(who after having been ejected from Dublin by an Election Committee, had been returned for Kilkenny, and had this evening taken his seat,) presented a petition from certain electors of the city of Dublin, against the sitting Members for that city. He conceived the petition to come within the statute; but if any doubt arose upon the subject, he should be content that it should be printed, and that the opinion of the House should be taken upon it on the first day of sitting after the recess. He had looked carefully into all the authorities upon the point, and entertained no doubt whatever that the petition—the per sons by whom it was subscribed not having been parties in any way to the former petition—came within the statute, and, consequently, that it ought to be received.

thought that the House ought not to be called upon to discuss a question of so much importance without previous notice. The case, how ever, arising out of the present petition did not appear to him to be a new one. In the year 1834, the House determined upon a case in every respect strictly analogous with the present. In that case, on the very day on which the petition was presented, the House came to the decision that it could not be received—he alluded to the Monaghan case. In that case the original election petition was presented on the 5th of June. On the 2d of July the Committee was struck, and on the 30th of July the Committee reported that Colonel Westenra was not duly elected, and that Edward Lucas, Esq., was duly elected, and ought to have been returned. This was strictly analogous with the Re port of the Dublin Election Committee. The House was aware that there was an annual classification of petitions of this nature; and, in that classification, a distinction was always drawn between those petitions which related only to the return of the candidate petitioned against, and those in which the affirmation was not only that the return of the sitting Member was undue, but that another candidate had been elected, and ought to have been returned. Under the Grenville Act there had been five or six cases in which time had been asked, consequent upon the Report of the Committee; but in all those cases, without any exception, the Report of the Committee had simply been that the return was undue. In no one case, where time had been granted, had the Committee reported, not only that the return was undue, but that the party petitioning was duly elected, and ought to have been returned. The only case which he found upon the Journals of the House of a petition ever being presented after the report of an Election Committee constituted under the Grenville Act, in which it was declared, not only that the one party was not duly elected, but that the other party was duly elected and ought to have been returned, was the case of Monaghan, to which he had already referred.

Will the right hon. Baronet allow me to interrupt him for one moment? A little explanation may, per haps, prevent further discussion at this time. I could not present this petition sooner than to-day. It was not prepared till within the last few days, and till to-day I have not been competent to present it. It was only on Monday last that the Re port of the Committee was made. I do not apply for time; I do not want it. I would have given notice of my intention to present the petition if the House had sat to-morrow, or even on Monday. But as this is the last day on which the House sits for nearly a fortnight, and as the day on which it next sits will be the last on which such a petition as the present could be received, I thought it better to lay it upon the Table this evening, in order that it might be printed prior to its being discussed when we re-assemble after the recess. I do not wish it to be prematurely discussed now. Having intimated to the House that such a petition is in existence. I should even be content to withdraw it for the present. But whenever it is discussed, I shall be perfectly prepared to show that it comes within the statute, that none of the cases alluded to by the right hon. Baronet apply to it, and that gross injustice will be done if it be not received and its prayer attended to.

did not wish to argue the question now, if the hon. and learned Member intended to withdraw the petition; but if it were proposed to suffer it to be upon the Table, it would be his duty to call the attention of the House to those circumstances which induced him to think that it ought not to be received. When the hon. and learned Member interrupted him, he was endeavouring to state to the House the grounds of the de- cision which was made in the case of the Monaghan petition. The present petition could be regarded in no other light than as virtually asking for the appointment of another Committee under the Grenville Act, to re-try the merits of the last Dublin election. But under the Grenville Act, when an election committee, duly appointed, had come to a decision as to the return of the Member, no provision what ever was made for any appeal. He had stated, that since the passing of that Act, five or six instances had occurred of petitions being presented, after the reports of election committees had been made, asking for the fourteen days within which, by the rule of the House, petitions complaining of the return of any sitting Member must be laid upon the Table. But in each of those five or six cases, the report of the Committee had not affirmed the right of the party petitioning to be re turned, but had only adjudicated upon the simple point of the propriety or impropriety of the return. The case of Monaghan was the only one in which a petition had been presented after an election committee had declared, that one Member was not duly elected, and that another was duly elected, and ought to have been returned. And how was that petition received? On referring to the Journals of the House, he found on the 13th of August, 1834, an entry to this effect:— "The petition of certain electors of the county of Monaghan, complaining of the election and return of Edward Lucas, Esq., being presented, the entry on the Journals of the 30th of July last, of the Report of the Monaghan Election Committee was read, to this effect: that the Hon. Henry R. Westenra was not duly elected a knight to serve in Parliament for the county of Monaghan; that Edward Lucas, Esq., was duly elected a knight, and ought to have been returned for the said county." A debate ensued, which ended by the House directing the petition to be withdrawn. This was the last decision which the House had come to upon a matter of this kind, and, believing the decision to be most correct, he thought that a similar course ought to be adopted on the present occasion. Seeing that the cases of Monaghan and Dublin were strictly analogous to each other, he thought that the precedent laid down in the one ought to be rigidly adhered to in the other. With that view he should now move, that the Report of the Dublin Election Committee, entered upon the Journals of the House on Monday last, be now read.

rose to call the attention of the House to the position in which the question now stood. If there were any difficulty upon the subject he thought it arose out of the circum stance of the petition being presented on the last day of the House sitting prior to the recess. If, instead of adjourning for ten days, the House were only about to adjourn till Monday next, there would, he apprehended, be no doubt as to the course that ought to be pursued, namely, to print the petition and take the discussion upon it on Monday. He agreed with his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) that there was no subject on which it behoved the House to act with more jealous caution than on questions of this description. As some difficulty seemed to have arisen on the present occasion, what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished to do was, to suggest that which appeared to him to be the fair and just mode of dealing with the subject, namely, to allow the petition to be upon the table, and to adjourn the discussion upon it until the first day of the House sitting after the recess. Meanwhile hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of consulting all the precedents upon the subject. Unprepared as he was at that moment, he, for one, should be very sorry to be called upon to pronounce any decision as to the ultimate course that the House ought to adopt. Of the contents of the petition he knew nothing. He was not aware of the existence of such a petition, and consequently was wholly unprepared for its presentation on that occasion. Therefore, if there were now any question before the House, he should move as an amendment that the debate be adjourned till the first day after the recess.

understood, that this was a petition in the nature of an election petition. It was a petition complaining of an undue return, declaring that persons pronounced, by a Committee constituted according to the provisions of the Grenville Act, to have been duly returned, were not duly returned. If it were an election petition, he apprehended that no question could arise as to whether it should be presented or whether it should be allowed to be on the table. He did not know what they could gain by postponing the discussion. They could not be called upon to judge from the allegations of the petition, whether it were de serving of attention or not, because the question had already been tried before a competent tribunal, by which a decision that ought to be final had been pronounced. There was no difference between the pre sent case and that of the case of Monaghan. It was proper, therefore, that the same course should be pursued.

said, there was no argument whatever in the assertion that this petition could not be received because it was an election petition. Undoubtedly the question was, whether it could be received, and that question he was quite content should be deliberately discussed and decided. He did not rise to oppose the motion that the petition be now laid on the table and printed, and the debate adjourned till the first day after the recess. His object in rising was to reply to some of the observations that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) opposite. He was prepared to meet the right hon. Baronet foot to foot. Here was a case where it was impossible to pre sent a petition sooner. Here, too, was a case which, in other respects, differed essentially from those to which the right hon. Baronet had referred. In this instance the candidates—the Gentlemen who now sat for the city of Dublin—were not parties to the original election petition; and the words of the statute were special, that the decision of a Committee appointed under the Grenville Act should not be final unless it were a decision between the par ties. He prayed the House to see what a monstrous thing it was to resist the course he proposed to take. The Report of the Dublin Election Committee, presented on Monday last, contained the following resotion:—"The Committee feel it to be their duty especially to report to the House that eight persons, viz., Matthew Nadden, George Osborn, Patrick Finucane, Oliver Richards, John Forsyth, Charles Dempsey, James Baldwin, and Andrew Hutchinson, were struck off the poll as having voted under a corrupt expectation, and having subsequently received money; but the Committee are unanimously of opinion that there is no evidence that Messrs. West and Hamilton, for whom they voted, were either directly or in directly implicated in such corrupt practices." [Hear.] He admired that cheer; but Mould the hon. Gentlemen who were so vociferous listen to the reason why there was no evidence to implicate Messrs. West and Hamilton? Because the Committee, when it opened a commission to go to Dublin for the purpose of taking evidence, gave directions to that commission, limiting them to particular points on which only they were to take evidence. He held in his hand a copy of the limitations imposed upon the commission. It was a question whether any recriminatory evidence was to be admitted against the un successful candidates. Upon that point the direction given to the commission was, that no recriminatory evidence should be admitted against the unsuccessful candidates except so far as regarded the disqualification of votes, the unsuccessful candidates not being parties before the Committee. That being the case, the un successful candidates not being parties, not being before the Committee at all, the Committee might well say, that there was no evidence against them. The question, then, was, whether under such circumstances—whether, according to a correct construction of the Grenville Act—the decision of the Election Committee was one that ought to be held as positively final? The words of the statute were, that the decision of the Committee should be "final between the parties to all intents and purposes." Now he assured the House that in this instance the parties seated by the decision of the Committee were not parties to the petition, that they were so far from being parties that the Committee expressly excluded any evidence of a recriminatory character against them. What did he claim for the present petitioners? Nothing more than that their petition should be printed, and that the contents of it should be deliberately considered on the first day of the re-assembling of the House after the recess. The question that arose out of the present case was one that had never been deter mined. It was out of the statute. The I words of the statute were precise. They stated distinctly and precisely that the Report of the Committee should be final and conclusive "between the parties." Messrs. West and Hamilton were not par ties—nothing was heard against them— yet the Committee did not pronounce them guiltless, but returned only the Scotch verdict of "not proven." He was prepared to adopt the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the House thought fit to adopt it. All that he required was, that in this case, where it was demonstrated that bribery existed —bribery which the former Committee did not try, because those on whose side it was committed were not parties to the petition—there should be allowed an opportunity of trying it now.

had paused much to consider whether it were right or not on his part in that stage of the proceedings to offer one word to the House upon the subject. He believed that in doing so he should he departing from that line of cautious prudence to which, perhaps it might be most wise in him strictly to ad here; but, at the same time, rather than run the risk of losing any portion of that character for candour and sincerity which, he trusted, he possessed as well within the walls of the House as out of it, he felt bound to state that, reserving for the pre sent all consideration of the propriety or impropriety of the views which influenced the Committee in restricting the commission as to the evidence to be taken on the question of bribery on the side of the un successful candidates—reserving himself upon that point, he felt, that he was bound in candour to say, that the Committee, having precluded the Commissioners from taking evidence upon a point upon which they conceived it was not competent to themselves to enter, came to their conclusion under the fullest impression that if there were any ground for the allegation of bribery against the Members who were seated in consequence of their Report, it would be open to the opposite party to try that question by presenting a petition to the House. He knew not whether he had acted properly or not in making that declaration. He had not had the opportunity of consulting more than one of his colleagues upon the subject, but he believed, that what he had stated was in strict accordance with the feelings and impressions of all the Members of the Committee. Under these circumstances he would not be a party to any attempt to exclude any parties who came before the House with an allegation of bribery against the sitting Members from giving such proof as it was in their power to offer.

regretted, that the House should enter into any discussion upon the merits of this question. Questions of disputed election were by law referred to a Committee, the decision of which was directed to be final, and if he (Mr. Wynn) were right, if the House of Commons had been right for the sixty-six years which had elapsed since the first passing of the Grenville Act, if the House had been right in all its former determinations upon questions of this description, it had not the power of entertaining any question whatever upon the determination of an election Committee. The direction of the Act was, that "the decision of the Committee shall be final to all intents and purposes whatever." The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. O'Connell) had referred to the course taken in the case of the Canterbury election petition as if it afforded a precedent for that which he now proposed. But if the hon. and learned Member had taken the trouble to look into that case he would see, that it had no analogy whatever to the present. The report of the Canterbury Election Committee was, that the sitting Members were not duly returned, and that the petitioner was duly returned; and that was followed by a motion on the opposite side, to be at liberty to question, not the return, but the election, upon which the Committee had not reported. In so doing the Committee had acted in perfect accordance with repeated precedents, in which, when it appeared that clearly on the face of the poll the petitioner was entitled to be re turned, they reported that fact without going into the merits of the election, leaving it open to the electors to petition, if they thought fit, within fourteen days, on the merit of the election. He (Mr. Wynn) happened perhaps to be more sensible of the full weight of the precedent upon this point, because one like it was connected with his own family. It was to be found in the case of the Denbigh election in the year 1742. The case was this: there appeared on the face of the poll to be 1,370 votes in favour of an ancestor of his, and between 800 and 900 in favour of Mr. Myddleton. Mr. Myddleton's brother was sheriff, and returned him in the face of the large majority on the poll. The House determined to set this right, and after going into an inquiry upon the point, it declared that the petitioner (his ancestor) ought to be returned, but at the same time gave fourteen days to the electors, or any other person, to question the merits of the election. A similar case occurred in the election for the county of Bedford, in 1784, when a contest took place between Mr. St. John and Lord Onslow. In that case the committee determined that the petitioner had a right to be returned, but allowed the additional time to question the merits of the election. But in the present instance the report of the committee was, that the petitioners were duly elected, and ought to have been returned. No petition, therefore, could be presented or be taken into consideration but for the purpose of reversing that decision. But, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "these are not parties before the committee; the electors had not the power of questioning the election of Messrs. West and Hamilton; the sitting Members had that power, but the electors had not, because Messrs. West and Hamilton were not parties." Till about seven years ago, it was perfectly true, that this apparent hardship was one to which the electors might be subject. Up to the year 1828, those who had voted for the sitting Member might, either in consequence of his death, or supposing him to act in collusion with the petitioner, and not bona fide to defend his seat—in either of these cases the electors were precluded, and might, without any fault or negligence of their own, be prevented from being represented by the persons whom they had chosen. But, in 1828, he himself had the honour of introducing an Act upon this subject, with the view of remedying that defect; and to enable the electors, in the case of any disputed return, to prevent the possibility of such a contingency as that which he had pointed out. For this purpose in one clause of that Bill it was declared that it should be lawful, "at any time within the space of fourteen days, for any person or persons claiming to have had a right to vote at the election, to petition the House of Commons, praying for a committee, as a party or parties, to defend such return, and to support the prayer of such petition, and such person or persons shall thereupon be admitted as a party or parties, together with the sitting Members, and shall be considered as such to all intents and purposes whatever." Now if the present petitioners had thought fit, in the first instance, to petition under that clause, they would have been admitted as joint parties to oppose the petition—they would have had the full right of recriminating, if they thought fit, whether the sitting- Member did or did not think it his duty so to do. He would merely refer to the fact that during a period of sixty-six years since the Grenville Act was passed, that House had never, for one moment, given countenance to the opportunity of questioning the decision of a select committee. It had held, that it should be, as it was provided for by the statute, absolutely final. If it were not, they would be re opening the decision of every election case that might come before the House. They would have parties coming forward and re trying every case which had been already determined upon, in the direct face of the words of an act of Parliament, and in the direct face of sixty-six years' practice. Therefore he would conclude by saying, that if he stood alone he would divide the House against this petition being allowed to be on the Table, or of being received by the House.

did not rise to pronounce any opinion whether the petition ought to be received or not; but he had heard quite enough in the course of the present debate to satisfy his mind that it was a question of great importance, and ought not to be disposed of by the House without mature consideration. Whether this petition ought to be received or not depended upon the true construction of the Grenville Act, as stated by his right hon. Friend, upon reference also to that Act of Parliament which his right hon. Friend introduced, and upon reference to the whole train of decided cases during the last sixty-six years. Now, he must be a very bold Member of Parliament, and very regardless of the importance of this decision, who would rashly pronounce an opinion either one way or the other, with out an opportunity of considering what was the force of those enactments, and what the applicability of those decisions by which it was said this case ought to be ruled. He must be prepared to bear in mind not merely the whole of the Grenville Act, and the whole of the particulars of that important statute to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, but he must be prepared also, without any notice of this petition, without any previous opportunity of informing his mind upon the subject, or, of comparing this case with the Monaghan or any other case, to come to a conclusion upon a most important question involving the validity of the seats of two Members of that House. In his judgment, he who pronounced an opinion in any way upon this case, without applying himself to the points he had mentioned, and without any consideration whatever beyond what the present debate afforded him to give to the question, did injustice to the parties. He was decidedly of that opinion, because he would venture to say perhaps he might make an exception in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the county of Montgomery— that the great majority of the Members of that House were not acquainted with the purport of those statutes, nor of the decisions which bore upon the question. For them, therefore, to decide upon it without deliberating, without thinking, without examining, would be to run the risk of doing infinite injustice. He agreed to the position that this petition ought not to be received unless according to the statute and the law of Parliament. He agreed that in strictness the proper motion would be, not that the petition should he on the Table and be printed (although that might be the more convenient mode) but that this debate should be adjourned. By adopting that course, they would violate no law of Parliament, and would give an opportunity for due consideration, which would enable the House to do justice to the parties. He agreed further with his right hon. Friend, that if this was one of those cases in which the decision of the Committee ought to be final and decisive, not merely as between the parties who at tended upon the hearing of the petition, but as against the whole world, he himself would be one of the first, whatever in justice might have been accidentally done by the Committee., to oppose the establishing a precedent that would lead to mischief.' But he could not shut his eyes, in the consideration of this question, to the declaration which had been made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Young) who was a member of the Committee. He could not forget that that hon. Member had told the House that the Committee, right or wrong, had excluded from their consideration one of the most important topics that could enable them to pronounce the very decision to which they had come; that was, whether the now sitting Members had themselves been guilty of bribery or not. It might turn out that the Committee lost their way and were in error. But he would say, that if, according to the statement of the member of that Committee, it appeared that a matter which ought to have received a just investigation, had received none, this House ought to pause before it affirmed the sentence of that Committee. He agreed that those cases in which the decision related to the return, had no applicability to the point now before the House. But when they were pronouncing an opinion upon this point, which the great majority of the House had never been called upon to consider with that particularity which would enable them to perceive what were the precedents that applied to the case, he thought they ought to give time for consideration. Why should they be led into a discussion now? Why not give hon. Members time for consideration? The greater the importance of the question, the greater the reason for the delay. ["Hear, hear" from Mr. Wynn.] Very well. If his right hon. Friend agreed, he had done.

wished to explain. All that he objected to was, that the House should take the slightest step which, might appear as if it admitted such a petition. Either it was an election petition, or it was not. If it were an election petition, it ought to be received without any question, and as a matter of right. On the other hand, if it were, as almost every body seemed to think it could not be, then it ought not to be received. Therefore, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would be equally within the fourteen days if he were to present the petition after the holidays, he (Mr. Wynn) would suggest that the debate should be adjourned till Monday the 30th inst.

thought, although the debate were adjourned, that the petition might be printed.

would not oppose the adjournment of the question till Monday, the 30th. But he begged it to be under stood that he offered the petition as a matter of right.

thought the best course for taking the debate on the question which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, would be to agree to the adjournment. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that if this were not an election petition it should not be received at all; and, therefore, until that question was decided, it would not be proper that the petition should be laid on the table.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to the Timber Duties There were many persons interested in the Timber Trade, who were anxious to know what course his Majesty's Government in tended to take in reference to the duties, In consequence of information he had received, which might be looked upon as official, he was led to believe that the same rate of duty was to be continued, but the mode of levying it to be changed. His constituents had a deep stake in the settlement of the question, and to keep the question of the rate of duty impending over them, after some alteration this year in the mode of levying it, would be most injurious and inconvenient.

said, it was not the intention of Government to introduce, during the present Session, a measure for changing the rate of duty. With regard to the other topic touched upon by the hon. Gentleman—the alteration in the mode of levying it, by introducing a system of measurement—the subject was under consideration, but it was not in his power to give any definite answer. In the arrangements that might be made, every attention would be paid to evading the necessity of measuring the deals twice, a plan which was materially injurious and unfair.

said, as his Majesty's Government were taking a considerable part in the contest in the northern parts of Spain, he wished to ask the noble Lord if instructions had been given to the British naval force on that coast to interfere with our commercial relations? He begged to know whether, supposing that British, or Russian, or American merchants wished to carry on a trade with the adherents of Don Carlos, instructions would be given to the cruisers under Lord John Hay to prohibit them.

could only say, that the instructions given to the commander of the British squadron were in strict conformity with the engagements entered into by Government in the treaty of quadruple alliance.

said, that his question was not whether the instructions issued were in the spirit of that treaty, but whether they authorised interference with our commercial relations.

If the hon. Gentleman asked him what the British squadron would do, he would tell the hon. Member that he could not undertake to say what steps Lord John Hay might think proper to take. But, if any case occurred in which the naval force in the execution of its instructions acted, in what the hon. Gentleman might deem an unwarrantable manner, when the hon. Member brought it forward, he would be ready to discuss it.

said, that after the recess he should move for a copy of the instructions issued to the British naval force on the coast of Spain.

considered that his Majesty's subjects had a right to be in formed by Government whether they had a right to trade with a particular port. ["What port?"] He meant the ports occupied by those who were called insurgents—the adherents of Don Carlos.

said, that it was perfectly well known to merchants what restrictions were imposed by the Government of Spain on the commercial inter course of those ports with other nations.

said, that his question was, whether the British merchants were to be allowed to carry on their commerce by the British cruisers. He had not asked what the queen of Spain did, but what the king of England would do? He wished to know whether English subjects were to be left at liberty or not by the king of England's ships to carry on their trade?

thought it would be better if in future the House should rise for a longer period at Easter, as the vacation was not now sufficiently long to enable them to return from the country.

did not mean to object to the arrangement of the noble Lord, though he feared it would not be found suitable. A resolution for giving precedence to orders of the day on all days would have injurious effects, in consequence of the custom that had lately arisen of making motions as amendments to orders of the day.

brought up the third report of Commissioners to inquire into the established Church. The noble Lord said, having presented the Report, he should now more for leave to bring in a Bill to carry part of the report into effect, to which he hoped there would be no objection. It was desirable that the Bill should be brought in and printed before the holy- days in order that time should be given for its consideration.

said, he had given a great deal of consideration to this subject, and had in consequence prepared some clauses which he would propose to have refered to the committee in the way of instructions. The House must be aware of the many inconveniences which arose from the present mode of registration be fore the Revising Barristers. The great number of barristers upon whom at pre sent that duty devolved, tended rather to produce delay than to expedite the business. The most serious inconvenience, however, arose from the variety and in consistency of their decisions, which took away anything like certainty as to the state of the law upon this subject. He would mention one case in illustration of this. In the county of Middlesex the pos session of shares in the New River Company was held by the Revising Barrister to confer a right of voting. In the adjoining county of Hertford, the Revising Barrister held quite an opposite opinion. A third barrister was called in, that the point might be decided by a majority either one way or the other. The opinion of the third, however, was completely at variance with the opinion of the other two, so that no decision could be come to. The object he proposed to himself was, to establish something like certainty and uniformity in their decisions. That, he feared, was not attainable under the present sys tem. What he attempted to accomplish therefore, in the clauses which he should submit to the House to be referred to the committee, was the establishment of a Court of Revision and of Appeal. The greatest difficulty he felt was as to the quarter in which the appointment of the barristers in these new Courts was, to be lodged. He was not supposed to vest this patronage in the Judges, and his motive was, that barristers, if the Judges had the power of appointment, might be induced to look up too much to the Court, and thus be prevented from discharging their duties in that independent and unbiassed man- ner which the honour of the profession and the interests of their clients required. The Judges should be placed as much as possible beyond all suspicion of being influenced in the appointments they might make by any party or political considerations. It appeared to him that it would not be improper to vest the patronage in the Executive Government; but yet it might give rise to jealousies and suspicions, which, if possible, it would be desirable to avoid, he, therefore, gave up that idea. To vest it in the Chancellor might be attended with some advantages; because, being at the head of the law, he must naturally be supposed to have some knowledge of the qualifications of those whom he appointed; and, besides, being a member of the Government, the responsibility of the Government would to a certain degree be involved in his appointments. After all the consideration he was able to give the subject, the conclusion to which he came was, that the most advisable course, that to which he saw the fewest objections, would be, to vest these appointments in the Speaker. One great object he had in view was, to limit the number of Revising Barristers, and thereby to produce ultimately more uniformity and clearness in their decisions. The expense of the Revising Baristers under the present system was 32,0001. a year. Now, by reducing the number to twelve, the half of this sum 16,000l., would be sufficient to provide a respectable salary for each of these twelve barristers. With out trespassing further on the time of the House he would move the first clause, in the shape of a resolution, to this effect— "That it bean instruction to the Committee to make provision for the establishment of a permanent Court of Revision, and also for a Court of Appeal from the same."

regretted, that there was not a fuller House for the discussion of so important a subject as that which the hon. Member for Bridport had brought be fore the House; for he (Lord J. Russell) was most desirous to ascertain what were the sentiments of the House on the proposition then before it, which would make a very considerable alteration in the pro visions of the Reform Bill. His own impression was, that the object which the hon. Member for Bridport wished to accomplish vas a very desirable one. Before this Bill was brought into Parliament, he had stated to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that it was his opinion that there ought to be a permanent Court of Revi- sion, with a smaller number of Revising Barristers as Judges, in order to obtain some uniformity in their decisions; but there was a difficulty in establishing such a court, owing to the same day being fixed throughout the kingdom for the payment of those rates and taxes which gave the elective franchise—a difficulty which at that time he did not see the means of overcoming. The advantages of the establishment of such a Court of Revision as the hon. Member for Bridport contemplated were so very great, that if he could believe that it met the general approbation of the House, he would not withhold his assent from it, but would do all in his power to facilitate its construction. Among the rights of individuals which were liable to dispute, he had always lamented that there should exist so many doubts as to the rights of individuals to vote for members of Parliament. Those doubts arose from the various descriptions of franchise which formerly existed in various parts of the country. The Reform Act had cured that to a certain extent by making the franchise almost uniform throughout the towns of the country. Still that variety of franchise existed in the counties; and though the variety of decisions as to what constituted that franchise was not greater now than it was before the appointment of revising barristers, it was much more generally known, because the revising barristers gave their judgment with some degree of formality in public, while formerly the assessors gave their judgment in the sheriffs' room almost without a witness. It was most desirable, both for electors and for candidates, that there should be certainty as to what constituted the right of voting, and that, when a question on a doubtful point was decided, the decision should extend to all parts of the kingdom, so that you should not have a voter in Yorkshire disfranchised upon grounds upon which his franchise had been allowed in Cornwall. It would therefore be a matter of great public advantage to have a court of revision, and from that court of revision a court of appeal. By the formation of such courts, you would in the course of a few years frame a body of decisions which would fix the law, and remove all doubts on the subject. The doubts also as to the franchise which arose out of the conflicting decisions of election committees would be removed by the formation of this court of appeal; for if there were a court of appeal pro- perly constituted, it was quite evident that a body of gentlemen acting upon oath in such committees would avail themselves of the information collected by such a court, and govern their decisions by its judgments. We should thus get certainty where we now had doubt, and put an end to that expensive litigation which arose out of that incertitude that now prevailed. The hon. Member for Bridport would see from this, that he (Lord J. Russell) was friendly to his proposition as far as its principle went, but the House would re collect that he had stated before, that his difficulty was as to the parties by whom the courts of revision and appeal were to be appointed. He agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking, that there were very strong objections to vesting the appointment of the revising barristers in the judges. It was objectionable to place patronage of this kind in the hands of per sons holding the rank of judges in this country, because it rendered them liable to charges which, though unfounded, could not be avoided, where the passions of men were heated by political contests. As to the appointment by the Crown, there were still greater objections. His hon. Friend had therefore proposed to give to the Speaker the power of appointing members of the courts of revision and appeal. He did not see the same objection to in vesting the Speaker with the power of appointment. which he did to giving it to the judges and the Crown. The Speaker was supposed to be impartial in conducting the proceedings of that House, but still, in matters of politics, the Speaker was not and could not be altogether impartial. The name and authority of Speaker led the individual who filled the chair to do justice to all parties in that House, but taken as he was from the ranks of one or other of the two great parties which divided the state, with one of which he must have voted for at least fifteen or twenty years, it could not be said that he, like one of the judges of the land, was perfectly impartial. If the Speaker were to appoint the revising barristers, it could not be said that the House was giving him by that appointment a political character which hitherto he had not possessed. On the other hand this scheme was exposed to this disadvantage—that it would be said that the Speaker selected for revising barristers those lawyers who were of his own politics, rather than those of adverse politics. He knew of no other person better qualified for conferring those appointments than the Speaker. He should be glad to entertain the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport. As to the patronage, he would rather that the House decided by whom it should be exercised than give any decisive opinion on it himself. The only remaining question was whether they should go into Commit tee in order to have these clauses inserted in the Bill. He thought it would not be fair to insert them, unless the House was prepared to reconsider the whole Bill in Committee on a future day.

had always been of opinion that the system provided by the Reform Bill for the management of the register of votes would be productive of evil and inconvenience, and the result had answered his prediction. He had also always been favourable to the appointment of some court of appeal, the effect of which would be to afford some degree of certainty and uniformity to the decisions on the law of registration. For his own part, he was certainly desirous that greater competency and a higher degree of talent should be secured by a diminution in the number of barristers, and a consequent increase in the amount of emolument apportioned to each; for he was of opinion that that was the best economy which secured the highest order of talent in the market. He objected to the principle of the proposition which would vest the right of choosing the revising barristers in the Speaker. He thought that the Speaker could not be supposed to have a personal knowledge of the fitness of the individuals suggested to fill the offices, and that he must therefore be expected to rely in a great measure on the recommendation of the Attorney and Solicitor-General. He (Mr. Wynn) would much rather the right of appointment was vested in the Lord Chancellor, who would make the appointments in the face of Westminster Hall, and subject to the influence of public opinion. He would not object to joining other legal dignitaries to the Lord Chancellor for the purpose, as, for instance, the Lords Chief Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer.

expressed his satisfaction at the manner in which this proposition had been received by the House. A plan almost similar to this had been pro posed to him some time ago by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), but the great difficulty which they both had felt was with respect to the alteration of the day for the payment of rates and taxes, a day which was the same throughout the kingdom. His hon. Friend (Mr. Warburton) had met that difficulty manfully and successfully, and, in his opinion, had completely obviated it. It could not be denied, that the present system had caused great dissatisfaction, but that was no reflection on the profession to which he (the Attorney-General) had the honour to belong. When they took 175 barristers from that profession to act as Judges, it would be no wonder—supposing them to be as learned even as the judges of the land —if great discrepancies were found amongst their decisions. By fixing the number of the Revising Barristers at twelve, they would get an uniformity of decision, which would command the respect and confidence of the public. The business of the country would be done at the same time more efficaciously and more economically. He hoped the House would now go into Committee pro forma, in order to have it proposed in the Committee, and then to have it printed.

approved of the pro position to substitute a Court of Revision for the present system of the Revising Barristers, but he objected strongly to vesting the appointment of members of that court in the Speaker, not from any doubt that the eminent individual who now filled the chair would make a good selection, but because, in future, when a Speaker had filled the chair during a period of six or seven years his means of judging the fitness of the individuals appointed would be very much diminished. He thought, also, that it would ill contribute to the maintenance of the dignity and authority of the Chair if its occupant were liable at all times to be attacked and cavilled at for acts committed by him in the discharge of the trust reposed in him. He objected, also, to the proposed constitution of the Court of Appeal. He thought that this court might with more advantage be connected with the Election Committees of that House. His own proposition to the Committee which had been appointed to inquire, into this subject had been, that there should be a certain number of permanent chairmen of Election Committees, who would act in every respect as a Court of Appeal on the decision of the Revising Barristers, and by the same process intro duce uniformity in the decisions of Election Committees. The Court of Appeal pro posed by the clauses of the hon. Member for Bridport, must of necessity not be composed of a permanent and unfluctuating body, and to their decisions would attach great inconvenience. The estimation of those decisions would in a great measure depend upon the public opinion of the degree of capacity of the individuals to whose lot it had fallen to make them, and he therefore thought that some fixed body, like that to which he had referred, would be preferable.

observed, that as the H o u appeared to approve of the principle of his hon. Friend's motion, it would be better to abstain from discussing it until they went into Committee. Whether the appointments should rest with the Speaker or the Secretary for the Home Department would be a proper matter for the Committee to decide.

did not disapprove of the nomination of the Speaker to appoint the functionaries for the revision of votes. He felt strongly the defects of the present system, and agreed that it was absolutely necessary to make some change. He was sorry, however, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, did not agree in the appointment of a Court of Revision. Much blame had been thrown on the barristers, but he thought unjustly, as most of their time was occupied in correcting the errors committed by those to whom the making out the lists was intrusted. He would prefer that the curate of the parish, or the parish clerk, should make out the lists in the first instance, instead of the overseer.

would prefer that the appointments should rest with one individual rather than with many, as there would be more responsibility. He should prefer that the Speaker had the appointment of the Revising Barristers, rather than the Lord Chancellor. He only wished at present that his proposition should be agreed to,pro formâ and it could be introduced into the Bill in Committee, and considered on a future occasion.

said, that the first intimation which he had of the intention of the hon. Member for Bridport to give to himself the appointment of these Judges, was from reading it in the printed resolutions. He must own that he read it with regret, and subsequent reflection had not diminished that regret. He thought it would in some degree combine the executive with the legislative power, to which latter he thought the functions of the House ought to be confined; still, if it was the pleasure of this House to fix this duty upon him, he would acquiesce in it. It would, he considered, be placing an appointment which ought to be responsible, in the hands of the only Member who could not stand up in his place and defend his conduct when questioned.

moved "that it be an instruction to the Committee to insert a clause limiting the time for taking the poll to one day."