would ask the noble Lord one question concerning Ireland. He (Mr. Sergeant Goulburn) deeply deplored—and he wished to know if the noble Lord had any objection to state a similar opinion—the existence of an association in that country, called the National Association; he wished to know if the noble Lord concurred in that opinion. He had witnessed with great regret the existence and the control of an association in that country that was incompatible with the rights of that House, which was adverse to the administration of justice in Ireland, and of which, on many accounts, he cordially disapproved. He thought the noble Lord, connected as he was by office with Ireland, would feel obliged by his thus giving him the opportunity of telling the House and the country what was his opinion on this subject.

said, he did not think it was convenient to state whether he concurred or not in the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the National Association in Ireland. He did not conceive that this was a fit opportunity for the discussion; but he would give the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of hearing his opinion on Tuesday night, when he brought in the Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland. He would then state to the hon. and learned Gentleman his opinion, for which he was responsible; but he could not now state how far that opinion might coincide with that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just expressed.

was strictly in order, on a motion for supply, to ask any Member of the Government if he concurred in any opinion which had been expressed by the Prime Minister respecting the Association—to ask if the noble Lord were bound by the opinion of the head of the Administration of which he was a part, who cordially disapproved of the National Association. He thought also that it was worthy the consideration of the House if he had, in asking this question, transgressed any of its rules. With deference to the noble Lord, he must say, that the answer he had received was no answer, but had rather (he appearance of an evasion.

said, that he thought the hon. Gentleman had got as good an answer as he had a right to expect. He had never before heard such a question asked. He did not know if the Prime Minister had ever expressed such an opinion; if he had, he could only say it was an indiscreet one. He did not know of what the hon. and learned Member disapproved; but, judging by the public and ordinary channels, he highly approved of the Association. He could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, that Ireland had never before been so quiet under any other Government; and no credit was due to anything except the moral influence that had been exercised: it had been the moral influence of the Viceroy, and the people had rallied round, and were prepared to stand by him. Whenever the hon. and learned Member should bring the question before the House, he would not find himself in a majority. He would find individuals of exalted rank joining the Association; and he would never believe but that the people of Ireland would see the necessity of uniting, and of rallying round the association in its efforts for their welfare.

not only highly approved of what had been done by the Association, but he had heartily joined in it. He did not know whether the opinion alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been delivered or not by the Prime Minister—nor did he much care. He rather feared that it had been exaggerated. At all events, he was highly delighted with the proceedings of the Association; and when any specific charge was brought against it, he would be prepared to satisfy the country that it was not only legal, but had been most useful. The Association had this feature about it, that, whereas the Catholic Association had not one-fourteenth of its number Protestant, this association, on the contrary, had more than one-third of its members Protestant, and those, too, men of rank, property, and intelligence; and the number was increasing every day. This afforded a hope that Ireland would at length become one country, instead of being divided into a faction on the one hand, and the people on the other. The proceedings in that association were open as day—they courted publicity in every discussion—and he would say, that he believed the utmost possible facility was given to every person to know what was done amongst them. That association had sprung from a just sense of wrong, aggravated by insult. There had been found men audacious enough to assert that Irishmen were aliens in religion, in language, and in blood. There had been found a party atrocious enough to join with the individual who had dared to make use of that insult; and though the blood of Irishmen boiled, yet they had learned in the school of adversity to control and regulate their feelings. That association was determined to obtain justice. They were determined to obtain an equalisation in the privileges enjoyed by Scotchmen and by Englishmen; and if they could not obtain justice otherwise, they were determined to have it by a domestic Legislature. The Union should not be a mere paper and parchment union—it should not be a union of insult and degradation. The people of Ireland hoped for justice in a complete union; and if they could not obtain a complete union, he would never despair of the exertions of seven millions of men in obtaining justice for themselves.

said, that although it was an inconvenient practice to indulge in incidental discussion, yet he could not allow any person to suppose, by his silence, that he acquiesced in the sentiments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It appeared to him, that the existence of the Association was inconsistent with the peace of Ireland. The Association assumed to itself the functions of Parliament, and was inconsistent with the rights of that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman charged others with using insulting language; he had himself repeatedly called the English Saxons, sassenachs and strangers. And with regard to the hon. and learned Member's observations on the union, had he not said, over and over again—he could show, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had written the same thing—that, under any circumstances, he would not be content without the Repeal of the Union? He could produce the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in which he said, that he neither could nor would be content with any other measure than the Repeal of the Union. In his conscience he believed, that the object of the Association was to impede the union between the two countries, and to overthrow the established religion.

said, he did not stand in the same situation as the hon. and learned Recorder. He was merely a political agitator, but the hon. and learned Recorder was a political judge; he combined the functions of judge and partisan. When the hon. and learned Member again quoted him, he begged that the quotation might be accurate. At different periods he might have said, that he no longer looked to this country for justice; since then he had entertained some remnant of hope; and even if this country did not grant them justice, he would not despair.

did not rise to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He wished to state again, and he thought it was incumbent on him, in justice to Lord Mulgrave's Government, to do so, particularly as no notice of censure on Lord Mulgrave had been given which would bring the question before the House, that on Tuesday next, when he introduced the Municipal Corporations' Bill, he would state the whole case of the Irish government; he would now only add, that for every act of that government he held himself fully responsible.

felt the inconvenience of discussing this subject at present, but he should not be doing justice if he did not refer to the policy that had been pursued last year by the party opposite. If the same policy were now pursued, it would go far to unite all Irishmen; and the question would then be considered whether the rights of Ireland should not be granted even by a Repeal of the Union. He called upon the party opposite not to repeat the fatal policy by which Catholic Emancipation was wrung from them.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Grand Jury Act for Ireland. As the amendments now proposed did not embrace any new matter, and were entirely formal, it was not necessary to go into any details. He would merely state that the Bill, with one exception, was the same as the Bill of last year, and he anticipated no opposition to it. He moved for leave to bring it in.

said, the object of the noble Lord was one unconnected with politics, and that he should make no objection to the introduction of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord. The Grand Jury Bill of last year certainly required amendment, particularly in the two points mentioned by the noble Lord—the provisions for dispensaries, and those which related to deserted children; he thought it right, also, to put beyond a doubt, that last year's Act was not intended to bring the county and city of Dublin within its operation.

thought, some provision should be made in this Bill to regulate medical charities, as in those districts of Ireland where medical advice was most wanted, it was impossible to procure an adequate salary for a medical attendant. He had great doubts on the clause respecting deserted children. The evils that had resulted from the establishment of the Foundling Hospital at Dublin were so enormous as to necessitate the breaking up of that establishment. The frauds had been found to be so numerous, that he thought it better to trust to individual charity. He should have a better opportunity of discussing this subject when the noble Lord brought forward his Poor-law Bill for Ireland.

acknowledged the necessity of some part of the measure then before the House. Unfortunately, the Act of last Session was so defective, that if some of the provisions of the Bill now introduced by the noble Lord were not adopted, the salaries of the county-officers would have to remain unpaid, and the public roads and the remainder of the county expenditure unpresented for. By the law, as it at present stood, the Spring Grand Juries would not have the power to levy money for any presentments that were obliged, in the first instance, to be laid before the cess-payers at each Sessions. He was also aware of the necessity of a clause to regulate the posting of notices for applications, which, by some strange oversight, had been altogether omitted. So far he was willing to go with the noble Lord, and regretted that, consistently with his duty to his poorer fellow-countrymen, he could support him no further. Had his noble Friend read the Report of the Commissioners on the state of dispensaries in Ireland, he would have known it was anything but desirable, as he, by this Bill, was about to do, to restore them to their original state. For his part, he would sooner abolish them altogether. He did not, generally speaking, consider them to be serviceable to the people, 60l. or 70l. a-year was, in many instances, paid for distributing 10l. or 20l. worth of medicine; the continuance of this system had been decided against by the House last Session, notwithstanding the able advocacy of the hon. Member for Cork, and without any experience of the effect of the alteration, which was, that not more than half the amount of the entire income of the medical chests should be allotted to the physician. The noble Lord was about to re-establish it; he did not mean to deny that there were highly educated and intelligent men amongst those by whom the dispensaries were managed, but there were also many perfectly incompetent. The first class, he considered, were by no means adequately remunerated; they could not in justice to their families give up sufficient time to discharge the duties of their districts for the paltry stipend allotted to them. The employment of the second class ought not to be suffered to continue; it would be much better for his Majesty's Government to introduce a Medical Reform Bill, to intrust the health of the agricultural population to none but competent persons, and to make their remuneration ample, than attempt to patch up a system which could never, under any circumstances, be rendered efficient.

, on introducing this Bill, said, that the criminal law of Scotland was in general mild, and gave great advantages to the prisoner in conducting his defence; but the genera! character of the law of Scotland differed very much in the punishment of political offences from the disposition it showed in repressing other crimes by moderate penalties. Both the statute and common law were of great severity, and so extremely vague, that no person, however circumspect, who differed from the Government of the time, could be said to be secure. To refer only to one statute—that of 1585, cap. 10, forbade any person publicly to declare or privately to speak or write any purpose of reproach or slander of his Majesty's person, estate, or government; or misconstrue his proceedings, whereby any disliking may be moved between his Highness and his nobility and loving subjects, in time coming, under pain of death. The statute 1594 ratified this and all other statutes, and enacted the same penalties against whoever heard these leasings, calumnies, or slanderous speeches, or writs, and did not apprehend the authors if it lay in his power, or reveal the offence to the Crown or a magistrate. These severe laws unfortunately did not remain a dead letter. In 1635 Lord Balmarino was found to have incurred the penalty of death, on a conviction of having only heard an in- famous libel and concealed and not revealed it; and in 1681 the Earl of Argyle received sentence of death on the Act of 1585, for having merely added this explanation at taking the test oath, that he took it so far as was consistent with itself, or with the Protestant religion. This was held to be defaming the King's laws and proceedings, contrary to the statute. In 1703, after the Revolution, the severity of these laws was relaxed so far as regarded capital punishment; but the law of Scotland remained on the same footing from 1703 until the 6th Geo. 4th. The improved feelings of the age led to that very important statute which lays down the great principle, which cannot be too strongly kept in view, that the crimes of leasing-making, sedition, and blasphemy, should be punished in the same manner as such crimes would be punished if committed in England. At that time the law of England with regard to blasphemous and seditious libels rested on a statute passed in the 60th year of George 3rd., which provided that if any person shall be convicted a second time, he might either be punished by fine and imprisonment, or banished from the United Kingdom. The 11th of George 4th, and 1st of his present Majesty, repealed that part of the 60th of George 3rd, which related to the sentence of banishment for the second offence; but hitherto no measure had been proposed, as far as he (the Lord Advocate) was aware, for making the corresponding change upon the 6th of George the 4th, with reference to the law of Scotland. I may be thought, perhaps (continued the learned Lord) somewhat unnecessarily to have referred to the severity of the old laws, and the judgments pronounced in bad times, but they ought not to be lost sight of at the periods most favourable to the liberty of the subject; and the enactment of the 6th of George 4th cannot be too strongly kept in view, both as a protection to those political rights which every person ought to enjoy in Scotland as well as in England, and as a safeguard to the court and jurymen, who are placed in a dangerous and painful position when called upon to execute laws of great severity and extremity vague in their enactments.

approved of the introduction of the Bill, which would preclude all possibility of the present severe enactments being again enforced, as they had been against the early Reformers of the last century.

wished the Government to bear in mind, that laws of extreme severity still existed in England. By an unrepealed statute of Charles 2nd, no person could be a professor in any college unless he signed a declaration that he had adhered to the religion of the Established Church.

was understood to state, that the hon. Member for Boston did not put a right construction on the statute to which he alluded, and that if there was the slightest ground for supposing that its penalties were as severe as had been represented, he would undertake to bring in a Bill for its repeal.

had no objection to the introduction of this Bill, or to the consolidation of offices which it was intended to effect; but he took the earliest opportunity to intimate, that an esteemed friend of his, who now held one of the appointments in question (he alluded to Sir Henry Jardine), had been exposed to much tyranny and intimidation. Sir Henry Jardine was still in full possession of his mental and bodily energies: he had meritoriously served the public during a long course of years, as was attested by Sir S. Shepherd, the late Chief Baron of Scotland, and other competent judges; and instead of being desirous to retire, he had offered to discharge, on his present salary, the functions of the two consolidated offices, which he believed would be far less laborious than that of the single appointment which he had held so long. Sir Henry had not applied for leave to resign; he had no desire whatever to eat the bread of idleness; he was fond of business, as well as fully competent to discharge it; he challenged the fullest inquiry, and should be happy to meet it as soon as possible; he complained with deeply wounded feelings of the manner in which he had been treated by the Treasury, and of the expressions employed towards him in his correspondence with that Board; and it was believed, in many quarters, that one object of the new arrangement was to dispossess this efficient and experienced public servant, for the purpose of substituting a less eligible person (as far as the public interests are concerned) in his place. Unless, therefore, such a case should be established against Sir Henry as he felt confident could not be made out, be trusted that a British Parliament would do justice to Sir Henry, and intimate their concurrence in the opinion he had expressed that the new office should be conferred on one who, from his talents and character, as well as from his long acquaintance with the details of the business transacted in the Exchequer Department, was so well qualified to discharge its duties.

wished to call the attention of the House to the conduct of his Majesty's Government. It appeared that two offices in the Exchequer Court of Scotland were about to be consolidated, and that the duties of the consolidated office were in future to be executed by one individual. Either of the gentlemen now engaged in the transaction of the business of the two offices was able and willing to undertake the performance of the duties of the consolidated office; yet the Government proposed to remove both of those Gentlemen from the public service, to pay them remuneration, and to appoint a stranger to the new office. Consequently, the contemplated arrangement, instead of effecting a saving, would entail an increased expenditure upon the country.

understood the hon. Baronet to state that either of the Gentlemen at present transacting the business of the two offices, which it was proposed to consolidate, was willing and able to discharge the duties of the new office, and that, therefore, whatever arrangement might hereafter be made, one of them ought to be retained in the public service. Me was quite willing to take issue on that point; for he thought that, when new arrangements were to be made, a discretion ought to be allowed to the Government as to the expediency of continuing persons in the public service when they were not properly qualified. The proposed arrangement would effect a saving, even after the payment of remuneration to the present office holders.

was glad that the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk) had succeeded in drawing the attention of the House to the subject, which it must be admitted was no slight difficulty, seeing that the general noise that prevailed was so great that not a word of the two preceding speakers (Mr. Steuart and Sir George Sinclair) could be heard even by those who, like him, were but a very short distance removed from them. When the right hon. Baronet alluded to the principles of economy professed by those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, he (Mr. Hume) would assure the right hon. Baronet if he were disposed to become a convert to those principles himself, that he might calculate with security on the support of those with whom he was in the habit of acting. If any such improper or imprudent proceedings as those described by the right hon. Baronet were proposed to be adopted, it would certainly be the duty of the House to interfere and prevent them. At the same time he could not help thinking there was some truth in what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Baring) below him. It would be very improper if the men who were responsible for the due performance of the duties of any particular office should not be at liberty to appoint those only whom they conceived to be fully competent.

thought, that the only justification the Government could have for the appointment of a new officer was the circumstance of both the gentlemen to whom allusion had been made being totally unfit for the duty, and in such a case they would not be entitled to any compensation whatever.

should have left the case as it was until the discussion on the second reading of the Bill, but for the observation of the hon. and gallant Member who preceded him. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not admit the principle on which that hon. and gallant Officer had based his argument. It was a case of frequent occurrence that, on a change such as the one in question, a man competent to perform the oaths of an office of a particular description—nay, who had discharged it competently through the latter part of a life devoted to it—was found quite incompetent to discharge the enlarged duties of another office. With respect, however, to the facts, he did not think it necessary to look into them after what had been stated by the Secretary for the Trea- sury. He joined with his hon. Friend in saying that in any examination which should be called for on this subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they should be indulged to their very hearts' content. They should have the papers; and if the papers were not sufficient they should have what appeared in a matter of this description, where it was necessary to have an investigation of the facts, and which assumed the character of a judicial proceeding, they should have a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) might, if he chose, apply his acute-ness and knowledge to the subject as a member of that Committee, as far at least as his vote was concerned. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Edinburghshire, should have the fullest opportunity of inquiring into the facts. He would say, that the imputations thrown out in the course of the investigation were only just if the facts supported them; but hon. Members should not have reason to complain that they had been deprived in a matter of this nature of the opportunity of contradicting it if possible. The Government had had, before now, to consolidate offices. Since Parliament had last met he had had to consolidate two most important offices the Army and Navy Pay offices. It was a painful duty to him, because it affected the future prospects of an individual; but when the Government laid before the House the consolidation which they had made he would invite hon. Gentlemen to say whether, in those arrangements, favouritism had taken place—whether there had been any discharging of old servants for the purpose of placing in their stead new ones as long as they had been competent to perform the duties of their office. The consolidation of offices had taken place in the Government of Lord Grey, and it had been continued in that of Lord Melbourne; and persons who had been in the public service had alone been discharged on the principle that they were incompetent to perform their duties. In the present case it was entirely a matter for investigation whether the individual was or was not properly competent to fill the situation he had held. If he was, then Government certainly had no right to appoint a successor; but if he was not competent, then he would say, in contradiction to the gallant Officer, that it would be the worst possible economy to continue this officer, who was incompetent to perform his duty in his office, merely for the purpose of saving a few pounds. He hoped, as far as the Government was concerned, that it would be considered that they had met this case fairly. They were willing to give all the information that could be given, and to try it before any tribunal it might suit the convenience of the House to appoint. With this explanation he trusted that the House would not agree with the observations that had been thrown out by the hon. Baronet, or lightly adopt the insinuations thrown out on the other side.

trusted the case to which attention had been called would be settled, not with reference to one side of the House or the other, but with reference solely to the public interest. He was ready to admit, that it would be miserable economy to retain incompetent persons in the public service; but if, as had been stated, either of these gentlemen to whom allusion had been made was willing and able to discharge the duties of the new consolidated office, the Government would be highly censurable if they gave the appointment to a stranger, and thus fix a new burden on the country. As the character of the Government was involved in the transaction, he should watch their conduct closely and jealously, and he considered that upon them was thrown the onus probandi that the gentlemen employed in the two offices about to be consolidated were unfit to transact the business of the new office.

felt it only due to Sir Henry Jardine to repeat, that that gentleman was fully qualified for the new office, and that he courted the fullest investigation.

rose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his motion respecting the time of sitting of the House. He said, that the motion which he had now the honour to submit to the consideration of the House was in his judgment so necessary, so reasonable, and so important, that he could not anticipate any opposition to it. He should only trespass on the indulgence of the House for a very few minutes, while he stated the grounds on which he claimed their support. No one could deny that the late sitting of the House had been very injurious in its effects to the health of the Members, and particularly to that of their Speaker, who was compelled to remain there on all such occasions to a very late hour. He had no hesitation in stating that the interests of the country would be promoted, if midnight legislation was entirely put an end to. No legislative assembly that he knew of in any part of the world transacted its business at night; and he saw no reason why that House should be an exception to all others, by continuing its late sittings. He was aware that an objection might be raised to any fixed hour for the adjournment of a debate; but it was well known that, at present, many hours were wasted upon the question of adjourning, and dividing upon that motion. His plan was free from objection, because be only proposed not to enter upon any new matter after twelve o'clock; and he hoped the House would adopt formally that change which, as far as he was able to effect it, he had endeavoured to bring about. He proposed that the debate should be adjourned upon the motion of any individual Member; but he wished that the other Orders, to which no opposition was given, might be proceeded with. Much time would be saved by this plan—there would be no partiality in it—and indeed he would say, that in all the motions whtch he felt it to be his duty to make for the adjournment of the House, he was not actuated by any feeling in favour of one side or the other, though he might hear with greater pleasure the arguments of Members on the Ministerial rather than on the Opposition benches. He hoped the House would sanction the proposition with which he should conclude—namely, "That it being desirable, except in particular cases, that the sittings of this House should not be continued after midnight, when any motion is brought on for discussion after twelve o'clock at night, and a Member rises to speak to order, and moves that the further debate on such question be adjourned to a future day, Mr. Speaker shall immediately declare the debate adjourned, without putting the question to the House, and proceed to the other Orders of the Day."

seconded the motion. He thought its adoption would materially benefit hon. Gentlemen, and would be of great advantage to the country. The present system fell very unequally upon hon. Gentlemen, and those who represented large constituencies were, he should say, much more attentive to their business than those returned for small places. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite were not very particular in being in their places at late hours, except a few who deserved the name of his Majesty's Opposition. Late hours, therefore, were not only injurious to the country, and detrimental to legislation in that House, but they were oppressive by their inequality; and his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, and other hon. Members, who sat long after midnight, came in for an undue share of exertion, of which they had a right to complain. He was convinced that justice would never be done to the country, until a portion of the day was devoted to the duties of legislation; and the best thing that could be done would be to devote two or three days in the week to the business of the House, instead of proceeding with nocturnal legislation. He trusted that the House would not stop with the present motion, but would go much further, as well for the benefit of the House as the satisfaction of the nation.

was not prepared to concur in the motion of the hon. Member for Salford, because the effect of it would be to take away all discretion on the subject from the House. The practice during the last Session had generally been to adjourn the House about twelve o'clock; but there were cases when it was important that public business should be proceeded with; and when it was the opinion of the House that the business before it required such despatch, he thought the hour at which the business was brought forward ought not to form an objection to the progress of important business. Ac- cording to the motion of the hon. Member, if any hon. Gentleman wished to obstruct the progress of a particular Bill, it would be in his power, by moving an adjournment after twelve o'clock, to put a stop to the business before the House, and thus materially delay, and perhaps eventually defeat it. The hon. Member for Salford had last year frequently moved the adjournment of the House, and he had never opposed the wishes of the hon. Member; on the contrary, he thought the hon. Member had exercised his power with admirable judgment, and he did not wish to interfere with the hon. Member's discretion hereafter. But, at the same time, he did not like to have any fixed and settled rule to prevent the public business going on, particularly as, after all these adjournments, they had not got through so much business as they might have done if they had sat later. He did not wish to interfere with the motions which the hon. Member might make from time to time for the adjournment of the House; but he could not agree to his present motion, because, as it appeared to him, it must cause an obstruction to the public business.

declared that a great deal of time had been lost last Session in consequence of debates arising upon the very motion for adjournment. In particular cases, he admitted it would tend to the advantage of the public that the business before the House should be proceeded with after twelve o'clock. What was asked by the motion was, not to stop a debate which was going on before twelve o'clock arrived, but to prevent the discussion of fresh business after that hour. It was absolutely necessary that some Members should be present all the time the House was sitting, and many others wished to be present, and as many of them came down at eleven or twelve o'clock in the day and were obliged to stop till the House rose, he would ask whether an attendance of twelve or thirteen hours was not enough for any man? He really thought that more progress would be made if the motion was agreed to, so that after twelve o'clock no new matter should be brought on.

would support the proposition, because the value of legislation should be tested, not by its quantity, but by its quality; and so far as his experience went, all the worst measures which had passed through that House had passed after midnight. Measures which were brought forward after twelve o'clock did not get that calm consideration which was required, and the consequence was, that many of them were extremely discreditable to the character of the House.

went on to say, the question which I am about to bring under the notice of the House is one of very serious importance; it is one on which much excitement is at this moment prevailing in Scotland, and I feel certain that had the question been brought forward a little later, instead of during the first week of the Session, every county constituency in Scotland would have petitioned upon it. They all feel, as indeed those who have already addressed you state, that at this moment their very existence as elective bodies is not only endangered, but actually in the course of being extinguished. Such a grievance, so strongly felt, so generally complained of, must be sufficient to arrest the attention of this House—and having once gained that attention, the few facts that I shall feel it necessary to bring before it cannot fail to rouse its interest, and call forth a prompt and decisive interference.—The petitioners complain that they are being defrauded—nefariously and iniquitously defrauded—of the benefits intended to be conferred on them by the Reform Bill. They find no fault—they allege no insufficiency against that measure; on the contrary, their wishes, in this instance, are bounded to its fair and legitimate operation. But they assert that it is not allowed to operate as was intended—that a scheme has been devised by its enemies, and a system organised with a view to defeating its provisions; and so fatally successful have these efforts been, that already many of the counties are virtually deprived of the power so lately given them, of choosing their own Representatives, and that every county in Scotland will ere long be brought to the same condition. This is their averment, and whether it be a just one or not, the House shall now have the power of deciding. Let me first remind you of what was the end and intention of the Scotch Reform Bill, what had been the elective system previous to that Bill, and what was the change then meant to be introduced. Was it not formerly the complaint that the people at large had no share in the election of their representatives? That the privilege of nominating him was monopolised by a favoured few; and that these consisted for the most part of individuals who had no proper connexion with the county that they voted in; who had no property, no residence within it; and who acquired their franchise by the holding of a merely fictitious superiority. And what was the principle of the Reform Bill? That all the old system should cease to be—that nominal representation should end—that monopoly should be destroyed—that non-resident electors should be swept away, that fictitious qualifications should never more be heard of. The choice of the representative, instead of being vested in the few, was to be given to the many. In the place of the counties being overrun by voters who had no connexion with the soil, the qualification was in future to be limited to the inhabitants, and in lieu of a nominal and fictitious freehold, a real bona fide property was at all times to be held indispensable to the franchise. Such, Sir, and I appeal to the recollection and the candour of hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House—such was the principle of that Bill—such it was announced to me by the Minister who introduced it, and who declared it to be the intention of the Legislature, that not one rag of the old system should remain A new one was substituted in its place, which emancipating Scotland, was received with joy. The first general election took place under the operation of that Bill, and the voters on that occasion (with the exception of the old roll, whose privilege had been preserved to them for their lives) were really and substantially the resident possessors of the estates for which they, had claimed in their respective districts. That election went against the party which had lately been in power, and it became evident to them, with the new order of things, their supremacy was at an end, but it was equally evident that if by any misconstruction or misapplication or evasion or violation of the recent act of Parliament, they could succeed in re-establishing any thing approximating to the former system, their influence must immediately revive. Accordingly the effort was to be made—desperate in its character, and demoralising in its effects, that effort has been made—and so systematic has been the plan adopted, so well organised and so comprehensive in its arrangement—and so ready and resolute, and reckless the instruments selected for its execution—that at this moment some of the counties in Scotland, nearest to the metropolis, are as completely in the hands of the old monopolists as if the Reform Bill had never been introduced. The mode in which this end is attained is by a very extensive manufacturing of purely nominal votes, and by such a series of frauds upon the law, as will be surprising, if not incredible, to English ears. To enumerate all the devices though which the ingenuity of their authors has endeavoured to find some alleviation to their despair would be quite impossible; but, with the permission of the House, I will describe a few of the most notorious. The first is by a system of joint tenancies—a farmer, paying a large rent and having several sons, is made to take them all into his lease. They may none of them be brought up to his line of life—they may not reside with him, or near him, or within a hundred miles of him, yet they are all registered as joint-tenants. Nay, there are instances of men being enrolled in this character, who are following their business as practitioners in the law, and merchants, and shopkeepers, in distant towns—men who never saw that, or perhaps any other farm in all their lives, and who do not know the parish in which it is situate. The second mode of creat- ing these qualifications, is by the creation of a number of life-rent qualifications of some extensive landowner, who being unwilling or unable to denude himself altogether of any part of his estates, makes over a portion of it in life-rent to so many individuals who become joint-proprietors. By this transaction a dozen or score of persons who never saw or heard of one another in their lives before, and who are all strangers to the county, become joint purchasers of a portion of land. The sum to be paid for it is calculated by tables of annuity, according to their respective ages. The agent in this transaction is usually the political agent of the candidate; the disposition is dated the very last day of January, so as to be just within the six months required for registration. The parties themselves are very much ashamed of the proceeding, for it is kept quite secret, the deed need not be registered, and it is not known nor seen by any one except for a few minutes, when produced before the sheriff, after which it may be immediately destroyed.—This contrivance was at one time much resorted to, and the votes created by it promised to be very numerous. But it was soon put out of fashion by the restless cunning of its projectors, which, sharpened and improved by practice, and emboldened by success, led to the discovery of yet simpler modes, and the adoption of expedients of an easier and cheaper, and far more shameless, character. The two next which I shall advert to are a proof of this. And to the one I am now going to describe I beg to call the particular attention of hon. Members, as it is the most flagrant and the commonest of ail. The House will scarcely believe that it is a matter of common occurrence for numberless votes on a single tenement, without any right, or title, or interest, being acquired by the persons registering—without any transfer whatever of the premises—without the occupation being changed, or the ownership in any way interfered with, or a single sixpence being exchanged between the parties. Yet so it is—it happens daily and hourly, and this is the manner in which it is brought about. An individual has some premises worth 100l. a-year, on which it is proposed to him to make ten votes, and being a good Conservative and fond of his party he has no objection, provided proper care be taken of his own interests in the transaction. Ten persons are introduced to him as gentlemen who are willing to come to terms and a political agent is employed to conduct the purchase. The price paid for the share of each is to be 200l. But there are two obstacles to the transaction. None of the buyers have got 200l.; they are not in a situation of life to have it. Some of them are grooms and lacqueys in a neighbouring establishment—some of them are clerks or dependents of the agent himself—nay, some of them are as low as farm servants. So far from having 200l. a-piece, they have not got 200 pence amongst them; and, even if they had, the premises are essential to the present owner for the convenience of his trade, and he cannot let them out of his possession. Here, then, are two impediments, apparently insurmountable, at the very outset of the business; but, by the intervention of the agent aforesaid, they are thus nimbly surmounted. He suggests that the purchasers, instead of paying down 200l. a-piece, shall give a bill to that amount, and meanwhile pay five per cent interest upon it; and he suggests, also, that the seller, instead of yielding up the premises, shall continue to occupy them as tenant to the buyers; the rent he pays each of them being 10l. a-year. Accordingly, he gives them a life-rent disposition of the property, and they give him back a life-rent lease. He pays each of them 10l. a-year of rent on his lease, but they pay him back exactly 10l. a-year of interest on his bill; so that for the sum he gives out from his right hand, he receives an equivalent in his left. And thus, by this very fair and honourable expedient, which is afterwards completed by an oath before the Sheriff, that the parties are bona fide possessors of the property, ten additional freeholders are added to the poll, who come forward at the next election to attest the superior purity of Conservative principles, and prove to the unbelieving what a re-action has come upon the country. Now, Sir, can the House hear this with patience? or can it doubt what follows—that votes of course are registered in numbers proportioned to the facility—and from the most unfit of all possible characters. Persons who are well known not to be worth a single sixpence, make oath that they are worth 10l. a-year. Whole batches of servants in a nobleman's or gentleman's household—regiments of butlers and grooms and gamekeepers may be supplied with these fictitious qualifications by their masters' orders—and by such extraordinary persuasion, and upon such frivolous pretences, have these parties been at all times induced to claim, that they have many of them refused to appear to be examined before the Sheriff; and some of them, when the oath has been tendered, have refused to take it. The last plan I have to describe, is one that has as yet occurred but in one county. It does not go even the length of feigning a possession in land or houses; it is a simple bond of annuity for 10l. a-year, secured over an heritable subject—so that as many ten pounds a year as an individual's estate is worth, so many votes can he create without alienating an acre. How such annuities have been hitherto procured, I know not—but how they may be procured I know well. They may be purchased precisely like the subject in the last-mentioned case—a bill may be given for the price—the interest on that bill may be an exact equivalent for the annuity—and the whole transaction fraudulent and fictitious. But the parties, nevertheless, swallow the oath. Having thus shown the nature of these devices—and there are many others with which I shall not deem it necessary to occupy the House, it now only remains for me to prove the extent to which they have been practised. I will take for this purpose the six counties adjacent to one another in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, viz.:—the three Lothians, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and I will at present confine myself to them. In the county of Edinburgh, in 1832, the constituency amounted to 1,126; non-residents, 61; life-rents, 42. In the present year the life-rents had increased to 146, and the non-residents amounted to 141. He would next refer to the county of Haddington, the constituency in which amounted, in 1832, to 513; the non-residents were 27, that number had since increased to 151. The life-rents in 1832 were 29, in 1836 they increased to 75. The present constituency was 714. The next county was Linlithgow; in the year 1832, the constituency was 532; the non-residents 112. The non-residents were now increased to 202. The life-rents, in 1832, were 23; nonresidents 4. This year the life-rents were 66; and out of the 66, the non-residents were 63. He would then take the county of Roxburgh. In 1832 the number of the constituency was 1,188, and out of this body not one-seventh were non-residents. At the present time the number of non-residents was not less than 444. The number of life-renters in 1832 did not exceed 33, and all these were residents in the county. The number of life-renters enrolled this year was 89, and of these 87 were non-residents. In 1832 the constituency of Peebleshire was 301. Since that time a great number of persons had been enrolled as voters; for at the present moment the constituency amounted to 576. Out of the list of voters in 1832 there were 15 non-residents; the number of non-residents at the present time was 218—being nearly equal to the original constituency. There were only eight persons in the list of voters as life-renters in 1832. The number of life-renters added this year to the constituency was 137—and of these 121 were non-residents. The list of life-renters at the present time was 160, and of these 132 were nonresidents; so that, in point of fact, there were only 28 resident life-renters, and 22 of these were entitled to be registered in consequence of offices they held as clergymen or schoolmasters. In Selkirkshire, in 1832, the constituency was 180. The number since registered was 444, being nearly double the amount of the constituency in 1822. The whole constituency was now 562, being more than double the number enrolled the year after passing the Reform Bill. In 1832 there were no non-resident voters; in 1836, the number of non-resident voters enrolled was 288—being more than the original constituency. In 1822, there were no life-renters, excepting the clergy and schoolmasters, in number about twelve. During the present year eighty-nine life-renters had been placed on the list of voters, and of these eighty-seven were non-residents. The whole number of life-renters at the present time was 112, and 107 of these were non-residents. Now, Sir, these are facts by which I think it necessary to illustrate this part of the question. Are they not sufficiently convincing? But they are not all—the worst is yet to come: the crowning point of all, the perfection of this machinery, is yet to be arrived at. I have hitherto described the system in its two first stages only—the third and last yet remains. I have shown that it began by the bonâ fide purchase of properties by non-residents, and that it next proceeded to drop all that was honest in the transaction, and combined non-residence with a fictitious qualification. But the House was now to hear of all these counties being drawn into a net—of the constituencies being brought up and made up one concern, of a company of trustees and speculators in votes being established, who monopolise them all, and who, though not numerous enough of themselves to form one separate constituency, in reality engross the power, and exercise the functions of several. Such is the last scene of this strange boastful history, and until this was consummated, the plot was only half successful, and the thraldom of the people but imperfectly secured. Joint tenancies had their inconveniences and their risks, and even the enfranchising of domestics was neither so safe nor so satisfactory as could be desired, for farmers might become independent of the Laird, and even grooms and gamekeepers might change their situation, or in times of popular excitement, precisely when the services of the faithful were most needed, both one and the other might choose to go with their own order. Besides, six constituencies for six counties were deemed too many—and the machinery too troublesome and complicated—especially when, with proper management, one body of electors might do for all. Accordingly a council seems to have been held in Edinburgh, and the muster roll then gone over—and a list of individuals made out, principally resident in that city—men of ascertained sentiments and trustworthy, who have no weak scruples, no defined principles of their own; but the whole thirty-nine articles of whose political creed are summed up in that one watchword—pat y. These gentlemen are forthwith applied to to provide themselves with fictitious qualifications—not in one or two, but each of them, in four, five, or all of the counties I have named, as need may be. What is the result? Do you not see how fatal it must be? Those counties all he close together—their polling-places may all be compassed from Edinburgh in one day—and their constituencies are small—so that this well-drilled corps of Edinburgh citizens and recruits, not limited in number, be it remarked, but capable of being expanded ad libitum, by making a rapid tour of those districts during the contest, and invariably throwing all its weight into the unpopular scale, may, and must decide every one of these elections. Sir, in my observations, hitherto, I have confined myself to a bare narration of facts; I have avoided all remarks that could apply personally to any one. But I see no reason for exercising that self-denial here, nor why I should refrain from uttering my opinion of the individuals who are implicated in this part of the system, for the zeal of partisanship in ordinary cases we can all make ample allowance, and many acts of even questionable propriety entered on amid the keenness and excitement of party warfare, we can pass by without observation or reproof, but for the cold-blooded and deliberate iniquity of this roving band of political assassins, as their business is without example, so I should feel it to be beyond excuse. I hold in my hand a list of the gentlemen I am alluding to, and which I received to-day, and all I can say is, that even the hasty perusal I have been able to give it is sufficient to diminish my astonishment at the offence. It is a list in which any Scotchman, at all versed in the Tory nomenclature of former days, will recognise many old and familiar acquaintances. Let me be just to our opponents. Happy I am to say that little of the respectability of their body is found here. With a few exceptions, it is composed of the very dregs and refuse of their party. The ancient system is in every page, and in every line. Among the gentry, the old compliment in votes is here—he whom the Reform Bill was intended to destroy—here is the pettifogging laird, whose zeal of yore was equally essential to his importance and his profit—and here, too, is the timeserving waiter upon a party providence, who had not only himself long fattened upon the public purse, but had trained up his children after him to regard it as their sure inheritance. You have now the whole brood registered against you, the ancient prejudices of blood being sharpened by the bitterness of recent disappointment; and after these is the well-known tribe of wanting, jobbing, cringing subordinates and officials—the herd of provincial functionaries and petty pluralists—the menials and parasites of the camp, ever ready to fetch and carry as their leaders bid them—the unblushing panderers to party vice, and feeders on party corruption. But enough of this; my object at present is not so much to expose the individuals, as to denounce the system. That system is yet in its infancy—what has been done hitherto has been mere attempt of experiment; but preparations, I warn you, on a more magnificent scale are making for the ensuing registry; what has been done around Edinburgh will next year be done around Glasgow, and Perth, and Aberdeen, and then a section of the inhabitants of a few large towns will have all the counties of Scotland within their grasp. But I fancy I hear the hon. Gentlemen opposite objecting to me, "Why do you direct all your censure against us?—why do you spare your own party, which has also been guilty of these which you describe as improper practices?" Because, Sir, I have discovered a wide distinction between the cases. In tracing the origin and progress of the system, I have thrown the blame on those who were its inventors and its chief promoters; and when individuals of their opponents have partially followed their example, I am ready to prove that it was forced on them against their will—that they acted tardily and reluctantly, and purely in self-defence. I will show this by a reference to facts; and every word that I now state I am prepared to make good before a Committee. The election of 1832 ended late in December, and, as soon as it was over, it was currently reported that great, if not unlimited, power had been given to a well-known Edinburgh agent to create a sufficient number of improper votes to recover the three principal counties that had been lost. This report many people found a difficulty of believing; but when the registry came on, the claims thus made out were produced—they had all been manufactured in the preceding January, and immediately after the election. The Liberals immediately saw what was likely to result from this—the people must be annihilated. They held meetings and consultations; but they thought the proceeding so dangerous, and so disgraceful, that they would not resort to it. The registry of 1834 came, and another inundation of mushroom qualifications; but still the opponents of the Tories did not retaliate. They saw their danger, but they thought it preferable to dishonour—they had had one year of warning and preparation, and now a second, but they kept true to their resolve. But then came the general election—and with it, in its most disastrous form, the fruit of those two registrations. District after district was overwhelmed, and county after county snatched away; and then it was, and then only, that the forbearance of individuals could no longer be secured. The race was in many places commenced by both parties in good earnest, and is now being carried on by such a deluging of counties with votes of all descriptions, that ere long the advocates of universal suffrage will have a favourable opportunity of judging of the practical workings of their favourite theme. I do not approve of the practice, or defend it either in the one party or the other. I will screen neither—I have ever set my face equally against both—and I will expose both equally before the Committee. But is there not a great difference in the culpability of the parties? I say there is the same distinction as between a man who raises his weapon for assault, and another who snatches a sword in self-defence. The act of the one party is from choice, and adopted for aggression and injury; the other only followed the example after long delay and repeated provocation, and from the imperious necessity of personal safety. The aim of the one was to crush the privileges of the electors; the object of the other to protect them. The right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Tamworth, declared lately at Glasgow, that it was his determination to support the principle of the Reform Bill, and he called on his followers to do the same. Sir, I honour him for that determination, and I hope that I may now confidently reckon on his support of my motion. The petitioners ask merely for the principle of the Reform Bill to be carried into effect. "Abolish fictitious qualifications," they say, "and we will thank you and be satisfied." There is no further change asked here; no demand for the Ballot; no petition for short Parliaments—and yet they have had their difficulties, and formed their opinions on these topics as well as their southern neighbours. But the elective privilege was so new to them, and so sacred in their eyes was the proper use of it, that they held it firm against all assaults. Intimidation was tried with them, but they braved it all. Bribery was attempted, but they were proof against it; and then the manufacturing of votes was had recourse to. The people were too firm to be bullied—they were too honest to be bribed—but they were not too numerous to be swamped. To swamping, accordingly, they were doomed. The work proceeded at a rapid, a fearful pace, and since the hit was to come upon them, they now do feel at least grateful to their opponents for having brought it so speedily to a head—and that too by a process of operations so open and undisguised, that no man who has eyes to see can have a doubt of its existence—or that has capacity to reason, can deny the necessity for a remedy. The petitioners come before you with this plain, unanimous remonstrance—that if they deserved the franchise to be bestowed, they may now, on stronger grounds, demand that it should continue to them. That they did deserve it, they tell you is attested by the use that they have made of it. Look at their elections. Wherever popular contests have taken place they have been conducted with peace, and order, and decorum. Wherever popular candidates have been chosen, they have been men of experience, of ability, and of character. The anticipations of their friends on these heads have been more than realised. The hopes and predictions of their enemies have, been as grievously disappointed. The people of Scotland now contemplate with joy the prospect, that through their instrumentality the real character of their countrymen may be understood. It was with a pang of shame and humiliation, that they had hitherto submitted to be judged of by the miserable samples of a begging Aristocracy, which an exclusive system threw up. Though their former representatives, being elected by an oligarchy, were like the oligarchy that elected them—venal, and subservient, and corrupt—the great body of the nation, despised and disregarded as they were, were always intelligent in mind—educated in habit—highly moral and religious in feeling—and nobly independent in character. And as soon as the power was given them, these were the qualities they sought in their Members; and they then saw, for the first time, a body of independent men, the organs of the free voice of Scotland, enrolled among the best friends of freedom in the empire, and welcomed by them as stout and valued allies in the great constitutional battles of the age. They bid you observe how the prejudices of country have already died away, and the choice of a Scottish constituency been admitted a title of distinction. On the one hand, they point with satisfaction to the distinguished men from England and Ireland who have been united to their connexion, and to whom have been confided the interests of their wealthiest and most populous towns—their great marts of enterprise and commerce on the Clyde or on the Tay; and, on the other, they remember, with a feeling of pride, amounting to exultation, the tribute that was indirectly paid to them by this very House of Commons; inasmuch as when it was thought essential to its dignity, that the assertion of a principle should be involved in the election of a Speaker, the Member of their body, unanimously pointed at by all classes of Reformers to be put in competition with a Gentleman of great experience and acknowledged merit, as the fittest to supersede him in his exalted office, and sit in that Chair as the triumphant champion of their opinions, was no other than the popular representative of their own ancient metropolis. With such feelings, then, and such results—so encouraged and so rewarded—the political mind has become peaceful, happy, and contented—and with political contentment national prosperity has gone hand in hand. But if you reverse the picture—if you endeavour to wrest from them the boon that has been so lately conferred, or suffer it to be filched from them by others—have you calculated the effects? Will the people remain tranquil and submissive? Will the law be similarly respected? Will the elections go on equally smooth and undisturbed? Even in the olden times, we are none of us too young to remember, that the murmurings of the populace have been known to swell to such a pitch as to blanch the cheek of the favourite of the town-council, while he was undergoing the very honours of ordination—aye, and even to shake the powder from the wig of the all-potent but bewildered Lord Advocate of the day. And is it not wisdom to foresee that all this may soon return? If you stop up the channel which the constitution has provided for the feelings of the people, depend upon it they will break out through other channels which the law has not acknowledged. The Scotch have but lately tasted the sweets of freedom, but their appetite for reform has only been sharpened by enjoyment; and if their enemies should succeed for a time in depriving them of its expected fruits, believe me, sooner or later, they will bring the evil to such a head, that it can neither be continued without danger, nor ended without convulsion. Sir, I have now concluded all I have to say upon the subject. I thank the House for its attention; and I have now to say that the petitions presented to you are just and reasonable in their nature, the arguments they are founded on are strong, and the appeal to your protection is not likely to be made in vain. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Committee to inquire into the system of creating fictitious votes in Scotland.

seconded the motion. After the able, eloquent, and conclusive speech of his hon. Friend, he need only encroach on the House for a few minutes. But he must say, that the sweeping creation of fictitious votes now going on in Scotland was felt by the real constituency to be an intolerable grievance. They found that whatever importance was intended to be bestowed upon them by the Reform Act was gone, or fast going; and that the results of the means of influence resorted to by the Tories were of such a description, that very many persons had reason to regret that they ever possessed the franchise. The speech of his hon. Friend had obviously not failed to make a deep impression on the House, and he trusted would not fail to rouse them to inquire into the character of these fictitious votes, and to ascertain if it were possible that they could be consistent either with the letter or the spirit of the Reform Act, be far as respected Scotland. The fact was, the Tories had pushed these transactions much too far; inquiry has become necessary, a remedy must be found. Their modes of influence, he must also observe, had been so undisguisedly and so prejudiciously used towards individuals, as to push on the Ballot question—to force it on; and although he was originally adverse to the Ballot on principle, the monstrous evils which existed now induced him to consider it as the only remedy; and, whenever the question came on for discussion, it would most probably induce him to vote for it.

said, that he fully agreed with the hon. Member who last addressed the House, in what he had said of the clear and able manner in which the hon. Member had introduced the subject to their notice; but the hon. Member must excuse him if he refused to concur in the difference which he had made as to life-rent qualifications between one party and another. The hon. Member had made his statement in such a manner as if he wished it to be inferred, that those creations were made for the support of one party. He would admit that it must be disagreeable to the House to say with which party the system had begun; but with whatever party, Whig or Tory, it had originated, he had no hesitation in saying, that it ought to be put down. He must declare for one, he was perfectly prepared to say, that if there existed in Scotland fictitious and collusive qualifications, for which no sufficient remedy could be found in the enactments of the Reform Act, that Act ought to be amended. If facilities for the creation of such qualifications did exist, he was quite as ready as any hon. Member in that House to admit, that neither party would be very scrupulous in pushing the law to its utmost verge, for the purpose of augmenting their own political power. The hon. Member opposite had presented to the House the view which he took of the Reform Bill, but it was for the House to say, whether or not that was a correct view of its character, in reference to the elective franchise, at all events. The opinion of the hon. Member seemed to be, that the intention of the Legislature in enacting that measure, was to do away with non-residence in counties. From that he begged to express his dissent. Unquestionably the intention was apparent on the face of the Act to do away with non-residence in cities and boroughs, but by no means in counties; else, why did a property qualification for counties form a necessary part of the Bill? It was clearly admitted on all hands, it could not be denied, that the Reform Act created a property qualification; it therefore did not insist upon residence as a necessary condition. Owing, probably, to the political system which prevailed in Scotland, the people of that country were less disposed than in other parts of the United Kingdom, to a minute division of property, but an extension of the elective franchise naturally led to a more minute subdivision of property. For a long time, in Ireland, the same causes had led to similar results. If the evil to which the hon. Member referred was an evil of serious importance in Scotland, of how much greater importance was it in Ireland, and how much more widely extended was its operation? It was notorious, that the fictitious qualifications in Ireland were greater than in any other part of Great Britain. The House had heard some strong condemnations of the practice of creating voters. He desired to know, was there anything that persons of wealth need be ashamed of, in the circumstance of their purchasing property, with a view to serving the party to which they belonged? He might be allowed to hope, that there was no intention of doing away with bonâ fide qualifications, and he might be allowed to add, that when the hon. Mover thought proper to refer to the state of the elective franchise in 1832 and 1836, he had omitted to pay any attention at all to its condition in England in those years, still less had he noticed the state of Ireland. The proprietors of land found new rights under the Reform Act, and that naturally disposed them to make a new arrangement with respect to their property; upon what ground, then, could exception be taken to that? It really did appear to him a most novel and startling doctrine, that the increase of the persons invested with the elective franchise, was to be regarded as an evil. It was particularly novel and startling when it proceeded from the other side of the House. Judging of what might be the feelings and sentiments of hon. Members opposite, from what had been the opinions put forward in the Edinburgh Review, that publication declared, that however strong the objection of its party might be to fictitious qualifications, however great their aversion to mere parchment votes, they would still take away no man's right. In their opinions, the more who were invested with the power of voting the better; it therefore much astonished him to find an increased constituency made a matter of complaint by hon. Members professing liberal opinions; and he confessed it did appear to him that the avowal of such doctrines, on their part, seemed to warrant the insinuations so generally thrown out during the discussions on the Reform Bill, that the elective franchise which that measure created, had been studiously framed, with a view to strengthen the political interests of that party, who were the authors and promoters of that great change in our Constitution. The hon. Member for Bath had said, that the Reform Bill was a measure which its authors introduced, not for the people's interest, but to secure their own. It was no longer ago than Tuesday night, that the hon. Member expressed that opinion; and within the short period which had since then elapsed, they found the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth expressing sentiments which the supporters of Government cheered, and gave the strongest possible confirmation to the assertion of the hon. Member for Bath. The argument of the hon. Mover was, that the fictitious qualifications of which he so much complained, would have the effect of swamping the legitimate 10l. electors. The simple answer to that was this—the particular enactments of the law bearing upon that point, permitted such a state of things to exist; there was clearly nothing illegal in non-resident voters for counties, neither was it in any respect inconsistent with the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, nor adverse either to the spirit or the letter of the Reform Act. Was it to be supposed that all persons connected with the proprietorship of land, in pastoral districts, would at all times be resident? But it was contended, that however consistent with the existing state of the law such a condition of things might be, it had become inexpedient to allow its continuance. Then to what did that species of argument lead? To nothing less than that the Reform Act rested upon a wrong basis. Its authors could not deny, that they based their measure upon property, and not numbers. To meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, they must now remodel the measure, and establish it upon a new foundation. As must be fully in the recollection of the House, the attempts to curtail the number of voters had been most frequent on the part of liberal Members. At present they complained, that the voters for counties were too numerous, while but a short time since, there were loud complaints of a similar kind against the poorer votes in corporations. His remarks, however, he begged to say, were not made with the least desire to continue or uphold any description of fictitious or collusive voters. He looked at the existing condition of the elective franchise, as all persons ought, who were engaged in electioneering proceedings—namely, with a view to get rid of every thing unfair; he had, therefore, not the least objection to a full and fair inquiry into the causes of collusive and fictitious votes; but he must be distinctly understood, as drawing a wide distinction between those, and persons holding certain qualifications under the Reform Act; especially he objected to the doctrines of the hon. Mover, with respect to farmers who admitted their sons, for example, to a participation in their leases. It was, in effect, admitting them into a partnership in their business, and to that he apprehended no rational objection could exist. Life-renters formed the next class, to whose exercise of the franchise exception had been taken. He would ask this question—did they mean to deprive of their rights all the electors in England who possessed estates for life? And he would further ask, to what point did the observations made to the House tend, if not to that? Hon. Members could not have forgotten the long discussions on the 40s. life qualifications, nor the difficulty with which the noble Lord, who had the care of the Reform Bill, now Earl Spencer, consented to the 40s. life qualification. To these observations he had only to add, that if the object of the proposed Committee was to inquire into the causes of fictitious and collusive voting, by leaseholders and life-renters, he should not raise the least objection to its appointment; and if he saw that a remedy for that evil could be devised, he should rejoice. That many attempts had been made to create fictitious and collusive votes, he readily admitted; but, in his opinion, the Reform Act furnished a sufficient remedy for that evil; and that remedy, he conceived, was in full operation in the courts of the Revising Barristers. He knew, and many other Members connected with Scotland must also know, that in Roxburgh, and several other counties, very many claims were rejected in the courts of the Revising Barristers; but in determining upon the appointment of this Committee, it might not be unimportant to inquire on which side in politics the electors, who had been so often complained of, were likely to vote. The House had been told, that a conclave existed in Edinburgh, for the purpose of promoting the operation of those collusive and fictitious votes. He might be permitted to say, that he knew something of Edinburgh; of this conclave he knew nothing, and he had no reason to believe that it existed. Allusion had been made to the lists prepared in Edinburgh, of the voters who came within the description given by the hon. Member; on that point he should only observe, that if they went to other parts of the United Kingdom, it was probable that they would find them very nearly balanced. He professed his desire not to make the present a party question, and he trusted that there existed no intention on the part of hon. Members at the other side of the House to restrict any qualification which the Reform Act imparted. If such a course were contemplated, he must be allowed to say, from what had occurred, there was some reason to fear, that a selection would be made of those most favourable to the views of hon. Members on the other side of the House. He repeated, that the evils complained of were not peculiar to Scotland; he had seen some accounts of what took place at the Registration Courts in England, where numberless attempts were made to create fictitious votes; forty individuals, deriving their franchise out of one small field, and not one of the forty was able to point out the portion which fell to his own share; not only did practices of this nature prevail in counties of England, but in cities; they were attempted in a city not very far distant from the spot on which he then stood. If the pure love of reform were the only motive which influenced the mover and supporters of the present motion, he should say that he saw no cause why they should confine their inquiries to Scotland. If the proceeding were necessary as to one part of the United Kingdom, he should like to see it extended to the counties and towns of England and of Ireland, and he hoped that equal justice would be done to all; he also hoped, that when the list of the Committee was submitted to the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, it would be found to contain such names as would divest it of any suspicion of being framed for party purposes.

was of opinion, that the country owed much to the hon. Gentleman who had submitted the present motion, because it would test the sincerity of that House, as to its desire of promoting purity in the representation; and they would have the means of ascertaining whether the House would do that, which former Houses of Commons had not done, amend the representation by putting down the system of fictitious votes. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Clerk) considered, that property was the essential qualification for a man to exercise the right of legislation, and if he possessed property in three or a dozen places, he should have the right of voting for three or a dozen individuals, and thus influence the election of twelve persons to be returned as representatives to that House. [Hear, hear.] Hon. Members might say "hear, hear;" but did they look to the consequences? The present motion had been introduced with a degree of virtuous indignation in which he sympathised; but he hoped that the hon. Member would feel it equally, whether the parties were rich or poor. He did not feel the same anxiety respecting collusive or fictitious votes which some hon. Members appeared to endure; what was it to him whether the votes were fictitious or otherwise? The question in which he felt an interest was, whether or not the voter was sufficiently intelligent to exercise the right of voting. In his judgment intelligence was the true qualification. One occurrence of the present evening afforded him much satisfaction, and that was, to see the hon. Members on the other side of the House complain of restrictions upon the elective franchise; he quite rejoiced to find them advocating the principle of an extended suffrage, and every year they remained out of office, he had no doubt that their desire for such extension would increase. "Wait a little longer," said the hon. Gentleman, "and they will become advocates for universal suffrage." He was also an advocate of the Ballot, which, in his opinion, was the only remedy for the evils now stated. The creation or' fictitious votes was complained of, and of persons possessing a power which they ought not to have in influencing elections; the object, therefore, ought to be to find out the means for the prevention of these evils. Where was that remedy to be found? why, for one, in the Ballot, and for the other, in universal suffrage; because, so long as property gave a qualification, it was impossible to secure the purity of election. If the elective franchise was given in consequence of the possession of riches, the individual so possessing them would take an advantage of his wealth, which he ought not to be allowed to possess.

would remind the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that one of the great objects contemplated by the Duke of Wellington on the Catholic Relief Bill was to prevent subdivision of property; and that measure was accompanied by another, which disfranchised the 40s. freeholders in counties, and raised the qualification to 10l. With regard to the observation of the hon. Baronet as to bonâ fide purchase, and the case he cited, he understood him to refer to the county of Huntingdon; but he would ask, did that case at all resemble what had taken place in the counties of Scotland? The object of the hon. Member who brought forward the present motion was, to put down the practice of creating fictitious votes, which had been pursued to a considerable extent in Scotland, in some degree in England, and in Ireland also. He agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, that the practice ought to be put down in one part of the country as well as another; and with that view, if the hon. Baronet would move for a Committee to consider this subject as regards Ireland as well as England, he would vote for that motion.

thought there ought to be separate Committees for England, Scotland, and Ireland.

said, that even after the Committee was formed, they must still have recourse to ballot and universal suffrage.

wished to extend the inquiry to Ireland. He thought the Committee most desirable, but he objected to its being limited to Scotland.

said, that he assented to the principle of the motion as to Scotland, and was perfectly ready to carry it on with respect to England and Ireland; but he cautioned the hon. Mover not to allow his motion to be swamped by any suggestion for extending it. He thanked the hon. Baronet opposite for having used the term "justice to Ireland;" and he hoped that the time was not far distant when the sincerity of his desire to do justice to Ireland would be put to the test. At present, he thought that the most convenient course would be, to affirm the principle of the motion, and allow the nomination of the Committee to be postponed till Monday. He desired that the Report of the Committee should be as authoritative as possible; and he therefore wished that it should bear an impartial, nay, even a judicial character.

was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin. For the first open day he intended to give notice of the extension of the Committee to Ireland, and he looked to the right hon. Gentleman as his seconder. He thought he had a right to expect that no one would seek to separate them when united for so good a purpose.

ex- pressed his willingness to give his best assistance to any Committee appointed with reference to Ireland.

certainly saw no reason why the proposed Committee might not, without the appointment of a separate Committee, extend its inquiries to Ireland, in the same manner as the Intimidation Committee had previously done.

challenged the most rigid examination, and desired that the part of the country with which he was connected should be judged by the letter of the Reform Bill. It was perfectly true, that the merchants of Glasgow, and even the learned persons connected with its University, had purchased landed property, and had thereby increased their political influence; but he would ask, were they therefore to be called political assassins? The hon. mover might know something of the "clique;" they might be called political assassins; but he knew of no other body deserving the appellation. With regard to the county which he had the honour to represent, he would take upon himself to say, that upon examination it would be found as pure as any in the United Kingdom, and to have conformed as closely as any other to the spirit of the Reform Act. The counties of Perth, Roxburgh, and Haddington, had also supported the cause of good government, sound reform, and the Protestant religion. If such were the conduct of political assassins, he must acknowledge that the electors of those counties were guilty.

said, he had received a letter from this Gentleman, which he would read to the House. It was to this effect:—

"Sir,—I have the honour to inform you that persons stating that they have a warrant from the Lord Chancellor have found their way into the house in which I am staying, and have compelled me to go to the Fleet Prison with them. I had flattered myself that, while the matter was under the consideration of a Committee of Privileges, such violent proceedings as these would have been avoided; but I am sorry to say, I am mistaken. I have only to add, that I hope you will be so good as to read this letter to the House, and that they will extend to me the privilege that under similar cases has been given to Members of Parlia- ment.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

"E. L. CHARLTON.

"To the right hon. the Speaker.

Friday Evening, half-past five o'clock."