he could not but regret that the opinion of the gallant General should be formed upon an isolated case, opposed as it was to so many, which should induce him to arrive at quite a different conclusion. However, this was not the time to enter upon the discussion of so wide a subject. He should, however, express his conviction that the time had arrived when that House should interfere to put an end to such a system. If the Government did not interfere to put an end to this abominable practice, that House would be obliged to interfere, and tell both the Government and the officers of his Majesty's service, that the soldiers should no longer be subjected to the infliction of a punishment so degrading. He wished to know from his right hon. Friend below him, when they might expect the Report of the Commissioners.

said, that his noble Friend, the Secretary of War, was most anxious to forward the Report of the Commission; and in answer to an application made within the last few days to persons connected with that Commission, his noble Friend had been informed that within a week it might be expected the Report would be in the hands of his Majesty's Ministers.

said, that the individuals employed on that Commission had been engaged most industriously in the duties assigned to them. Not one moment had been lost, and he believed their labours had been brought to a termination. He could not say how long this Report might be in the hands of the printers, but he had little doubt but it would be in the hands of the Government before the expiration of a week.

rose for the purpose of offering only one suggestion. The surgeon of the regiment was always present when these punishments were inflicted, and exercised such humanity in the amount of punishment as the nature of the case might require. This, however, was done only at the moment. Perhaps it would be desirable if, previously to the infliction of the punishment, the surgeon were to inquire into the previous general state of health. This might be the means of preventing the occurrence of death, as happened in some recent cases. This might prevent the infliction of a heavier punishment than was contemplated by the Court-martial.

had served some years in the Scotch Greys, and scarcely ever saw this punishment inflicted in the regiment. Those who were anxious, as all officers must be, to preserve the character of a regiment, would have recourse to it as seldom as possible. With respect to the punishment of solitary confinement and hard labour, there was this objection to it, that it would have the effect of punishing the innocent for the guilty; for the innocent men would have to do the duty of the guilty during their confinement. He would object to the return, as not being full enough. There should be also a return stating the general character of the men, and the circumstances under which the punishment was awarded. It could not be denied, that the fear of this mode of punishment had a great effect upon the soldiers. He feared it would be impossible to do away altogether with military flogging, and at the same time to preserve the discipline of the army. He knew, in the early period of his service, a distinguished officer upon whom it had been inflicted.

emphatically denied that flogging was either necessary or effectual for the purpose of what the gallant Officer was pleased to call "redeeming" the soldiers. And so the gallant Colonel had discovered that the substitution of solitary confinement for flogging would be punish- ing the remainder of the regiment for the offence of one! Suppose for a moment that it was so, would it not be cheaply purchasing the abolition of that disgraceful and degrading punishment, by obliging a man to occasionally mount an additional guard? But what was really the case? "Solitary confinement;" quoth the gallant Officer, "would take the man from his duty," Well, did flogging send him to it? No; he was flogged till the skin was stripped from his back, and then sent to a hospital to abide the chance of a mortification. But it was necessary, it seemed, to flog, in order to "redeem" the soldiers. Redeem! Oh, it was a word that should not be so desecrated. The army of Napoleon—not a soldier in it was flogged, and yet they were tolerably well fitted for the ordinary duties of military life. It was time that this degrading punishment were totally abolished—that the lash should be no longer applied to the back of a British soldier, when it was discontinued even amongst the black men. The hon. and learned Member concluded by expressing a hope that the hon. Member for Barnstaple would persevere in his motion upon this subject.

said, that without going into the general question, he should merely observe, in reference to the recent cases at Woolwich, that he had himself seen one of the bodies, and he had never seen stronger proofs of death having ensued from bodily injury. Upon examination of the body, no trace of internal disease could be discovered, and the blush of health was still on the cheek of the corpse. He should not advert to this subject at more length, as he should now give notice that he should, on the morrow, move for a return of the finding of the Jury, and the evidence taken before them. There was an account of the proceedings at the Marine-barracks at this place, in a newspaper of great circulation and influence— he meant The Weekly Dispatch. He would read it to the House:—"Early on Monday morning last, a private marine, named William Saundry, was led forth into the open space fronting the barracks at Woolwich, to undergo the christian-like punishment of receiving two hundred lashes. The square having been formed, and the wretched delinquent tied up to the halberts, the drummers commenced, when the screams of the miserable wretch were so loud and heart-piercing, that, notwithstanding the fifes and drums were ordered to drown them, it is positively stated that they could be beard above a mile and a half across the Artillery-ground! After receiving one hundred lashes, or nine hundred cords having been passed over his lacerated back, Saundry was ordered to be taken down, for what reason is not known, nor will we venture to state whether it was a voluntary or forced act by the officer in command. Saundry was led to the infirmary in a fainting state; and whether the same fate awaits him that fell to the lot of the victim Ramsay, time alone will prove. It may be as well here to give a description of the cat used in the marine corps. Similar to others, it has nine thongs made of whipcord, in each of which three over-hand knots are tied, and at the end of each cord there is a hard substance formed about the size of a large pea. On the night previous to the sentence being carried into effect, the drummers received orders to soak the cats in water, after which they were hung up to dry, thus making each cord like a piece of wire. To complete the education of the drummers in this diabolical practice, the figure of a man's back is chalked out in the drummers' room, and they are taught so to administer the lash, as to prevent the cords being clotted together with an offender's blood, as they draw the cat across his shoulders. This is done that each of the knots, thirty-six in number, may take proper effect in jagging the man's flesh." Now this account had not been contradicted. The gallant Member for Dumfries said, that flogging was not degrading to the soldier. Now he would ask whether it was honourable? He would also ask, if it was not degrading to the men, why it was not applied to the officers?

had received a letter from Portsmouth, in which it was stated that 4,000 lashes had been inflicted on the men in the corps of marines stationed there, within a twelvemonth. He would, therefore, suggest that the return should be amended so as to include all the marine corps. He knew that it was the opinion of most of the officers in the army that the time had arrived when corporal punishment should be dispensed with. This could only be done satisfactorily in times of peace, and he intreated the Government at least to try the experiment without delay.

said, that as punishments had been successfully mitigated as regarded civilians, he did not see why such severe punishments in the army should be continued. He understood that the punishment in the marine corps was much more severe than that in the army. In the former, the cat which was used in the navy was used, while in the latter one of a different construction was used. It had been stated that during the Peninsular war, when the bodies of English and Spanish, soldiers were stripped and left together, that the French troops when they came up, could always distinguish the bodies of the English by turning them up, as they generally found their backs marked with the cat. He, of course, did not state this on his own authority; but it was asserted in a publication written, he understood, by a person who was formerly a surgeon in the army.

remarked that he visited the town of St. Sebastian soon after it was taken by assault by the English troops, and he had the declarations of the magistrates of the place in his possession, as to the conduct of the soldiers. He had then heard it stated repeatedly, that many officers bad been destroyed in endeavouring to prevent the horrible depredations and crimes which were committed by the English soldiers. He had no doubt that the British officers could have exercised such a control over the soldiers, as to prevent them committing such atrocities, had it not been for the system of flogging. The soldiers of the French army entertained an almost boundless confidence and attachment to their officers, and this chiefly arose from the lightness of the punishment inflicted in that army.

stated, that when the question was brought forward last year, it was postponed at the suggestion of the noble Secretary at War, who stated that Government had appointed a commission to inquire into the system of military punishments, with a view to see whether a change could not be effected, and that it was desirable to wait for its report. From what the House had that night heard, it appeared probable that a long delay would occur. He trusted, therefore, the House would not allow the matter to rest.

repeated, that all the witnesses that it was intended to call had been examined, and the report was nearly ready to be laid before the House. The investigation had been carried on, in such a way as to throw the most perfect light on the subject.

observed, that as one of the oldest officers in the army, he was anxious to trouble the House with a few observations. He believed, that he might quote the authority of Lord Hill, in saying that punishment in the army was declining, and that there was little doubt but that it would within a short time be got rid of altogether. He had served many years in a regiment in a most excellent state of discipline, and during that time he did not recollect a single instance of punishment having been inflicted. As some allusions had been made to the marines—and he begged to observe that he had the honour during a portion of the late war of commanding two battalions of marines—a more excellent or useful body of troops did not exist in the service, and their conduct was so exemplary during that time, that there was no necessity to resort to punishment.

rose for the purpose of bringing under the attention of the House the present state of the law relating to the trial of controverted elections, and to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into it. He was aware that the subject was not of an interesting nature, and that the House might not, perhaps, like to listen to an enumeration of its own misdeeds; but he trusted that attention would be given to him for a short time. He could not help feeling that he should have brought forward his motion with greater advantage during the last Session, when Members had to attend Election Committees, and when their attention was much directed to the subject. At that time many Members on both sides of the House admitted that they found the present system to be inconvenient, and exclaimed loudly against its injustice. If the feelings of hon. Gentlemen had somewhat moderated since then, still he trusted that they had not altogether passed away, but that they were willing to enter upon the consideration of the subject and would devote to him for a short time their serious attention. Some Members might feel shocked at a proposal to make at once a complete change in the system of trying controverted elections; but although he was satisfied that such a course of proceeding would be expedient, still he did not intend to do so, but merely wished to move for a Committee of Inquiry. Before the Grenville Act was passed; the House assumed to itself the right of exercising a jurisdiction in matters of election petitions, and determining in such cases, in the same numbers and the same forms in which it decided political questions, who was entitled to a seat in Parliament. The decision of the House was then come to under the same party feelings as operated on Members' minds in other matters, and a decision in a case of contested ejection was a party triumph. Never, probably, were the rights of such an important body as the elective body in this country so recklessly trampled on as by that which happened to be the predominant party in the House. He would only refer to one fact in the history of the last century in confirmation of this. Every hon. Member was aware that the downfall of Sir Robert Walpole was occasioned by the decisions of the House in two controverted elections. A historian of that period (he believed it was Horace Walpole) said, that, although, in the first of these cases, the Minister was in a majority of four, he thought that such a majority in a matter on which he was said to be doing right, was not sufficient to enable him to go on. The Chamber of Deputies in France also determined all cases of controverted elections in the full House, and he believed that he was justified in saying, with an equal sacrifice of justice to that which was formerly experienced here. The taking these questions out of the hands of the whole House and intrusting them to a Committee of limited numbers, forming something like a jury, was undoubtedly a great improvement; but still the system in many respects was defective. Indeed he believed that it was now generally admitted that the tribunal for determining cases of elections was most imperfect and incompetent, and there was a suspicion attaching to it which he thought they ought to be proud, as Englishmen, did not attach to any other tribunal in the country. If the public were admitted on such occasions, they would, he believed, be surprised at what took place at the ballot of an Election Committee. What would they think if they saw Gentlemen who were to be called upon to exercise their functions in a judicial capacity, come down to the House under what was called "the whip?" This was the case on both sides the House, and therefore he did not bring the charge more against one party than another. For the last three or four years both sides of the House had been assembled on the balloting for every Election Committee under "the whip." What would the public say at hearing the expression of party feeling in the House on the appointment of Members on this judicial tribunal, where three or four names were called from one side. He repeated, that he did not apply the observation to merely one side, for it was equally applicable to both. It was also common to hear a Member's friends com- plain of it as a matter of shame if his name was called and he was not present. Again, if a Member approached the Table to be sworn of the Committee on the grounds of age or official situation, what murmurs arose from his friends, and what feelings of dissatisfaction were manifested! What opinion would the public form of the fairness and impartiality of the House in these proceedings, if they could know the expressions of feeling emanating variously from Members on both sides of the House after a ballot had concluded? If they were allowed to listen to the congratulations of "Oh, you have got a very good Committee;" or the desparing announcement of a Member petitioned against, contained in the words — "I have got a very bad Committee, and I may as well strike at once." In some cases this had been seriously intended, and he remembered last Session an instance in which a specimen of the opinions entertained by the public of the fairness of members of a Committee had been afforded in a very unusual and naive manner. He alluded to the striking of the Canterbury Election Committee, after a great preparation on both sides of the House. The ballot took place, and. on the very same day one of the chief supporters in Canterbury of the Tory candidate stuck up in his window a list of the Committee, with the letters C or R, designating Conservative or Reformer, appended to each name; and on this announcement a jubilation was immediately prepared by the Conservative party in that city, in anticipation of certain triumph before a tribunal so constituted. So much for the estimation in respect to fairness and impartiality, and the absence of party feeling, in which the public held these tribunals as now constituted. That estimation was not without foundation, for he remembered two or three years back two Committees sat on separate petitions, both complaining of bribery. The facts were similar in both cases, both turned upon, the question of agency, and in both the final decision depended on the result of various intermediate resolutions. In one Committee the bribery was held to be proved by a majority of six to five on every one of the intermediate stages, and in the other Committee, by a most singular coincidence, the same majority, in each stage, came to decisions whereby the proof of bribery was shut out. Now, as to the expense of these proceedings, they were, of course, well known to hon. Members who had been so unfortunate as to have been mixed up in such matters. He had, however, inquired the general expense of petitions, and had found the most favourable specimen as to cheapness in the Salisbury case in 1833. That petition cost 1,000l. Another in the same year cost 2,000l., others 3,000l, and 4,000l., and he had learned that in one case the expenses on a petition had amounted to 10,000l., and, it was even said, in another to 20,000l. This was a subject not interesting to the parties alone, but most important to the constituent bodies of this country— they were interested that the right man should be returned, and yet even when another had taken the seat, on a mere majority of seven votes, the expense prevented them from coming to this House to prove the legal majority was the other way. To the expense of these proceedings was to be added the excessive delay by which Committees protracted their inquiries and increased the costs. He had spoken to one of the most eminent practitioners before these tribunals on this subject, and inquired the cause of so much delay. He had been told as the reason, that, in the first place, no Committee considered itself bound by the decision of a former Committee, even on a question of law; that therefore every point of law might be re-argued, and the last Committee generally did great justice to the argument, by upsetting the judgment and decision of its predecessor. He was informed, in the second place, by his professional friend (in the irreverent way in which lawyers are apt to speak of Members of Parliament), that considerable time was further consumed in instructing Committees in the mere elementary doctrines of the rules of evidence, and that no sooner was this accomplished in one Committee than Counsel had to proceed to another, in order to go through the same process. When he thus complained of delay, he trusted he should not be charged with inconsistency in his argument, if he also found fault with the excessive precipitancy of some Committees in arriving at conclusions. As proofs at once both of delay and precipitancy, he need only refer to the two Montgomery cases, well known to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Before proceeding to call the attention of the House more particularly to those two cases, he must mention an anecdote which bore most completely on his charge of precipitancy. An hon. Friend of his was, some Sessions back, petitioned against, and on inquiring from him the probable result of the petition, he was surprised to hear that it would depend on the state of the weather, for, added his friend, "the whole question turns upon a difficult point of law, and a mass of very wearisome evidence. If the weather be rainy, the Committee, not desiring to get out, will sit and listen to the argument of Counsel; but if the weather be fine, they will all be desirous to ride or drive in the part, and though the law is clearly with me, they will not attend to the discussion enforcing it, and so surely will they oust me from my seat." To return, however, more directly to the subject to which he was desirous to call the serious attention of the House, he contended that the real accusation against these tribunals was, that they were wholly unfit and incompetent for the work that was intrusted to them; it was not that hon. Members were so swayed by party feeling that they would not be just—it was not that they could not be taught their duties, but it was because hon. Gentlemen came to Committees of this kind knowing nothing of the law, possessing no acquaintance with the principles of law or evidence, because one Committee was not bound by the decision of a former Committee, because Committees decided upon no fixed principle, and because there was at present an utter uncertainty both of what the law in this respect has been or will be. In cases of questioned qualification, of necessity, many difficult questions of property in law must arise, and he need instance only the recent Drogheda case, in which Mr. O'Dwyer was unseated on one of the nicest possible points of equity law, to show that these were not questions to be tried by a Committee, constituted as the law now stood. He would next advert to the uncertainty as to decisions of different Committees on the same point. The first question before all Committees was the custody of the poll-books. Now in the Dublin case an objection was taken to the admissibility of the poll-books, on the ground of the omission in the jurat of the affidavit verifying the poll-books of the names of the deponents. That objection was held to be good, and the parties were put to great inconvenience and expense in order to get out of the difficulty. In the Cork City case at the same time, however, the same objection was taken, but the Committee there decided absolutely contrary to the Dublin case, and overruled the objection. The decision of the Roscommon Committee—that the poll-books coming out of the hand of the agent for the returning officer were inadmissible, was overruled, though the circumstances were the same, by the Inverness-shire Committee. Again, in the first Montgomery case, which he had already mentioned; the point raised was the sufficiency of the proof of the custody of the poll-books. The Committee, after argument, held the proof to be insufficient, but the second Montgomery Committee, before whom the same objection was maintained, decided directly the reverse, and quashed the whole case. He was not surprised at the precipitancy with which the last decision was arrived at, when he found that the Committee heard the case on the "Oaks day," There was another very important point, upon which the greatest possible uncertainty prevailed at present, and which it was desirable should be permanently determined; he alluded to the question of opening the registries, or to what extent the registries were to be held to be conclusive. On this point he believed the Committees on English Election cases have decided uniformly right; but in Ireland there was the greatest possible confusion. He meant confusion with reference to this point. Though the Irish Reform Act had declared the registry to be "conclusive," there had been no less than three constructions put on the word "conclusive," as applying to the Barrister's decision. Gal way, Coleraine, and two other Committees, limiting the meaning so as to render the registry utterly useless; Car-low and Youghall interpreting it so amply as to render the registry absolutely final, and so rendering the Committee useless. The Clonmel Committee took a middle course, admitting an appeal from the decision of the Barrister in such votes as were objected to at the time of the registry, and this seemed the most reasonable view of the point. The next point to which he felt it necessary to advert, was the contrariety of decisions as to the necessity of first proving agency before giving acts of bribery in evidence. This was a point with the House ought long since to have settled, and have afforded every facility in the proof of allegations of bribery. At present, however, the charge of bribery was always met with a most formidable technical objection—namely, that it was not allowable to prove acts of bribery committed until the agency of the party committing them was fully proved. Now, in September, 1833, the Newry, Oxford, Warwick, and Norwich Com- mittees decided, that bribery might be shown before agency was proved, while the Ennis and the Hertford Committees held directly the contrary; and though the same point was raised and discussed in the Bristol case, yet even the counsel could not make out how the Committee then adjudicated. But he had a still more singular instance of contrariety of decision afforded him in the Dungarvon case in 1834, where the bribery of a man of the name of Dower was admitted in proof without agency being established, and yet in the very next page of the Report, he cited, the Committee came to an opposite determination, by refusing the bribery proof of Dower's brother until agency was made out. He now came again to the first and second Montgomery cases. In the first, Mr. Pugh, who was unseated for treating, had a "very bad" Committee. A new contest followed, and the Tory candidate, who was started in Mr. Pugh's place, became the petitioner, seeking to unseat his opponent on the ground of treating at the former election. The Committee on the second petition held that the recriminatory case ought to have been gone into on the first petition when it could not have been gone into as the then sitting Member was not a party, the petition being from electors, and refused to entertain it. He was not surprised, for on reference to his Almanack he found that the last Committee sat during the Epsom week. There was another important point on which the decisions had recently been various—he alluded to the question whether after registration, a man could be disqualified from voting. It had been held by all Committees, for a long time, that a man abandoning his qualification after registration, but before the poll, was disfranchised. The contrary had been, however, the decision of the Windsor and second Canterbury Committees last Session. Again, thirteen Committees had held that paupers had no right to vote, until the second Canterbury and the Ipswich Committees admitted pauper votes objected to. Another Committee refused to reject the vote of a minor, because his name appeared on the register, though it was urged by counsel before them, that on the same principle a woman equally disqualified by law from voting might, if registered, be retained on the poll. In the Droitwich case, however, the Committee struck off from the poll the name of a peer, though registered, and here was again a different decision upon two most obviously similar disqualifies- tions. With respect to the disqualification of persons employed in the revenue, the Windsor and Canterbury Committees allowed the votes of such parties, and also of the keepers of post-offices, while the Rochester Committee decided the other way. He had another singular instance of contrariety of decisions in the Monmouth and Worcester cases, both of which turned upon the question whether wagers laid as to the result of a contest did not amount to merely a pretext for a bribe. It appeared that bets of 5s., or a bottle of wine., had been made. In the Worcester case, such a bet was held to disqualify the vote, and Mr. Bailey retained his seat. In the Monmouth case, the Committee on the petition of Mr. Bailey's son held otherwise, and the result was, that the difference of the decisions on the same point seated the father and unseated the son. He thought he had stated enough to justify him in moving for a Committee of Inquiry on this subject. He had prepared a plan for the constitution of Election Committees; but he did not think it would be proper in so young a Member of the House as himself, to call upon Parliament at once to adopt his proposition. He was anxious to have a Committee appointed to consider the subject, and to recommend any plan which they might consider an improvement upon the existing system; and he thought this a better mode of proceeding than the introduction of a Bill in the first instance. He would, however, explain the general nature of the plan he was himself inclined to recommend, and, in doing so, he might, perhaps, shock some Gentlemen by the extreme moderation of the reform he proposed; but the principle upon which he acted, with respect to this and to all other matters, was not to make a greater change than was absolutely necessary. He knew that some Gentlemen were of opinion that no good would be done until the jurisdiction, in cases of controverted elections, should be entirely taken away from the House of Commons and transferred to some legal tribunal. He did not concur in that opinion; for, though a regular legal tribunal might be the best in ordinary times, he still thought it was the duty and the business of the House of Commons to pro-vide for the maintenance of its own independence in unfavourable seasons. For this reason he conceived that the House would not act wisely in allowing the power of deciding on controverted elections to be transferred to Judges, who might happen, at some period or other, to be indisposed to respect the privileges of the Commons. The best course for the House to adopt would be to endeavour to make its own. tribunal as perfect as possible, and it struck him that it would be an obvious improvement on the present system, if the number of the Members composing an Election Committee were reduced, and their individual responsibility thereby increased. He would also advise that the Committees should be struck in such a manner as to avoid all opportunity for the display of that party feeling which, to the discredit of the House, was now occasioned by the ballots. It would be of great advantage, in default of the assistance of an ordinary Judge, if the House were to secure the presence, in the Election Committees, of a permanent chairman or president, in whose judgment, experience, and knowledge of law, confidence might be placed. He would now state the heads of his plan; they were as follows:— A chairman to be elected by the House at the commencement of every Parliament. (Of course there must be more than one chairman; but the number might be settled by the Committee to which he proposed to refer the consideration of the question.) The chairman so elected should preside ex officio over the Election Committees, and vote in all divisions. In the first week of every Session, the names of all Members, whether present or absent, should be placed in the balloting-box, unless reason for the contrary should be stated and allowed by the House; and every name should be put down on paper in the order in which it was drawn, that such paper should form the list from which the Election Committees should be regularly taken, and that it should be printed with the votes. Such an arrangement as this would, he thought, put a complete stop to the canvassing for the attendance of Members at election ballots. That days should be appointed for the consideration of disputed elections; that all applications for delay should be heard and disposed of by the permanent officer elected by the House; that the original Committee list should contain eighteen names, six to be struck off by each party, so that the reduced list would consist of six only. He confessed that he thought that four Members would be enough to constitute a Committee, because the more the number was reduced the greater would the responsibility of the Members become. In all cases in which a division should be called for, the chairman should pronounce his opinion publicly, and, at the termination of the case, should charge the Committee. He did not of course, mean that the Committee should be bound by the opinion of the chairman. All the divisions should be mentioned in the Report of the Committee, with the names of the assentients and dissentients to every Resolution. The only other change which he proposed to make was with regard to the question of costs. At present, the parties whose conduct, either in prosecuting or opposing an election petition, was declared to be frivolous and vexatious, was compelled to pay the whole costs; but he proposed that a regulation should be adopted similar to that which was observed in courts of law, and that the costs should be apportioned by, the Committee, with reference to each allegation of the petition. He would now move "That a Select Committee be appointed, to consider the laws relating to the determination of the right of voting, and the trial of controverted elections."

said, he only spoke the sentiments of every Member of that House when he expressed the satisfaction which he felt at hearing the clear and able statement which his hon. and learned Friend had just made. He was not only satisfied with the arguments which his hon. and learned Friend had adduced, but the mode in which he had dealt with a question so important in itself, and with which he had taken such pains, and on which he had displayed so much impartiality. No person who was conversant with the subject could deny that some improvements were necessary, and he did not think there was a Member of that House who did not feel the evils of the present state of the election law, and wish to provide against them. If a foreigner had heard the statements of his hon. and learned Friend he might be induced to suspect that they were exaggerated; but, for his own part, he could enumerate many cases which would go the whole length of those statements. The statements of his hon. and learned Friend did not require much to support them, and, without wishing to add to the catalogue of facts which his hon. and learned Friend had laid before the House, he could not refrain from mentioning one or two cases to show the total incompetence of Election Committees as at present constituted. He by no means wished to impute to these tribunals any unfair dealing; but to show that the inconsistency of their decisions was the result of incompetence, and did not proceed from any want of desire to do full and ample justice. The first Committee on which he had sat was appointed to try the allegations of a petition from his hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen, against the return of the sitting Member. His hon. Friend, in his petition, alleged that riots had existed during the election, which precluded the possibility of free opinion on the part of the electors of that borough. The petitioner having made out no case, the Committee decided, that it was unnecessary for the sitting Member to call evidence; and yet, when they came to a division, four of those who had so decided actually voted against the Member keeping his seat. This could surely not have happened if the tribunal had been competent. The other instance was a case of his own. It was there decided, that because the party who had the legal custody of the poll-books was not forthcoming, the seals upon them should not be broken, so as to give them in evidence. He was of course unseated by this decision, although the Bristol Committee, sitting at the time in an adjoining room, under precisely similar circumstances, not only broke the seals of the poll-books but received them in evidence. In that case the party from whom the poll-books were produced was declared to ha seated, but the difference of the two cases was, that his had the misfortune to be a Limerick case and the other a Bristol one. He, however, had no doubt whatever, that both Committees had acted impartially, but still such contrariety of decision showed in the most convincing manner, that some improvement was required in the formation of those tribunals. He was very glad his hon. Friend had done that which he was bound to do—that he had not only pointed out what he had considered the inconvenience of the present system, but was prepared to suggest a remedy for the evils which he had pointed out. With respect to the remedy which his hon. and learned Friend had suggested, all he could say was, that he assented to the principle which his hon. and learned Friend had laid down. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that the House of Commons should retain its own station, power, and independence and not submit to have any of the functions which of right appertained to it transferred to any other tribunal. It was not only proper that they should maintain their own privileges, but it would in his opinion be highly inexpedient in every point of view to refer such matters for decision to a Court of Law. Whatever confidence the country might have in the decisions of the Judges he did not think it would be prudent to allow the Courts of Law to be mixed up with party politics, or subject to the imputation of partiality, to which in such cases they would no doubt be exposed. His hon. Friend's description of a ballot was rather a dramatic one, but if it afforded, as be believed it did, the chances of impartiality, it would be wrong to act on contrary principles, in selecting Committees to which that business was to be referred which the House could not transact. There were two of the remedies proposed by his hon. and learned Friend in which he concurred. He meant, first, with respect to the limitation of the numbers of an Election Committee. They had, already, in fact, adopted that principle, because they had reduced the number from fifteen to eleven. A smaller number than eleven he agreed would be decidedly an advantage, provided it was accompanied by a real protection—that protection which publicity alone could give. It was important to all parties, voters as well as to Members of that House, that the proceedings of Election Committees should be public—should not be conducted with closed doors. But it was said, that if this were done it would preclude all amicable discussion—that it would deter young Members from acting in Committees of this description. Be it so. Why, if it were wrong to have young and inexperienced men on such Committees let them be excluded. This, however, was a mere hypothesis, and not a fact. But, if they were to decide on the rights of others, surely it was not going too far to say, that they should administer justice in the face of the public, rather than in private. So far from wishing to throw any difficulty in the way of his hon. and learned Friend, he rejoiced that he had brought the subject forward. There could be no doubt that it would be a great advantage if such tribunals were composed only of experienced men, in whom the House could place the utmost confidence. He trusted that the Committee which his hon. and learned Friend sought would be granted, and that they would be able to put that House in possession of such information as would enable them properly to legislate upon the subject.

concurred in the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down bad expressed, and must bear his testimony to the ability, industry, and, above all, good temper, with which the subject had been brought before the House. He felt, notwithstanding the arguments which had been adduced, that, considering the circumstances in which recent changes had placed them, a re-consideration of the question of the best means of conducting controverted elections was one of considerable difficulty. Great confusion had taken place in the law of elections since the passing of the Reform Bill. He regretted, though he could not but admit the fact, that of late years Election Committees had lost the confidence which they ought to enjoy—which they had enjoyed by general acknowledgment previous to the passing of the Reform Bill. Formerly, the right of challenge was scarcely ever exercised. The clerk of the House was allowed to strike off the names of the Committee, and the parties were willing to abide by the decision of a tribunal so chosen, being conscious that English Gentlemen would act as justly in such a case as if they had been called upon to discharge the duties of Grand Jurors. When he first had a seat in that House, now thirty-nine years ago, there was no apprehension that those who belonged to one party would take any unfair advantage of the other. The object of the early Committees was, to preserve unbroken the stream of concurring decisions; but of course cases arose in which it became necessary to establish new precedents. With respect to the Limerick case, all he would say was that the decision of that Committee created general surprise; and it was because that decision was considered to be wrong that the Bristol Committee, of which he had been a member, took a contrary course. Indeed, the decision of the Limerick case led to the passing of an Act on the subject, and he it was who recommended to the Bristol Committee to admit the poll-books as evidence, for the express purpose of overturning the authority of a decision universally acknowledged to be bad. He denied that any favour whatever had been shown to the sitting Member in the Bristol case. He did not wish to give any opinion with respect to the cases arising out of the elections for the county which he had the honour to represent. One case turned upon the rejection of the poll-books as evidence; and in the other the Committee refused to receive evidence of treating in conformity with the stream of authority for the last thirty years. He must, however, say that the Committees were placed in a most difficult position—he meant with respect to how far they were bound to con- sider the decision of the Revising Barristers final. He considered the question so doubtful that he urged upon the noble Lord by whom the Reform Bill had been introduced the absolute necessity of passing a Declaratory Act upon the subject, with a view to establish something like uniformity in the election law. He suggested the necessity of creating a tribunal of appeal from the decisions of the Revising Barristers, for the purpose of effecting that object, and the noble Lord said that an Act of the kind should be introduced, but up to the present hour that promise remained unfulfilled. He renewed that suggestion because he thought it was important that Parliament should adopt some means of settling all questions of doubt, by passing a Declaratory Act. In such an Act it should be stated how poll books were to be produced. That was the difficulty which was felt in the Limerick case, because it was said that the petitioner had a right to expect that the poll-books should be produced by the party having the legal custody of them. He did not far his part know any reason why the Court of King's Bench or the Court of Common Pleas should not be allowed to exercise the jurisdiction of a Court of Appeal for the decision of the Revising Barristers. At the same time that he concurred in the necessity of taking this subject into consideration, with a view to devise some remedy for the evils complained of, he felt that it was essential to the maintenance of the dignity and independence of that House that the charge of preserving its privileges should not be left to any foreign tribunal. With respect to leaving controverted elections to the decision of the Judges in the Courts of Law, he felt that it would be most prejudicial that cases of this nature should be decided in those Courts, for where party spirit was excited, and where the decisions would be liable to the imputation of party feelings he considered that nothing could be more calculated to prejudice the administration of justice. He objected to the proposal of having a standing Chairman, lest the election of such a Chairman would be made the subject of party contention. In time of stormy politics such a Chairman would be sure to be elected by the party that could command the majority. He would appear in such circumstances to be in some degree in connection with that patty, and, however fair and just his decisions might be, he would be still liable to suspicion. Where there would not be the fullest reliance on the perfect impartial- ity of the tribunal it was impossible that its decisions could carry confidence with it. With respect to the reduction of the numbers he did not object to that part of the proposition. He himself, on a former occasion, had brought forward a motion to reduce the number from fifteen to eleven, and in doing so he acted under the conviction that by lessening the number they increased the responsibility. He must, in conclusion, acknowledge the fair and impartial spirit in which the hon. Gentleman had brought, forward the motion, and should the hon. Gentleman place him upon his Committee, he would be most ready to consider the subject in the same spirit in which the hon. Gentleman had brought it under the notice of the House.

said, that from his own experience he could bear testimony that the hon. Gentleman had not exaggerated in the statement he had made. With regard to the remedy proposed, he thought it impossible that any tribunal should be able to deal with a question of law which did not possess some knowledge of what the law was on which it was called upon to decide. He thought that, before entering into any question as to what kind of tribunal they should establish, their first duty was to inquire into the state of the law with reference to this subject, and to simplify and improve that.

had heard the observations and arguments of the hon. Member for Liskeard with the greatest pleasure, and he thought while the hon. and learned Member hail done himself honour, he had also done the House great service, by the introduction of the present motion. He was also exceedingly happy to hear that the motion received the approbation of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, because anything that fell from that hon. Member, the more particularly on this subject, was entitled to great weight. He did not wish to throw any impediment in the way of the Committee, but he feared it was almost impossible to find an adequate remedy for the existing evils unless by a revision of the whole of the election laws. Committees of the House of Commons did not consider themselves to be under the necessity or obligation of being bound by the same rules with respect to evidence as those which regulated the decisions of the Courts of Law. The Judges who presided in those Courts considered themselves bound to follow a regular continuous chain of evidence, That was not the rule which had applied, in his experience, to the practice of Committees of that House. It was no uncommon thing for all the Members to be at sea with regard to the course to be adopted in the case before them. It might happen that those sitting knew nothing of the principles of evidence or the rules which should guide them. They might listen with attention to the propositions and the arguments addressed to them by one Counsel, or, on the other hand, they might disregard him. One Counsel would maintain that agency had been proved against a party, the other, would rebut it, and the Committee did not know on what to fix their attention. One Counsel might adduce in support of his position the cases of Carlow and Northampton, the other that of Nottingham or Ilchester, and the Members would be completely ignorant by which of them they should be guided. A disgraceful termination was frequent, for three different Committees might be sitting at the same time, and that in the Committee-room No. 1, might decide in one way, while that in No. 2, might come to a different, and that in No. is to an entirely opposite, conclusion. What remedy were they to find for this disgraceful course of action? Was it not possible to appoint some responsible person to guide the labours of a Committee, and thereby to impart some consistency to its decisions? When he came into Parliament no situation was so anomalous as that of a nominee, who was appointed to assist the deliberations of the Committee, who took an oath to act impartially as a Juryman, and went into it with the determination to act as a partisan. The basis of the evil, however, was party feeling—party was the bone of the proceedings of Election Committees—every man, he spoke not of what his politics might be, on these subjects was guided by party considerations. He (Mr. Bernal) saw very little chance of remedying the evil; but it was absolutely incumbent on the House to take the best means in its power for the purpose, if possible, of preventing them.

entirely concurred in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion as to the necessity of seriously considering this subject. He would ask any Gentleman who had ever attended election Committee whether their present mode of proceeding was satisfactory either to the House or to the public. When they were evincing the fullest anxiety out of doors, that justice should be administered in the most satis- factory manner, it became them to look at home. He did not mean to go into any discussion upon the subject, but he anticipated very little contradiction when he stated that the evils of the present system were universally felt and acknowledged. Before he had had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons it was his misfortune, he might almost say, to practise before many election Committees, and of all the tribunals that he had ever known, a Committee of that description was the very last that he felt any disposition to attend. He hoped that in thus speaking boldly and frankly his opinion on this subject, he could not be supposed to intend any offence to any Gentleman at either side of the House. He was happy to see that the evil was felt in the House, because it was a matter of such general complaint out of it, and he hoped some system would be devised that would entitle the decisions of such tribunals to respect.

said, that the complaint urged against the present system was the want of knowledge on the part of the Members of Committees, and the existence of party feeling, but he thought the remedy proposed by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion would combine both these evils. He objected to a permanent Chairman, for though, from long experience in his office, he would acquire a knowledge of law that would give authority and consistency to his decisions, yet he would not be surrounded by sufficient responsibility, for he would share his responsibility with the other Members of the Committee. The decisions of the Committee would, in a great degree, be governed by the opinions of the Chairman but though his influence would, of course, thus be considerable, he would merely possess the same degree of responsibility as any other Member of the Committee. The remedy which he would suggest might not, at first view, be acceptable to the feeling of the House, but he was convinced that the more it was considered, the more it would be approved. His proposal was, that they should select a Judge, one of the twelve Judges, if they approved of it, whose whole duty should be to decide cases of this description, and who should have nothing whatever to do with any other Court. The high situation which he held—the publicity with which he discharged his functions—his knowledge of the law, and his perfect responsibility— would give to the decisions of such a functionary the strongest claims to public confidence, That justice was fairly adminis- tered was not sufficient unless the people were convinced that it was so, and he thought that a Judge, selected in the manner that he had described; and acting under the fullest responsibility, would be the most likely to do justice to all parties.

was of opinion, that a legislative judicature was the worst species of judicial tribunal they could have. He suggested the establishment of a legal tribunal, isolated from the House of Commons, to be appointed by the House, and though not an integral portion of it, connected with it. Such a tribunal would be the most likely to give satisfaction.

thought the House exceedingly indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing this subject under its notice. To illustrate the evils of the present system, he might mention a case in which a friend of his was told by another party concerned, "You need not defend this petition, for myself and another man equally wealthy are paying the expenses." There were sporting petitions, and such things as knocking the brains out of the Committee,

called the attention of the House to the delay which now took place between the return and the ballot for the Committee. He thought the matter should be more speedily settled. He wished to know whether the Committee to be appointed was to take into consideration this part of the law. There were two points which he thought especially deserving of its attention. The first was the present mode of taking the recognizances. The parties were not allowed to lodge money in the hands of the officer, but were called on to give in the names of sureties. Now he himself, when serving on a Committee had been compelled to vote against his own conviction upon a mere technical objection raised by Counsel, though the merits of the case were quite on the other side. Then, with respect to presenting petitions, any person might present a vexatious petition against the return of a Member without the least responsibility to prosecute it afterwards. He had known that to be done for years, in order to prevent Members from being eligible to sit on Committees within the number of days prescribed by law. He wished that the Committee should direct their attention to this part of the subject, and would propose, if the House thought it necessary, in order to include the points to which he had referred., that after "the law of controverted elections" should be inserted the words "and the law of other matters relating thereto between the return and the balloting-day." If the House, however, thought the motion sufficiently comprehensive, he would not press his amendment.

supported the motion. In 1831 he had petitioned against the return for Wigan, and relying on the argument and statement of his counsel, believed he was sure of success. But while he was carrying on the contest with the greatest confidence, he received a letter from a friend at Wigan condoling with him on his defeat. In fact, the decision of the Committee, which had astonished the lawyers, was not given till after he received the letter, On inquiry he found that a Member of the House had written to his friend at Wigan, immediately on the Committee being struck, to inform him that six Tories were placed on it, and there was not a shadow of a chance of success; and that Member who could read the decisions of Committees by the individuals composing them, was quite right in his views.

said, there are a great variety of subjects which are recommended to the consideration of the Legislature by the two Reports of the Law Cora mission for Scotland, and by the Report of the Municipal Commission, and it will be my duty, as soon as the time of the House will permit, to lay before the House for their consideration, and that of the country, such bills as may appear calculated to carry those recommendations into effect. There are, however, other bills which have been already under the consideration of the House, and which were not passed last Session owing to the various urgent and important matters which then occupied the time of the Parliament, but which ought now to be brought under consideration of the House Without delay. The first is a bill for regulating the sequestration of the estates of bankrupts in Scotland. That bill has been before this House in various forms for a great number of years. There were points of very great difficulty, which produced differences between different portions of the profession, and a contention as to principles, which it was not easy to reconcile and carry into practical operation. It was absolutely necessary that there should be somewhere a general superintendence and control over all sequestrations, to what- ever part of Scotland they may be applicable, and that English or foreign creditors should be able to ascertain what the proceedings were, and how they were carried on. If that were not done, sequestrations might be obtained and carried on against the same companies or individuals in various parts of the country at the same time, because they might happen to have places of trade and business in different counties. On the other and, the various subordinate proceedings in sequestrations can be carried on with much less expense, and the investigations made with greater efficiency in the local courts than they can be at Edinburgh. Most of the important points connected with these matters were adjusted in the Bill which was before the House last Session, but which was not finally reported until the middle of August. Some objections, though of minor importance, were still made to the Bill, while some of the most extensive mercantile communities in Scotland were desirous that it should pass as it then stood. There was not, however, sufficient time at that very advanced period of the Session, During the recess I have had many meetings with persons well acquainted with the subject, who are not satisfied with some of the provisions of the former bill, and the result of those conferences was to reduce the remaining differences to a very few, and I may say, not very important points. The Bill which I shall now lay before the House will be the same, both in principle and in all important respects as that formerly introduced. The arrangements will be found in some respects, to be improved, and I have availed myself of the assistance of a learned Friend to concentrate and simplify some of the clauses. While the Bill will be equally comprehensive, it will be in some respects shorter than that of last Session. This Bill comprehends a number of points most important to persons of all conditions in Scotland and will, I believe, more than any other bill, diminish the expense of legal proceedings to those of the community on which they bear most severely. The law of Scotland has always had a just and well founded abhorrence of imprisonment. According to the principles and practice of that law, no person can be imprisoned because he is unable or refuses to pay a civil debt, but certain forms must be gone through, and after the judgment of a court, he is commanded, in the King's name, to pay the debt he owes to an individual, and on his refusing to comply with the orders of his Majesty, he is denounced a rebel. Every ordinary act of imprisonment is, therefore, on a writ of rebellion against the unhappy subject of it. The principle and feeling of the law of Scotland is most laudable, but it occasions a great deal of expense, which ultimately falls on the unhappy debtor whom the law is anxious to deal with in the most lenient manner. The Law Commissioners took the matter into their consideration, and they have stated, "that after the most attentive consideration we cannot discover any reason why the principle of direct execution should not be adopted universally, and extended to the effect of attaching the debtor's person as well as his estate. We apprehend that extracts of the decrees of the Court of Session, as well as of the Sheriff's Courts, might easily be so framed as to supersede letters of horning and caption, by embodying a warrant of charge for payment, and also of arrestment, poinding, and imprisonment, in case of failure to pay." The report of the Law Commissioners, to which I beg leave to refer the House for the further details of the Bill, points out (pp. 58 and 59) the different provisions which ought to be kept in view in making these alterations in the law with regard to personal diligence, and I trust that the procedure recommended by them, and adopted in the Bill, that every advantage will be secured, while much expense will be saved. The saving of expense in pursuing steps of diligence is, in the first instance, an advantage to the creditor, but ultimately to the debtor, and it would be very mistaken humanity to preserve ancient, cumbrous, and expensive modes of procedure, while all their advantages can be obtained by those which are more simple and less expensive. I have brought this, which is one of the most important parts of the change, first under the view of the House. I am sure it is one in which they will take a very strong interest; but I ought to mention, that this Bill contains, in the outset, various provisions recommended by the Commissioners, where there is no sequestration. The criterions of not our bankruptcy will be the same in both Bills, but while the one Bill is exclusively confined to the provisions connected with sequestration, the other is intended to contain such provisions as may be necessary for cases of insolvency whether there is sequestration, applied for or not. In order to make a person notour bankrupt, it was necessary, in certain cases, to im- prison him, or that he should take refuge in a sanctuary. The proposed Bill will obtain the same object without the necessity of imprisonment, by declaring the person notour bankrupt, and by establishing a register of persons so declared notour bankrupts, the object will be attained, not only in a more humane manner, but will enable all persons more easily to ascertain whether an act of bankruptcy has taken place. The other provisions of this Bill relate to the execution of the law against the effects of the debtor, by arresting the debts due to him—by seizing his goods, or poinding, as it is termed in the law of Scotland—by inhibition, which is a legal proceeding by which persons may be prevented from disposing of their heritable property to the injury of the creditor applying for that proceeding. There are, also, regulations for diminishing the expense of the process of adjudication, by which creditors are enabled to appropriate the real property of their debtors for payment of their debts, and the judicial sale which takes place in consequence; and there are also regulations relative to sales made in virtue of powers to that effect. In the last place, the Bill regulates the process of poinding on the ground by which the proceeds of landed property are attached for recovery of debts which affect the land. As the first and second Reports of the Law Commissioners contain a very full exposition, both of the existing law and of the proposed improvements, I refrain from entering so minutely into the details as I should otherwise have felt it my duty to do. I had at one time, framed separate Bills for each of the points which are brought under the consideration of the House in this Bill, but, on further reflection, I have become satisfied that it would be more convenient for the House, and equally so to the country, to unite all the provisions with regard to bankruptcy and execution, at the instance of creditors, either against the person or against the estate of debtors, into one Bill. Great pains have been taken to make the provisions as short, clear, and simple as possible; and I trust this Bill may be read, and easily understood, by persons who are not lawyers. I believe I may add, on the part of the Scotch representatives as well as myself, that they will feel indebted to those English or Irish Members who will direct their attention to the subject. In the reports to which I have already referred, they will meet with every explanation which they way require, and they may, perhaps, in watching over, and superintending, a system different from their own, make observations and receive suggestions which they will find applicable to their own institutions. The next Bill is one for regulating the process of cessio bonorum. A Bill embracing a part of this object was before the House last Session. According to the law of Scotland, a debtor is entitled to be freed from imprisonment on surrendering to his creditors all his effects, but this procedure was confined to the Court of Session. Such cases usually turn on the question, whether the conduct of the debtor has been fraudulent, and it is often found very difficult, and always very expensive, to carry on such investigations in the Court of Session. It appeared to me desirable to place in one Bill all the regulations with regard to this process, whether it should take place before the Court of Session or before the Sheriff Court. The Bill to Amend the Law of Scotland as to Erasures in Instruments of Sasine, passed through this House last Session, and I again introduce it, with some alterations, to obviate objections which were made to it, and with the omission of a clause which was objected to in this House, restricting the operation of the Bill to cases in which suits had commenced in the Court of Session before a certain date. I believe the feeling in the country for the necessity of such a Bill, in order to restore confidence to the landed rights in Scotland, has increased instead of diminishing; for further inquiries have produced, as I suspected they would do, additional instances of defects of this nature. Conveyancers did not consider, in general, that such erasures in instruments of that description were fatal. Estates were frequently purchased and debts contracted where the debts were liable to those objections. According to the present law of Scotland, a person who has the misfortune to be the issue of parents not legally married, cannot, unless he have lawful children of his own body, dispose of his personal or moveable estate, as it is termed by the law of Scotland, though it has been acquired by his own industry. He may, if he happens to possess a landed estate of any amount, convey it in the same manner as any other person may do. It is not an easy matter to account for this peculiarity in the law of Scotland, and it is a singular circumstance, that, in the time of Sir Thomas Craig, who died in 1608, it does not appear to have existed, according to various passages in his learned work "De Fendis," I think there can be but one opinion, that this anomaly in our law, which has neither the rules of the civil law nor remote antiquity to recommend it, should at once be removed, and that unfortunate persons who are themselves perfectly innocent, should have one of the strongest motives to acquire property, that of being able to leave it to their friends. At present it only adds a further stigma to spurious birth, and, if it operate at all, makes them less prudent and industrious. This is a matter in which the Crown has a direct interest, as the moveable property of all such persons devolves to the Crown, which it will not do if they shall have made a last will. I have, however, been assured by my hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the consent of the Crown will be given to this measure. By the 1st. of Wm., IV. cap. 69, it was declared that the offices of Judges of the Commissary Court at Edinburgh should not be filled up, and that as "soon as vacancies should occur in the whole of such offices, the said Court shall be entirely abolished, and the powers and jurisdiction of the Court transferred to the Sheriff of the county of Edinburgh." I have been informed that this enactment was at the time intended to be superseded by an Act relieving the Commissaries of the remaining duties of taking proofs, and that they received an assurance to that effect. During the five years that have elapsed two of the Judges, one of whom held the office for thirty-one years, have been rendered incapable of performing the duties, and very great inconvenience and expense arises to the public from there having been no means devised for having proofs taken at a distance from Edinburgh. I do not, therefore, anticipate that any objection will be made to this Bill.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act 19, George II., c. 13 (Irish), as amends and makes void all marriages celebrated by any Papist priest between Protestant and Catholic. He did not anticipate any opposition to the bringing in of the Bill, and he would not therefore trouble the House with any remarks in its present stage.

begged to give the hon. and learned Member notice that he should oppose this Bill in every, subsequent stage. He had opposed the last Bill, and he should feel it his duty to oppose the present.

rose for the purpose of intimating his intention to follow the same course. He had now for three successive Sessions been called upon to enter his protest against the Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed so desirous to force down their throats, which might most properly be described as a vote for the encouragement of clandestine marriages in Ireland. He protested against (he introduction of the measure, and should give it every opposition in his power.

did not approve of the state of the marriage law as at present existing in Ireland; but it should be dealt with on a much more comprehensive and general way than was proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It world be far better if the Crown lawyers in that House would take up the question. The effect of the hon. and learned Member's Bill would be to remove that which was at present the only check to clandestine marriages in certain cases, and would put the Roman Catholic clergy on a better footing than those of the Established Church.

moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the recent municipal election for the borough of Poole, which had been detailed to the House is the petition that had been printed and circulated amongst hon. Members. The hon. and learned Member adverted to the false return made by the mayor, in consequence of which a majority was given to one party in the town-council, whereas that majority really belonged to the other, and maintained that this was a case which he would undertake to prove if the Committee were granted, the truth of the circumstances which had been mentioned in the petition presented from Poole especially called for the interference of Parliament.

did not rise to oppose the motion, as he should follow now the same course which he pursued the other evening when this question came before the House. But he hoped the House would allow him to make a few remarks on the observations made, not in that place merely, on the conduct which he adopted on the last occasion of this motion coming before the House, for in some measure his own personal character was affected by them. He thought he then said he should act very incorrectly and without that due sense of delicacy which every hon. Member must feel if he took part even in the discussion, much less in the decision of this question. He apprehended that the House, in any decision it might come to on this question, was acting in a judicial character. He was sure that every Gentleman must admit the impropriety of a Member, who was retained as an advocate in the courts below, sitting in that House as a judge in any stage of the same case. The hon. Member for Middlesex had said, that if he refused to interfere in the discussion because he was retained as an advocate a delinquent had nothing to do but to retain as many hon. Members as possible for advocates, in order to screen himself by preventing them from interfering. Was the hon. Member for Middlesex aware of the still greater evil that might occur if delinquents were allowed to retain hon. Members as advocates, in order that they might take a part in the discussion? Was it not better that a Member so humble and unimportant as himself should abstain from taking part on this occasion than that the honour, the integrity, the purity of the administration of justice by that House should be questioned from the circumstance of an advocate for the accused having taken part in its discussions. There must certainly be some limit beyond which hon. Members should not refrain from interfering. But in a matter in which any hon. Member was himself personally concerned, or in which he was confidentially trusted with the case of one of the parties, it was impossible for him conscientiously to do his duty to his clients and to that House at the same time. He might certainly be told, as he had been told, that in such a case there were conflicting duties. It was true; but it was a case which could not often occur; it was a case which he was not sure ought to occur at all. He, however, could not help it. It arose from the circumstance of a case being brought before the House of which the courts of law had already got seisin and possession. The difficulty was none of his creating. The view which he had taken of the question was a view not dictated by his own feeling alone, but was founded upon what, as far as he had been enabled to ascertain, had been the uniform practice of that House. He could quote the authority of two very distinguished men who had been. Members of that House, Lord Brougham and Lord Abinger, and he was convinced that a contrary practice would be productive of the greatest inconvenience. He should act that night as he had acted on a former occasion, and he hoped his explanation would be satisfactory, and that he could not be fairly accused of abandoning a public duty in pursuing that course which a sense of honour and delicacy alone dictated, and be hoped that the hon. Member for Middlesex would not feel it necessary to make any remarks upon his conduct, either whilst he (Sir Frederick Pollock) was absent or present.

said, the question stood just where it did. The hon. and learned Member was elected to that House to take part in its discussions, and by his own confession he was, on this question, incapacitated from fulfilling that duty. He would admit to the hon. and learned Member that there might be an individual case—there might be two or three cases not worth mentioning— but his position remained untouched. He was far from desiring to cast any reproach on the hon. and learned Member, as he had no doubt he acted from the most pure and conscientious motives.

defended the course pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman. When Mr. Brougham applied to the House for permission to defend the Queen at the Bar of the House of Lords it was made an express stipulation with him that he should not vote as Member of the House of Commons on the question, and the other Members of the House who acted as counsel gave- the same pledge. He did not think the case of Poole a case in which the House ought to interfere. After what they had heard that night of the disgraceful conduct of the House when exercising judicial functions, he did not think the House would be very likely to redeem itself from that imputation if it set the precedent of interfering with municipal elections. If they did, every case in which parties thought they could raise objections would, instead of being taken to the King's Bench, be brought to that House. And why? Because, if there were a favourable administration, or a favourable majority, it would be anticipated that the parties coming before the House would not lose the benefit of that majority. It would be remembered when the Municipal Reform Bill was introduced that he pointed out to the House what must be the inevitable consequence of it if a mayor were resolved to favour one party. He pointed out that very inconvenience. He was told that it would be provided against, and that assessors would be appointed to watch the conduct of the mayor. It so happened that the Clause was not introduced. Whether it was only intended to postpone it to a future occasion, in order to guard against the probability of future corruption, he knew not; but so high a confidence had Ministers in the new municipal authorities, and the way in which they would discharge their duties, that they did not think it necessary to take such a precaution with them. Whether old or new, he believed mayors now were much the same as mayors formerly, and so they would be in future. They might change the name, but the nature of the thing was not changed—the animal mayor still remained the same. The Municipal Bill would not do away with the jobbing and corruption on the part of those at the head of the municipality. They would doubtless possess the same private information, the same advantages, the same opportunities, and be subject to the same temptations as their predecessors; and, if they were inclined to work injustice, they could work it just as well under the new system as the old. ["Question."] He was speaking to the question. Really he must say, this practice of interrupting was as disgraceful as any which had been alluded to in the prior debate of that night. He was not to be put down in that way when he felt that he had important duties to discharge. He knew not how any Member could contribute more to the degradation of the House than by endeavouring, by the mere force of clamour, to overbear all opposition when questions of great judicial importance were under consideration. This was not a question that could be reasonably expected to pass sub silentio, and he must say these unseemly interruptions deserved rebuke. He thought to grant a Committee in this case would be introducing a bad precedent for the reason he had stated, and more especially as the case was al- ready before a court of justice. He thought it was most fitting that they should have the decision of that court before they took any step in the matter.

thought it was the most inaccurate reasoning imaginable, to conclude that the parties who had not answered the petition by their silence confessed the allegations against them. Might it not, with as much fairness, be presumed that, like many Members of that House, these parties doubted the competence of the House to take into consideration the allegations of the petition until the ordinary tribunals of justice had been found inefficient for that purpose. He saw, in the proposed proceeding, the commence- ment of a most dangerous interference with the Courts of Justice; and, if for no other reason, he was determined to oppose the motion. What, he asked, would be said of their consistency, if, after having but a few hours ago declared their incompetence to give a judgment upon such a question as one relating to their own privileges, they were to turn round and say that they would judge in a case upon which it was even doubtful whether, by the laws of the land, they were a competent tribunal? Would it not be said that they changed their determination with the view of asserting a party question? Would it not be said, that they determined upon converting themselves into a judicial tribunal in the case under consideration, because they found that their pet Bill had not worked as welt as they hoped, and in order that they might, by an arbitrary vote, correct those supposed defects through the instrumentality of which, in this particular case, they had been discomfited at the last Municipal Election? He contended that the ordinary tribunals of justice were quite sufficient to give redress in the alleged case, and therefore, on that ground, he hoped the House would resist the motion.

Although the hon. and learned Recorder had deprecated the introduction of political and party spirit into the discussion, he would leave it to the House to say whether, if the subject had been brought on, it had not equally been met, in that spirit. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, it was unfair to presume that because the Mayor had not answered the charges of the petition, that therefore he had confessed his guilt. Why he (the Solicitor-General) did not assume his guilt, conclusively; he only assumed it for the purpose of instituting an inquiry, not for awarding punishment. The petition had been printed eight days; Poole was one day's post from London, and not only had no counter petition arrived, but he did not find any hon. Member instructed to say oil the Mayor's behalf, that he denied the allegations of the petition. He admitted, indeed, that if the Courts of Law were armed with powers of redress, it would be most inexpedient to apply to the House; but at the same time he maintained that, inasmuch as the Committee if appointed, would be bound to report if it appeared to them that the ordinary tribunals were adequate for the purposes of justice, without the intervention of the House, no bad precedent or injurious effect could result from the House acceding to the motion. In his opinion the Court of King's Bench could not give the relief required by the petitioners. They might overthrow the election, but could they atone to the inhabitants of Poole for the misapplication of the corporate funds, while the improperly elected officers were in power?

contended, that until the Courts of Law had been first tried, and found inadequate to the ends of justice, it would be highly improper in that House to grant the proposed inquiry. If, however, it was granted in the case of the borough of Poole, his constituents in Norwich would lose no time in demanding a similar investigation into the appointment of its existing corporation.

if the hon. Member for Norwich could bring forward any case from that or any other Borough, of such gross misconduct as that of which he complained, he might rest assured of his hearty support, on a motion for a Committee. He did not bring forward the case, as the hon. and learned Recorder said, for the purpose of punishment, but to prevent the mischief; to enable the In habitants of Poole to do that which the Act of last Session intended they should do —elect their own municipal officers, and get rid of those persons which had been palmed on them, under the pretence of that Act, and who, till removed by the Legislature, had the power of doing any thing they thought proper, and, for aught they knew, intended to get rid of the whole Corporate property. He did not want the facts stated in the petition to be taken as true, but only so far taken to be true, after the opportunity of answering them, afforded by the printing of the" petition, as to grant an inquiry; and if, on inquiry, they should be borne out, (and he pledged himself that they should) then he could not conceive that he House would not grant him relief. If he courts of law could effect the object had in view, he would not have thought of the present Motion, but as no court of Law could grant relief if the House did not interfere, it was impossible that justice could be done.

said, that for the House to draw to itself the jurisdiction of the different courts of the country was a most dangerous precedent. The effect of this inquiry, in which evidence would be forestalled, printed, spread abroad, and read by persons who might be jurors in a trial of an issue on this very question, would be most injurious. ["Cries of Question."]

said, that seeing no disposition on the part of the House to carry on the Debate with fairness to both sides, he felt called upon to move that the House should forthwith be adjourned.

moved, "that Mr. Sergeant Jackson be now heard." A long and desultory conversation ensued, which, from the great noise and the number of hon. Members speaking in an inaudible tone, we could not comprehend, in the midst of which—

proposed, that both sides should draw lots, whether the original Motion for adjournment or the amendment should be adopted.

contended, that the conduct of the Ministerial side of the House, in attempting to force on a discussion at that late hour, after they had by their interruptions at first suspended it, and the Opposition benches had become thinned in consequence, was aiming a vital blow at the privileges of Parliament.

moved, that the debate be adjourned till five o'Clock the next day.

stated, that before he suggested to the House the course which it appeared to him most expedient to recommend, he felt it but justice to the Friends around him, to the House, and to the public, that he should recall to the memory of hon. Members what had this night occurred, and should define accurately the position in which they were now placed. On a former night his hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Black-burne) had presented a petition, alleging fraudulent and corrupt practices as existing at the late election for Poole. The petition had been presented, and this night was fixed by notice for its discussion. The question came on in the usual course. No objection whatever was raised against the discussion. A debate ensued, and it was apparently closed by the reply of his hon. and learned Friend. Subsequently, in a manner not inconsistent, it is true, with Parliamentary privilege, but at variance with general usage, and in a manner wholly at variance with Parliamentary convenience, the learned Sergeant rose to address the House after the reply. Some interruptions having taken place an adjournment was moved, and, having been negatived, the motion was in other shapes renewed. In order to show the disposition of the House to continue the discussion, the question was put that the learned Sergeant should be now heard, and those very Gentlemen who complained that interruption had been given, were those who voted that the learned Member should not be heard. Again, a proposal having been thrown out by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Scarlett), that the resolution for a Committee should be now carried, but that to allow the naming of such Committee to take place at a future time, he and his friends had declared their perfect readiness to acquiesce in that proposition. This too had been rejected by that side of the House from which the proposal had originally come. Considering, therefore, that in a full House, at an hour not unusual, a debate had been commenced in the accustomed manner, and brought, without objection, to its ordinary close—considering also that the imputed charge of unwillingness to hear the learned Sergeant had been but increased, by a motion carried that he should be heard, he could but wish that this question should go to the public in a more intelligible shape, to explain the principles acted on by both sides of the House. Above all, it should be distinctly remembered that the Member for Stamford had made the important admission that the absence of his Conservative friends was explained by themselves in conversations to him, and that they had candidly admitted it was a bad case, and that they could do no good. Such being the fact, he was willing to leave the whole in the hands of the public; and in deference to the health, however, of the Speaker, and of the time of the House, he thought the discussion had better be brought to a close.

contended that the con- duct of the hon. Gentlemen opposite proved that they were afraid of an inquiry. If they abused any privileges they might possess in this way, his Majesty's Ministers ought to interfere and take the subject into their serious consideration.

thought the hon. Member for Finsbury was taking rather too high ground when he interfered with the privileges of the House. He could recollect when Mr. FOX divided the House twenty-five times in one night.