presented a Petition from the Electors of a Hundred in East Somerset, complaining that by the decision of the Revising Barristers there they had been disfranchised, though in every respect entitled to the right of voting. This petition was only one of a class, as his hon. colleague was intrusted with a great number of petitions from the same division of the county, containing the same complaints. Indeed, so complete and general had been the disfranchisement of the electors in that county in consequence of the decision alluded to, that he thought a clause should be introduced into the Registry Bill at present before the House, with an ex post facto operation, so as to make the list of 1834 answer there. Not less than 1,200 qualified electors had been disfranchised by the decision of the Revising Barristers in that county. The case 1o which the present petition referred was this:— One overseer signed the list, and he took it to the other overseer to put his signature to it. The latter not being able at the time, owing to illness, to write his name, requested his brother overseer to do it for him, which he accordingly did in his presence and by his authority. When the list came before the Revising Barristers, they asked the usual question of the overseers, namely, whether their signatures were in their handwriting, and as one of them was obliged to answer in the negative, they rejected the list.

hoped that the House would do something to remedy the serious grievance of which the electors of East Somerset had, in this instance, to complain. He had been intrusted with several petitions from a large portion of his constituents, complaining of this grievance. The petitions came from electors well qualified, both by property and intelligence, to possess the right of voting, and who, by the decision alluded to, had been all disfranchised. The hon. Member then presented several petitions from places in the eastern division of Somersetshire, complaining of the effect of that decision.

, on presenting a Petition from the proprietors and occupiers of land in the counties of Ross and Cromarty, said, that it was signed by many very respectable landlords, and by a numerous body of tenantry, many of whom are paying rent varying in amount from 500l. to 1,200l. a year. I learn, Sir, that copies of this petition have been forwarded to the noble Marquess, the Member for Buckinghamshire, who takes so deep an interest in the agricultural question, and to several Members connected with that part of Scotland from which it comes, I should, perhaps, content myself by having this petition laid on the Table of the House, and moved that it be referred to the Select Committee on Agricultural Distress, without detaining the House with, any observations of my own upon this most important and interesting topic, but I deem it a duty I owe to my constituents to call the attention of this House to the prayer of the petition, which, while it points out to the Legislature the state of general distress throughout the kingdom among the cultivators of the soil, prays this House that inquiry should be instituted into the special causes of distress affecting the agriculture of Scotland, which the petitioners assume and declare to be essentially different from those causes which depress either the English or the Irish agriculturist. I am not one of those persons who anticipate any great practical benefit from the inquiry of the Select Committee recently appointed by the House; neither am I one of those who expect to witness a third experiment upon the monetary standard of value in this country, unless, indeed, under the urgent necessity of war, after the fearful results which flowed from the interference with that standard in the years 1797 and 1819. I may add, that I am very much disposed to come to the conclusion enforced in the Report from the Select Committee of Agriculture, which sat in the year 1833, that "contracts, prices, and labour, have a Strong natural tendency to adjust them selves to the value of money once established;" but I fear the hope expressed in that same Report, "that the balance may be restored, which will give to farming; capital its fair return," is not in progress of being soon realized. That same Report, after examining several witnesses from. Scotland, declared," that the farmer, upon the whole, appeared to have suffered less in Scotland than in England from the fall of prices; and that corn-rents, which have lately come into more general use in Scotland, protect the tenantry under lease from the effects of a falling market." I do not complain of this rather meager allusion to the state of Scotch agriculture in the Report of 1833; but I think that I am in consequence the more justified in pressing upon the House the necessity of inquiring into those special causes of agricultural, depression, which (if to them distress be to be attributed) have continued in full operation up to the present time; for it cannot be denied that the Scotch agriculturist lives more economically, cultivates with not less skill nor less economy than the English farmer, under the benefit of a lease of considerable endurance; so that the explanation of this continued depression becomes more difficult, unless it is to be contended that a new adjustment of his covenant with the landlord is the only legitimate source of relief which presents itself to the Scotch farmer. Believing, however, as I do, that a general reduction of rents throughout Scotland, of from twenty-five to thirty-five per cent, has already taken place within the last twenty years, inquiry becomes more urgently called for, to ascertain the special cause of the grievance of which the agriculturist complains. I take this opportunity of adverting to one burden which applies to all Scotland, equally to many of the northern counties of England; perhaps, with few exceptions, to the farmers throughout the kingdom generally—I allude to the tax upon agricultural seeds, clover, tares, and linseed, which may be considered as part of the raw materials, if I may use the term, required for the farmer's manufacture. A duty of 20s. per hundred, which is levied upon all clover-seeds imported, operates injuriously, by enhancing the price of both the home-grown as well as the imported seed; and frequently induces the farmer to use that which is of inferior quality, from being imperfectly ripened at home, being sold at a somewhat lower price than the imported article. It is true that a few of the counties of England produce clover-seed to a considerable extent; but if the foreign importer can afford to the agriculturist a superior article at a lower price, the repeal of the duties on these seeds would be directly beneficial to alt concerned in agriculture. The average amount of duty for the last three years is about 56,000l. per annum on clover-seed, affecting directly those parts of the country where, in ordinary seasons, such seeds cannot be ripened. It may also be mentioned, that the duty precludes the import of many kinds of agricultural seeds, I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to afford this relief to the agriculturist of Scotland and of the other parts of the United Kingdom; and I feel confident of the support of my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, in urging the necessity to relieve this imported article, as he has himself done so much in relieving all raw materials from severe and excessive import duties. No doubt, any measures of relief to the farmers generally can avail little, except that of proportioning the rent more nearly to the price of produce, and which can only be gradual, and arise from a conventional arrangement between landlord and tenant; but while the English farmer will be benefited by the amendment of the poor-laws, by the diminution of payment of county and local rates, by the still more beneficial measure of commutation of tithes—of all which measures I cordially congratulate his Majesty's Ministers, both upon the adoption and success, up to this time; while Ireland is increasing rapidly in the quality of its agricultural produce, and supplying the markets of England— almost to the detriment of the English farmer—it makes it the more imperative upon me, and those who are connected with the agricultural interest in Scotland, to endeavour to satisfy the complaints of our countrymen, by exhibiting a prompt and ready desire to investigate the causes that they believe injuriously affect the agricultural interests of that part of the empire. I have to apologize, Sir, for this long intrusion; but I hope that the importance of the subject will plead with the House, and that I shall receive its indulgence.

warmly supported the petition, so far as respected the removal of the duty upon agricultural seeds, clover, tares, and linseed, which imposed a very unjust burden upon the general mass of the agriculturists of this country. This imposition affects every part of the country, with the exception of a few of the southern counties, where the superiority of the climate allows the seeds to come to maturity; and was most severely felt in the great agricultural county which he represents, in which it operated as a severe tax once in each of the regular rotations of cropping.

presented a Petition from a large body of his constituents at Lewes, complaining of the operation of certain clauses in the Poor-law-Amendment Act. The petitioners were very anxious that every relief should be given to the rate-payers, but they were also anxious that nothing should be done to press with unnecessary severity against the interests and feelings of the unfortunate paupers. The petitioners objected to several clauses in the Act; they objected also to the conduct of the Assistant Poor- law Commissioner at Lewes, and regretted that he had not made himself sufficiently acquainted with the wants and feelings of the pauper population, but had contented himself with the information derived from partisans in that part of the country. Of the conduct of that gentleman he (Mr. Kemp) could not, of course, be any judge; but he should feel it he duty to move that the petition be laid on the Table. With respect to the clauses of the Act to which objections were made by these petitioners, the most prominent were those relating to bastardy. They complained of the hardship which the unfortunate mother was now exposed to, because under the old law either the father or the parish was bound to provide for the child, and the consequence was, that the parish sought the father, and compelled a provision; but now the guardians were not bound to look to any provision being made; so that many persons of great respectability escaped the charge of supporting their illegitimate children, and the burden fell upon the mother. The petitioners also objected to the Board of Guardians being in all cases controlled by orders emanating from the Board of Commissioners in London, and particularly as to the quantity of provisions to be allowed to the paupers. Another circumstance that the petitioners complained of was that sufficient attention was not paid to the education of the children that were taken from their poor parents and put into separate workhouses. They also objected to the clause which allowed of the separation of the husband and wife. He recollected that, in the course of the debates which took place on that clause, it was asserted that no such thing as the separation of husband and wife could occur under the operation of the Bill; but such cases had occurred. A Bill, giving such important powers to the parochial authorities, ought to provide proper restrictions over the persons exercising such powers. The petitioners pointed out certain remedies for the removal of the objections entertained by them; and, particularly, they thought that the elected guardians of the poor should have their powers somewhat extended, so as in particular cases they might be enabled to afford relief out of doors. The petitioners also suggested that rate-payers should not be allowed a plurality of votes, but that the guardians should be elected by each rate-payer having a single vote, They likewise thought that the elected guardians ought not to have their decisions liable to be counteracted by the introduction of an ex officio guardian. He certainly thought it particularly hard, now that the community were allowed to appoint their own municipal governors, that the poor of those communities should be handed over to the tender mercies of a Board of Commissioners sitting in London. The hon. Member concluded by bringing up the petition.

could not withhold his testimony to the very humane conduct of the Assistant Commissioner to whom the petitioners had alluded. He had at all times taken into consideration the feelings of the poor, and was always anxious to ascertain what were their wants, while he ever lent an attentive ear to the suggestions of the Board of Guardians. A school for the education of the pauper children had been, at the suggestion of that gentleman, established by the Board of Guardians, and the greatest benefit had been derived from it. At his suggestion, also, the Board of Guardians had resolved to give premiums for merit among the children, which, no doubt, would have the most beneficial effect.

had been requested to support the prayer of this petition, which he was very willing to do; although he was bound to say that, as far as his observations had gone, the new Poor-law Bill was working well. At the same time it was obvious, that a measure of such magnitude must, from time to time, require amendment. He was happy to learn that a noble Lord in another place had, on a question being put to him, expressed his willingness to take certain suggestions as to the Board of Guardians, into consideration.

seeing his Friend, the hon. Member for Middlesex, in his place, wished to ask him whether he would consent to abandon the Bill he had introduced relating to Lighthouses, upon his (Mr. P, Thomson's) assuring him that he was ready to introduce a Bill upon the same subject? It would not be in his power, or in the power of his Majesty's Government, to give the consent of the Crown to the second reading of his hon. Friend's Bill, framed as that Bill now was; but he was willing to pledge himself to introduce a Bill founded generally on the recommendations of the Committee on Light-houses, and which would contain pretty nearly the same provisions as the Bill of his hon. Friend.

observed, that after what his right hon. Friend had stated, that he could not give the consent of the Crown to the Bill he had introduced, he had no remedy. All he could say was, that his Bill was drawn up agreeably to the instruction of the Committee which sat the year before last. He was sorry to be called upon to give up that Bill; but he could not help himself, for he was in that situation in which he must yield. He would, therefore, not press his Bill. Light-House Bill postponed for six months.

moved the second reading of the Final Register of Electors' Bill.

would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but there was one clause which his hon. Friend had inserted in it to which he (the Attorney-General) must object. By the law as it stood at present out-voters were disfranchised; but if the clause which he alluded to were to be passed, it would re-create a body of out-voters.

was of opinion that the registration before the revising barristers was not yet sufficiently perfect to admit of being rendered final. When some further time had elapsed, he should not object to the registration being final.

thought that the hon. Gentleman misapprehended the object of the Bill. He did not understand that it was intended to make the revising barristers' decision final; but that no objection to a vote should be raised before an Election Committee unless there had been a previous objection raised before a revising barrister, and that all votes brought before him, and not objected to, should be final. He thought this was a wise and politic measure; and one which was calculated to save a vast expense to parties going before Election Committees.

opposed the Bill. It was essentially opposed to the principle supported by his Majesty's Ministers at the passing of the Reform Bill. He thought the practical effect of the measure would be to embarrass and postpone, if not to prevent altogether, the administra- tion of the law at the proper time and place.

was surprised that the Member for West Yarmouth should, after a year's delay, have brought forward the same specious, plausible, but unsound objections. He might as well urge them against every Court of Law in the kingdom, and particularly against the House of Lords. According to his arguments noble Lords should exclaim against the presumption of those who appealed to them, after having had the benefit of the best Judges, Counsel, &c, in the Courts below. He thought the House had, very consistently in its references to this subject, considered the Revising Banisters' a Court of Appeal, in conformity with the usual course of practice in all the English Courts of Law. The House would now do wisely to sanction by its vote all its best decisions, and not leave it open to a man with a large purse to refuse to go at the proper time before the revising barrister, put his opponent to ruinous expense, and set justice at defiance, by a protracted investigation before a Committee, as at present.

suggested, that as, by the law as it now stood, a man was not entitled to vote till he had paid up his rates a full year, he should be allowed the benefit of a full year after the payment in considering his sufficiency as a rate-payer.

recommended that the questions put to the voter should be as simple as possible, and no question of law and fact combined, as in the case of scot and lot voters. He related an instance of perjury that occurred to a person of this class, in his reply to the third question, which he thought ought to be omitted.

agreed with the last speaker, and instanced probable cases of embarrassment to voters in replying as to the value of holdings which might fluctuate from 12l. to 10l. a few days before the poll. He thought that a man's having been once qualified during the previous year ought to suffice.

said, that this purported to be a Bill for the general and final Registration of Voters, but he found also mixed up with it clauses to permit changes in the localities and qualifications of certain classes of voters—a mode of getting through the business that he especially reprobated. The hon. Member should limit his Bill to its specific object.

did not rise to object to the Bill, but there were such a variety of matters contained therein that it could not well be considered as a whole, and he would recommend that it be referred to the Committee up stairs to consult on the classification of the clauses, and bring them in a more consistent form before the House.

had sat six weeks last Session on a Committee along with the hon. Member for West Yarmouth, in the discussion of the principle points of this question, yet one of the most important remained undetermined. It was this —whether the decision of the Revising-Barrister was to be final or not? He purposed to draw a line of distinction between the objections taken at the registration, and arising subsequently to it, and previous to the vote. The Barrister's decisions on the first class should be final. The latter might be left open to further consideration.

moved that the Intimidation of Voters Bill be read a second time.

did not object to the second reading, but, at the same time, he certainly thought that it required a little concentration before going into Committee. The language in which some of its provisions were worded was very strong.

wished his hon. Friend would allow it to be referred to a Select Committee, to make arrangements for the better security of the subject under the application of these new powers.

referred his hon. Friend to the statute of the 5th George 4th, where he would find that every desirable security was provided by the forms to be observed in bringing all questions of misdemeanour first before Grand Juries; then, if they pass those, before the usual Petty Juries. The offence, if supported sufficiently before the first, and proved before the second, would amount to simple misdeameanor, a degree of crime with which the Courts already knew well how to deal. He had intended to take the Committee on Wednesday next, and if in the meanwhile any hon. Member could suggest any alteration or amendment to him, he should be most happy to give it his attentive consideration. With regard to the wording of the provisions, he had adopted the language of preceding enactments, in declaring the threatening and intimidation of voters a misdemeanor punishable either by fine or imprisonment. He hoped the progress of the Bill would not be delayed. It was wholly unnecessary to refer so, plain and intelligible a point to a Select Committee up stairs. He had no objection to postpone the committal of the Bill if it were considered advisable.

said, that the Bill appeared good as far as it went, but it should not be unconditionally adopted, for the Intimidation Committee had not yet finished their labours, and might recommend other things, which it would be desirable to embody in one Bill, and the House might be embarrassed if they had not the opportunity. It was open to that Committee to take cognizance of this Bill, and he would recommend, as the most prudential course, that it be referred to them after the second reading.

called attention to a discrepancy existing between the first clause, which states that "after the passing of this Act all persons tried for felonies shall be admitted, after the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and defence thereto by Counsel learned in the law;" and the third clause, which enacts, "that all persons accused before any Justice or Justices of the Peace, of any offence against the law, shall be admitted to make their answer and defence to such accusation, and to have any witnesses examined or cross-examined by Counsel, or by Attorney, attending on his behalf." Independently of the incongruity of the clauses, he thought that the limitation of a prisoner's defence to Counsel or Attorneys, or both, exhibited a narrow and exclusive feeling, which had better be done away with in the reformation effected by the present Bill. They both belonged to self-constituted and arbitrary societies, who really were not themselves amenable to law in their regulations, as his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Harvey) had experienced and he thought to too much to leave prisoners or the public exclusively depending on their aid. Why not allow a prisoner to choose whom he pleased for his defence? Unless he received some satisfactory answer on this point, he should certainly move the insertion of a proviso that prisoners should have the benefit of defence by Counsel or Attorneys, or any person they might be desirous to employ.

would support the hon. Gentleman if he moved such a proviso. He had abstained from inserting it in the Bill, not because he objected to the principle, but because he thought any attempt to establish it would be a hopeless one.

said, that only a few days since, the hon. Member had made a very strong speech against medical quacks, and he hoped he was not now going to show more favour to legal quacks and pettifoggers.

observed, the hon. Member was not perhaps aware of the direct tendency of his suggestion. The principle of the Bill should be adhered to—it was, that prisoners should have the advantage of being permitted to have Counsel, so as to secure to them the benefit of a full defence on their trials. He would ask the hon. Member, was the present a desirable opportunity to introduce a discussion whether any other persons than those called to the Bar should be admitted to act as Counsel for Prisoners? There could be no doubt of the extreme propriety of the persons so intrusted with the defence of prisoners so circum stanced being subject to the control of some respectable body of men, as the Bar undoubtedly was. It tended to the security of those whose advocacy they undertook, and the maintenance of the dignity of the profession itself. If the proposition of the hon. Member were adopted, it would be open to any returned transport from Botany Bay to put on a wig and a gown and appear as the advocate of a prisoner on his trial. He begged the hon. Member and others who were friendly to the great and important object of this Bill—namely, providing the prisoner with ample means of defence—to reflect upon the possible consequence of adopting such a proposition. He would warn the friends of the measure to abstain from any proposition, which, like the present, was perhaps well calculated to injure the principle of the Bill.

saw no reason why attorneys should be suffered to supersede Counsel in Courts where there was a regular attendance of that branch of professional men. The case was different when those Courts where attorneys were admitted to plead came under consideration; and as far as this alteration or amendment went, he for one would not be disposed to offer any objection, but would gladly concede to prisoners the privilege of employing attorneys to plead on their behalf in those Courts where they now practised as Counsel. The House could not act too cautiously in entertaining or assenting to innovations upon the present mode of conducting criminal trials in the English Courts of Law, as the most dangerous results might happen, quite unforeseen even by those whose benevolence prompted them to make those alterations.

admitted the expediency of making an amendment to the extent just mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, that wherever attorneys were now suffered to practise, there prisoners should be permitted to take advantage of their assistance. The words, however, proposed to be added for the purpose of effecting this object, were not, he conceived, solely directed towards that end; they had a different and a far deeper intention, and would produce an effect widely opposite from that which the Committee were led to believe; for if they were added to the clause, the immediate consequence would be, that any person whatsoever, be his station, conduct, character, or pursuits, what they might, would be entitled to act as Counsel for prisoners, and it was no unlikely or impossible circumstance, in case the amendment was agreed to, that an accused person might select for his Counsel the most accomplished thief or swindler, with the view of evading the law and not of fairly meeting the evidence.

observed, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had drawn an inference and pictured a case in the very extreme of what was possible to happen, even if the amendment as it now stood were agreed to—no such circumstance as that of one thief, however accomplished he might be, being brought into Court to defend another. The real question before the Committee was whether the person standing accused upon a criminal charge should or should not be allowed to select his own legal defender, and be the judge of his own Counsel's ability? He begged, therefore, to say, as he was disposed to think the whole measure might be endangered in another place by the insertion of the words proposed to be added, that he would recommend it to his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, whether it was not advisable to withdraw his amendment and to suffer the words proposed to be substituted to be inserted instead,' upon the principle that it was better to get what he could in the way of reform, than to risk it altogether by insisting upon too much.

hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his amendment. He had as great an objection to monopoly as his hon. Friend, and ha hoped soon to see it cease altogether, but the enemies of this Bill would find enough to cavil at without the introduction of any extraneous matter. Common sense, humanity, and the feeling of the country, however, called for the measure and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would withdraw his amendment, rather than let it stand as the least impediment in the way of success. He wished it, however, to be understood that he had not the least objection to attorneys practising in the manner that was desired.

expressed his readiness to withdraw his amendment, provided the suggestion which had proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman opposite was acted upon. In fact, his only object in proposing the alteration was to assimilate the second clause of the Bill with the third clause, which latter, he believed, contained a provision for the purpose of permitting Attorneys to practise as Counsel for prisoners, restricting them, however, to certain cases.

begged to ask whether the object of the amendment was to admit attorneys to practise in Courts where at present members of the Inns of Courts alone were entitled to plead; because, if so, he must say he was not disposed to agree to it. It was the opinion of the most eminent men in the profession that the House ought to pass a Bill similar to this, for the purpose of giving prisoners Counsel, and there was a strong disposition on the part of the whole Bar to give this particular measure a fair trial. The question was one of practical good sense—namely, whether a prisoner should be allowed to" make a full defence when put upon his trial, or not; and if this act of justice was denied him now, it must at some not very distant period be conceded. He hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would be contented with the suggestion which had proceeded from his right hon. Friend near him. (Mr. Williams Wynn), namely, to confine the admission of attorneys to those Courts where they were already in the habit of pleading.

hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would withdraw his amendment, in favour of that suggested on the other side. If such an innovation upon, the practice of the Criminal Courts were once to be admitted, the same by a parity of reasoning, might be claimed in civil cases, and the inconvenience, to say nothing of the injustice or folly of such a proceeding, would be intolerable, and would reduce the Courts of Law to a condition utterly useless. Should the amendment be even agreed to; of which he saw no chance, the Bill, when it was sent to another place, would not stand the slightest chance of passing, no more than if the hon. Member were to propose to pass an Act declaring the empire of China to be part and parcel of the British dominions. He must confess he was both astonished and sorry to hear his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Liverpool, express his consent to and approbation of the amendment. It was on his part little less than an act of suicide, and the only advice he could give him, if the Committee acceded to it, was to give himself no further trouble about the Bill, as there was not the most remote chance of its passing.

said, that he did not think the amendment was necessary to entitle attorneys to practise, because they would clearly have the right to do so under the original clause. Was it not the every-day practice at Quarter Sessions, as the law now stood, for attorneys to plead as Counsel, pro hac vice, and they would not be deprived of the right by this Bill? He only opposed the words because he thought them unnecessary.

said, that if the hon. Member for Finsbury would allow him he would propose an amendment in the following words, which he thought would obviate all difficulty: "By Counsel learned in the law, or by attorney in Courts where attorneys practise as Counsel."

was willing to take, as an instalment of his own amendment, that proposed by the hon. and learned Member, and he should, therefore, not press his own proposition.

objected to that part of the clause which took from Counsel for the prosecution the right of last reply, and gave it to the prisoner's Counsel. The statute giving this privilege to the Counsel for the Crown was passed under the auspices of an enlightened statesman in the reign of Elizabeth, and from that time to be present he had heard of no grievance that had arisen out of it or complaint against it, except in cases of high treason, where the law had been already altered. During the State trials in which Lord Erskine had gained for himself such immortal fame there was no complaint made of the Crown Counsel having the last word. "Was it not notorious that in all revenue cases the Counsel for the prosecution had the last reply, and who ever heard any complaint of that as a grievance? There was no ground, therefore, for altering the law in this respect. There might, perhaps, be particular cases where it would be an injustice; but let those special cases be provided for, and not a sweeping clause of this nature introduced, which he had no doubt would have the effect, if passed, of endangering the success of the Bill.

said, that there were no words strong enough in which he could declare his sincere opinion, that if this provision were taken out of the clause it would be much better to put the Bill altogether into the fire, for, thus, mutilated, it would act only as a snare for the prisoner. Unless the great principle of allowing to prisoners a full defence, their Counsel having the last word, were carried out to its utmost extent, it would be far better that the Bill had never been introduced. So long as a man was brought into Court by the King, and not allowed to defend himself fully by Counsel, the country would never believe that be had justice done to him. Why should prisoners charged with high treason, the greatest crime known to the State, have an advantage in their defence over any other class of prisoners? This was an anomaly that ought to be corrected. It was impossible that justice could be done unless the prisoner was allowed the last word. When he had this privilege he would have no motive for keeping back any part of his defence, which was done now every day by prisoners, under the direction of Counsel, rather than give a reply to the Counsel for the prosecution. What the Attorney-General had said as to cases of smuggling was undoubtedly true; but it must be recollected that in all cases of this nature there was an opinion in the public mind, and of course amongst Jurors, that there was no real guilt on the part of the prisoner, owing to the relative situation of the parties. At one period there was no chance of a fair trial in some classes of cases, but he rejoiced that he had lived to see the mischief of such a state of things greatly reduced by the superior intelligence, and the strong-sense of justice, by which Juries were now guided. He was persuaded that any evil that could arise from granting this privilege to Counsel for prisoners would gradually correct itself, and that in the result fair and impartial justice would be done. He considered that a gross injustice was done by giving to the prosecuting Counsel the last word. It had been objected to by a very enlightened member of the Bar, of great experience, who had given evidence elsewhere, that three speeches would be the number made by Counsel on all occasions of criminal prosecution; but he (Sir F. Pollock) differed from this opinion; for his opinion was that the number of speeches would not be three but four. If there were not four there would only be two, because if the Counsel for the prosecution did not insist on a reply, of course the Counsel for the prisoner would have no occasion to reply, as he had already made the last impression on the Jury. He believed that, generally speaking, the Bill would be in operation in nineteen cases out of twenty; for in about that proportion of cases prisoners did not employ Counsel at all. It was, however, quite essential that this clause should be carried in all its integrity, and the House, he thought, might safely look to Juries to Correct any evil that arose out of it.

perfectly agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that it would be better to re- linquish the Bill altogether than pass it without this clause in all its parts. There was no country in the world where law was known that the prisoner had not the last word except in this. In Scotland it was the case; and in France, not only had the prisoner's Counsel the last word, but the prisoner himself had a right to add anything he pleased after. When a man's life or character were at stake surely it was not justice to deny him every opportunity of explaining, not only everything that had been sworn against him, but everything that had been said against him. False inferences ought to be explained, and the Jury should not be suffered to be swayed by the talent of the prosecuting Counsel, rather than by facts, as was often the case. It had been said that in revenue cases it was never complained of that the Counsel for the Crown had the last word. He did not know if such were the case in this country, but he knew that it was constantly complained of in Ireland. He had often complained of it himself. He considered that in giving the prosecuting Counsel the right of two speeches an unfair advantage would be taken of the prisoner because he had called witnesses. This was making the law vexatious and oppressive. If this clause was rejected the Bill would be of little or no value. He had not seen the evidence of the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, and therefore he begged to retract any observations he might have made upon it. The evidence in the source from which he drew his information, was misrepresented.

said, that he had no intention of dividing the House upon this clause, now that he Found the majority of hon. Members' entertained an opinion differing from his own, to which he should bow. He, however, still thought, that if the last speech was allowed to Prisoner's Counsel, the practice would throw upon the Judge the unpleasant duty of summing up the whole case, as it were as Counsel for the prosecution. It was not urged that any inconvenience had arisen or complaint (as had been admitted by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin) had been made of the present practice, and he thought it was unnecessary, therefore, to go abroad to foreign nations for an example by which to alter a practice which had hitherto worked well.

understood the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connell) to say that he had not read the evidence of the Member for Huntingdon. Perhaps there were other parts of the evidence which he had not read, though he pronounced a very decided opinion upon it. He received a letter from a friend of his, Mr. Charles Phillips complaining of a most unwarranted attack made upon him by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in which that hon. and learned Member charged his learned Friend with having given false evidence before a Committee of the other House, with a view to the increase of his own emoluments as a Barrister. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he had read the evidence of Mr. Phillips? If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not, he now called upon him to retract so gross and so unfounded an imputation upon an. honourable man who deserved better.

said, that Mr. Charles Phillips had been as long his friend as the friend of the hon. and gallant Member. Upon the occasion alluded to be did not name Mr. Phillips. He said he would prove the evidence. He did not then know, except from public report, that it was the evidence of Mr. Phillips; but the gallant Colonel now very kindly introduced the name of Mr. Phillips to afford an opportunity of quarrel between two old friends. He was most ready to retract anything which bad fallen from him that could be considered as reflecting upon a most worthy man, whom he had the honour of knowing for many years.

would read the letter he had received from Mr. Phillips, for the purpose of showing that the hon. Member for Dublin could have meant no other person than Mr. C. Phillips when he alluded to the evidence given by a learned gentleman.

appealed to the House whether they would sanction such a proceeding as this — a proceeding quite uncalled for, and which might lead to acrimonious disputes. The letter had no connexion with the business before the House; and, the charge against Mr. Phillips having been withdrawn by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, there could be no reason for proceeding further.

said, the Member for Dublin cast an imputation upon him of endeavouring to produce a quarrel between two friends. He had, therefore, a right to read the letter in his own defence. A request was made to him personally by Mr. Phillips to read his letter. (The hon. Member commenced reading the letter.)

again rose to order. So far as Mr. Phillips was concerned the charge was withdrawn. No retractation could be more honourable to both parties than that made by the Member for Dublin.

said, Mr. Phillips must be now a very different man from what he had known him ever before to have been if the quarrel between them was not already made up.

said, he was informed by Mr. Phillips, that it was impossible the observations of the Member for Dublin could refer to any person but himself, he being the only Barrister who was examined upon that occasion, unless the Recorder of London could be alluded to under that denomination, which was not probable.

would not trespass further on the time of the House. He hoped he had said enough to show that there was no ground for the charge against his friend.

hoped the hon. Member had now satisfied himself. He retracted before the letter was read, and, after its being read, he now retracted again.

said, a more useless controversy, interrupting the business of the House, he had never witnessed, and as it was over he would return to the Bill. He thought it would be better to have only two speeches, giving the accused the last word. This was the practice in Scotland.

said, the circumstances here and in Scotland were different. There all the facts against the accused were stated at length. Here scarcely any of the facts were given in the indictment. He saw no reason why the accused should not have the last word in all cases, as well as in felonies and high treason.

thought it would be against the interest of the accused to have the last word. The prisoner must be well acquainted with the facts from previous examination. If four speeches were allowed, the Counsel must enter into a contest of sophistry and refinement, and the Judge become, in some measure, an advocate for the plaintiff.

said, the practice in Scotland greatly facilitated the administration of justice. The facts were all known to the accused. It was not so in England. In a charge of treason in this country, not one alone, but all sorts of treason, were charged in the indictment against the accused.

thought it would be better to pass the Bill without the clause. He was always of opinion that the best course would be to have no opening speech; to state the real facts in the indictment, and then let there be a speech on each side. The accused would thus have the last word. The present mode of drawing up indictments seemed rather strange. It was, for instance, the practice to charge a fact as having occurred at Leeds, when, perhaps, it took place fifty miles distant from it.

could not assent to the clause, but would not divide the House upon it. He doubted much if the House understood the present practice. The object proposed was, to assimilate the practice in criminal and civil proceedings.

moved an amendment, to the effect that, according to the Scotch system, the speeches of Counsel should not begin until the whole of the witnesses had been examined, on the one side and on the other. He thought it would be time enough afterwards to consider the form of the indictment.

thought that if the clause was objectionable before, it would be ten times more so if the amendment of the hon. Member were adopted. This was an instance of the evils entailed on the House by long and unnecessary discussions; for, if the question had been allowed to rest where it was left by the Attorney-General, the House would not have had this proposition, which could not possibly take effect unless the mode and form of indictment were altered also. It would be impossible to have indictments so circumstantially framed as to afford all the information required for the purposes of the amendment.

was surprised, having been associated with the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, in the introduction of this measure, that he should not have been allowed to share his confidence with respect to the present amendment. This very proposition had been negatived by a Select Committee two years ago, and he could not concur in it now. He thought the hon. and learned Member would have done better to have altered the form of indictment first, and the mode of pleading afterwards, instead of pursuing the contrary plan, which his motion proposed to do. The proposition he considered most mischievous and one which he would not have expected from an enemy to the Bill, much less from one known to be a friend to it.

begged the hon. Member for Liskeard to withdraw his amendment, which he conceived would be more objectionable than the clause itself. The consequence of it would be, that at the close of the evidence the Jury would know very little or nothing at all about the matter before them.

said, there could be no doubt that the resolution having omitted, to provide for the case of a Division in Committee, such a Division could not be come to unless the House were prepared to make the necessary alteration in the wording of the resolution.

Undoubtedly the intention of the Committee, from which the resolutions emanated, had been, that the plan should apply to all the Divisions of the House, and he would, therefore, with the permission of the House, move that the word "Chairman" be inserted in the resolution in order to avoid the difficulty. He then moved his amendment, but was reminded that he had given no notice. The hon. Member appealed to the Speaker whether he was to give notice or not?

said, that the usual course certainly was to give notice of any motion intended to be brought forward.

submitted that there were cases, however, in which the House was called upon to wave the standing regulations, and that this was one of those in which it could come to an immediate decision.

said, there was no doubt if a Member was in possession of the House, he might make any motion he thought fit, but at the same time it had been customary far many years past for hon. Members to give notice of the motions they intended to make. It was a question whether a motion, which was to alter a resolution of the House, could be immediately made, and without notice.

observed, that the resolutions rendered it imperative that the order for closing the doors should be given by Mr. Speaker, and if that person were not there to perform that duty, no Division could take place in the Committee. He thought it was the duty of the House at once to adopt some means by which the difficulty could be removed.

said, that it was perfectly clear, that the business of the Committee could not be proceeded with until that difficulty was disposed of, and all he desired was, to make such an alteration in the wording of the resolution as would enable them to go on with the measure now under consideration. He therefore proposed to move, that all the provisions for divisions contained in the third resolution should be applied by order of the Chairman of a Committee as well as by the Speaker.

said, that he could not approve of the proposition of the hon. Member for St. Alban's, because it might lead to serious injury if they were to allow any alteration of their proceedings to be made without notice on this subject having been previously given. It would, in fact, be establishing a principle which he hoped the House would never sanction.

considered, that the hon. Gentleman in the chair had certainly the power to control the Committee, and if he had expressed his opinion on the subject, the difficulty would not have arisen. He understood that the motion that the Chairman should report progress was made, that the House might have the opinion of the Speaker as to whether the Committee should divide in the House or under the new system. He conceived it to be much more desirable that the House should have the opinion of the Chair on this point, than that they should continue to waste their time in discussion,

said, that the third resolution provided that the Speaker should give orders for the doors to be closed. He apprehended that it would be quite competent for the Speaker, although he were not in the chair, to allow the Division to be taken in the manner expressed in this resolution.

was very unwilling to interfere, unless distinctly appealed to, but on an occasion of this kind he should not discharge his duty if he did not deliver his opinion. He was not surprised at the difficulty in which the House was now involved, because it had always appeared to him that some doubt might arise from the manner in which the resolutions were worded, though a word or two more would have removed it. He conceived that the question for the House now to decide was, whether they were of opinion that the words, "the doors being simultaneously opened by the Speaker's order," when put in competition with the other parts of the resolution, did not justify the House in coming to the decision that the resolution as it now stood did distinctly require, that the Committee should divide in the same form and manner as had been up to that time in use. He apprehended that there could be no difficulty in the House dividing on this occasion in the usual way. If the House were of opinion that for the future it would be expedient to establish the proposition moved by the hon. Member for St. Alban's, it would be only on the present occasion that the existing mode would be adopted.

said, that he should think it his duty to divide the Committee on this clause, and would move an amendment in words to this effect:—"That permission to employ Counsel or Attorney should be granted to the parties accused, only in cases where Counsel or Attorney should have been engaged against them; that both parties should stand upon an equal footing, that neither the one nor the other should have any advantage in respect of Counsel."

thought, that where an information was laid before a Magistrate, and a man was liable, if convicted upon trial, to be sent to the House of Correction, and confined at hard labour for six months, he had just as good a right to be defended by Counsel and Attorney before a Magistrate as before a Judge. But this clause would give a party accused a right to attend by his Counsel and Attorney at preliminary investigations before a Magistrate, and to bring witnesses to prove his innocence. It seemed to him that there were many cases in which a Judge was required to keep these preliminary investigations secret, that He might be enabled by the facts established on these occasions to find out who were the parties really guilty of the offence. It was plain that in such a case the accused might claim under this clause to be heard by his Counsel and Attorney; they might take notes of the evidence adduced; it might be published next morning in all the daily papers, and thus notice of their danger would be given to all the persons concerned in committing the offence. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for Kent, that it was not at all necessary that there should be a defence by counsel or Attorney on preliminary investigations. When the prisoner came to be tried, than let him have his counsel—let him have every advantage; but he could not con- sent to make publicity the indispensable consequence of preliminary investigations. They saw this principle of secrecy exemplified every day in the administration of justice. Before a Grand Jury a man could not be defended by Counsel and Attorney, for that was an ex parte proceeding; but when they found a bill against a man, and he was put on his trial, Counsel and Attorney were justly granted to him. He should be very much pleased to see The Bill so modified as to give a power to prisoners to employ counsel in all cases of summary proceeding before Magistrates, but he did most respectfully warn the Committee that many injurious consequences might follow from passing it in its present state.

said that the Committee had thought that persons accused before Magistrates should have the benefit of Counsel for the purpose of satisfying the Judge of all the circumstances of the case. It was a most monstrous thing that a man should be liable to be tried in a summary way by a Justice of the Peace without Counsel. Until lately the law of England was, that where a man was brought before a Justice of the Peace not for the purpose of considering whether he should be committed for trial, but for the purpose of trying him, he was allowed the benefit of Counsel and Attorney. At present the Magistrate might refuse to allow Counsel, and in some cases he had refused. He wished to establish that as a right which was now only a matter of favour.

was certain that it would be most inconvenient if counsel were allowed to parties accused at preliminary investigations, and if the trial were thus converted into a kind of appeal from the decisions pronounced at these processes. There could be no doubt that the clause was originally intended to apply only to cases of summary conviction, and that the doubt had arisen from the manner in which it was worded.

would put to the Solicitor-General a case where the Magistrates acted both as Judge and Jury, in which they had the power either of granting bail to the party accused, or of committing him to prison. Was it not a most important consideration whether a man should be incarcerated for some long and dreary months in a prison, or allowed to retain his liberty on bail—whether he should be dragged from his home, on his first offence, perhaps, taken before a Magistrate, and confronted by hostile attornies, without being permitted the aid of Counsel to defend himself?

moved, as an amendment, that there be inserted after the words "committed to prison" the following:—"or which since their committal to prison or admission to bail have been, taken before any Justice of Peace." His hon. and learned Friend near him said, that no such practice as that which his amendment was intended to check existed in England; but this he knew, that the practice of taking depositions against the prisoner in his absence after he was sent to prison was very prevalent in Ireland, and as this Bill extended to Ireland, he thought his amendment highly necessary.

contended, that in England no Magistrate had a right to take depositions against a prisoner in his absence. The practice which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to check had no existence in England. He should be sorry to see the admission in an Act of Parliament that such a practice was sanctioned by the Magistracy of England. He should certainly oppose the amendment.

said, that the practice of taking depositions in the absence of prisoners prevailed in Ireland. So far was it from the fact that prisoners were present when the witnesses were examined against them before the Magistrates in cases of felony, that the reverse was generally the case. In Ireland the practice was to refuse to the prisoner the depositions or copies of the depositions made against him. The amendment was therefore necessary. The practice which it was intended to abolish was very injurious to the prisoner, and certainly ought not to be continued.

could not assent to the amendment, as it would appear to legalize a practice which he abominated. If such a practice as that which the hon. and learned Sergeant described prevailed in Ireland, it was illegal, and ought at once to be reprobated. He remembered that in Lord Ellenborough's time an instance had occurred, in which a Magistrate had taken depositions against a prisoner in his absence, and that his Lordship had strongly reprobated the practice. Instead of introducing a clause like this, a Bill should be introduced to say, that if this practice be now law, it ought not to be law any longer.

concurred in what had fallen from the Attorney-General, and should oppose the amendment.

observed, that in England the practice was that which had been described by the Attorney-General; if the practice were so bad in Ireland, it ought to be put a stop to, but it would be unjust to do anything which might by implication confound the practice of the two countries, and therefore he objected to the amendment.

doubted whether the objectionable practice was illegal in Ireland, where the Act 7 and 8 George 4th did not apply. He hoped the Attorney-General would reconsider his opinion, and allow words to be introduced into the clause which would remove all doubt on the subject.

thought, if words were introduced simply declaring that no depositions should be used against a prisoner but such as had been previously communicated to him, it would remove all difficulty, without declaring any thing as to English or Irish practice.

, after the declaration of the Attorney-General, would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that as he understood opposition was to be offered to the motion which he was about to make, from quarters whence it was least to be expected, he should state shortly the nature of this Bill. The object he had in view was, to make a provision for the maintenance of the poor in extra-parochial places. The effect of the existing law being, that no overseers could be appointed for those districts, and no orders could be made upon them to support their poor, who were consequently thrown upon the adjoining parishes, without furnishing any means whatever for their maintenance; although by law extra-parochial places were liable, for such had been the construction put upon the statute of Elizabeth. Now extra-parochial places had received a great benefit under the Municipal Corporations Act, and it was unjust, that those who were to receive such advantage should not bear their share of the burthen of poor-rates. Besides which, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, had a Bill before the House for the "Registration of Births, Marriages, and Deaths," which Act could not be carried into effect in extra-parochial places, where there were no overseers, if this Bill did not pass. But he had a stronger authority for the Bill than any consideration he could suggest. He begged to call the attention of those hon. Members who opposed it to the opinion delivered by Lord Althorp, who, when he (Mr. Jervis) proposed a clause for throwing upon extra-parochial places the maintenance of their own poor, in the Poor-Law Amendment Act, expressed himself favourable to the principle of the clause; and, though he advised him (Mr. Jervis) not to press it at that time, lest it should provoke the opposition of persons, whose interests would be affected by such a clause, to the whole Bill, stated that if he would bring the proposition forward in a separate Bill it should have his support; and in that opinion also he was supported by Lord Heatherton, then Chief Secretary for Ireland: as also by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock), who, on that occasion stated, that the principle of the measure was just, though he property suggested that some special provision should be introduced for the Inns of court. That would be matter of detail, to be considered in Committee; and he trusted, that the House would so far recognize the principle as to allow the Bill to be read a second time.

said, that in his opinion, the hon. Member had no right to throw upon extra-parochial places, either belonging to the Crown or individuals, the additional burthen which the measure contemplated; and even if the principle were correct, the principle could not be worked out by the provisions of his Bill. He proposed, for instance, to enact, that "overseers should be appointed in every place according to the provisions of the Act of Elizabeth." Now those provisions were, that two church-wardens, and two or three householders might meet, and on a certain day elect overseers, whereas, in many extra-parochial places, there were not two householders resident, and in none were there churchwardens. He could not help characterizing it as a very bold piece of legislation on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman: it was a remarkable instance of the hasty manner in which Members of his profession, just going upon the circuit too, concocted crude pieces of legislation, and he hoped the House would join in postponing the Bill at least for three weeks.

rose, not to discuss the question at length, but merely to ask whether the proposed Act would not charge Crown lands to a considerable extent?— Whether the consent of the Crown was not, therefore; necessary; and was this Bill brought forward specially that night because none of his Majesty's Ministers were present.

said, he understood the office of Woods and Forests had great difficulty with regard to the question, and wished for delay.

considered the Bill was an invasion of private property, and he trusted that, as such, the House would not come to a hasty decision upon it. He moved, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

was very much surprised at the manner in which the Bill had been received from all parties. As to the observation of his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, it was true the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had expressed a wish for delay?—but when? Not till it was set down for second reading, and he then postponed it to this night for their convenience. It was true, none of his Majesty's Ministers were there; but was that his fault? particularly as he had spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that night, and told him it was coming on. Besides, if the consent of the Crown were necessary, he knew enough of Parliamentary business to know, that it could be obtained any time between this and the third reading. Therefore, there was no objection on that ground to the second reading, if the House should think fit. So much for the technical objections, urged, he was sorry to say by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Huntingdon, who bad been so lately favourable to the principle of the Bill. He wished to ask the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Goring), whether his opposition to the Bill was by desire of the Government? and if so, whether it was right that a Bill should be stopped altogether, just because the Ministers of the Crown would not take the trouble to attend in their places, to propose a clause exempting, if necessary, the Crown lands from the operation of the Bill. The hon. Member had called it a "crude" and "hasty" measure: it might be crude and hasty, but it was the very measure, in effect, approved of by Lord Althorp and Lord Hatherton (then Mr. Littleton), the only difference being, that it was now in a separate shape. He trusted the House would allow it to go to a second reading.

was favourable to the principle of the measure, but must join in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Goring), of the crude state of the Bill in its present shape. He hoped the hon. and. learned Gentleman would consent to postpone it.

suggested to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Jervis), whether the better way would not be to comply with the wish so generally expressed till after the Easter recess.

consented, and asked permission of the House to let the Bill stand over to the 20th of April.

moved the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on the Motion, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the late Election of the Municipal Council of the Borough of Poole."

rose to propose an amendment which he thought would meet the views of all parties, and which, without interfering with the proceedings now pending in the Court of King's Bench, would yet satisfy the views of the hon. and learned Member for Huddersfield, who complained, that though a Court of Law might ultimately punish the parties, yet that in the meantime they had full power to deal with and to alienate the corporation funds. He had hopes that his amendment, which the town-clerk and the members of the town-council generally were most anxious should be agreed to, would be the more especially acceptable, because, whilst it proposed to embrace in the inquiry all that was substantially requisite to meet the difficulty in which the inhabitants of Poole were alleged to be placed by this false election, it would exclude from the inquiry of the Committee all that was of a criminal nature, which was now before, and could only be properly decided by, a Court of Law It would, he believed be agreed on all sides that a Committee of that House was a very bad tribunal of criminal justice. In a Committee, party feeling was sure to be excited; its Members might possibly not be cognizant of the law, and the witnesses examined before it were unsworn. It did not, he believed, appear that the parties had proceeded as fast as they could in the Court of King's Bench, for though they had got up affidavits, the Attorney-General did not move for the rule until the last day of Term. Nor was there any doubt that a Court of Law was perfectly competent to give redress in this case. If the election were bad, as stated, the parties could be removed under a quo warranto, and those who bad been guilty of malversation duly punished. He therefore begged leave to move as an amendment, to leave out from the word "into" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "an alleged intention of the town-council of Poole to dispose of the property of the Corporation pending the trial of legal proceedings, questioning the right of the persons composing the town-council to act as town-councillors; and into the best and speediest means of preventing such, disposal of the said property."

Sir, I shall certainly resist this Amendment, because it offers in this most scandalous case, just no relief at all. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hogg) that I can quite understand that he has been but a short time acquainted with the nature of the case which he has just opened; from the total misconception of its whole character. He tells us we could get relief in a Court of Law. I tell him that a Court of Law cannot give adequate relief to the grievance of which we complain; but that for every redress and reparation which the Courts of Law in this country can administer, we have prayed;—we have prosecuted that remedy, we are pursuing it with every possible effort, and with all the speed that is consistent with the rules of the Court. But the hon. Gentleman is in a great mistake as to the character of those proceedings which we have instituted in a Court of Law; he does not seem to be aware that so early as the third day of last term an application was made for a new warrant against the councillors, so fraudulently elected; and that, when the Rule was made absolute, by the course of practice in the Court, it became impossible to give the notices, under which we could proceed to trial at the assizes now ensuing; it therefore was impossible to obtain any trial till Midsummer Assizes;—no judg- ment could be obtained till Michaelmas-term;—and by that time the councillors would have been out of office. But even if we could get rid of them this moment, I can prove to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be just no remedy at all! Those most fraudulently and wickedly elected councillor would be perfectly indifferent to any thing that Courts of Law in this country can do against them, provided the Legislature would allow the parties to retain the ulterior consequences of the original fraud, which they have gained. Knowing that if we could get rid of their original appointment, we cannot by the rules of law get rid of its ulterior consequences; they would say "we will abandon to you the foundation, provided you will allow us to keep the superstructure;—if you will allow us to keep the fruits of our original fraud, — we care not what becomes of the quo warrant os"—That is the argument they are acting upon, that is why we have no prospect of relief, and call upon the House for it. As this is a case in which no remedy can be applied, but that of the Legislature, so no constitutional principle can be an answer to my application:—the constitutional principle of not applying to the Legislature for that relief which you can gain from a Court of Law. You may, in some cases, be supposed therefore to doubt the justice of your case, inasmuch as you are claiming here what you could obtain, if your case were good, under Courts of Law. That is not the state of this case, Sir. Here, the only remedy which can be applied must commence in this House:—if therefore you wish to destroy and discourage such fraud, you are bound to give us this Committee. Nothing unconstitutional can arise from it. The whole of these proceedings were carried on in the grossest fraud: in both of the wards of this borough, the elections were carried on in a small room, under such circumstances as that it was impossible the election should be fair; the voters were not allowed to remain, but were removed by the constables after they had voted, and it was impossible to put the question expressly prescribed by the Act. In. many instances the Mayor received papers closed up, put them into the box, and on them founded his scandalous fraudulent return; and so conscious was he of the fraud, that he had not the face to affix the number of voters to the names of the candidates, being, I will venture to say, the only instance in the whole country of such a circumstance occurring. And in such a case as this, are we not justified in saying, if you don't mean to refuse all redress, you must grant us this Committee?—What was the first proceeding of this council?— Why, in one day to confer twelve appointments on persons of the name of Slade, (that being the Mayor's name) and fraudulently and collusively to eject the town-clerk, a bosom friend of the Mayor, that he might put in his claim for compensation, to the amount of 7,000l., for an office worth 201. a year! I do say, Sir, that in order to institute an inquiry, and to prevent the alienation of the property of the town, the House is bound to grant the Committee.

approved of the amendment much more than of the original motion. The subject did not properly belong to Parliament, it was one that a Court of Law alone should take cognizance of. It was true the Courts of Law could not remedy the offence really complained of, that this was a Conservative Corporation; but they could remedy the offences, if any, really committed. If the election was bad, the King's Bench could pronounce it void, so could it the nomination of aldermen; and the Court of Chancery could interfere with any alienation of property by the Corporation. The present line of proceeding was a novel and unconstitutional one, as it was tyranny on the part of Parliament to interfere with the rights of the Courts of Law.

expressed his suprise that the House of Commons should attempt to usurp the functions of the ordinary tribunals. Such an attempt—such a monstrous invasion on the privileges of the Bench, he in his whole Parliamentary experience never witnessed. He did endeavour in the present case to resist this most dangerous precedent. This was a case that was strictly one fit only for judicial investigation, and he (Mr. Wynn) entered his strongest protest against this decision, by which it seemed that political feelings, more than the justice of the case, determined the matter, He would not divide the House on the question, but he entered his solemn protest, as decidedly as he could., against the last decision, as being in itself an evil, and likely to lead, from the precedent it would form, to greater evils. He would recommend his friends to express their dissent from the last decision, but not to divide the House.