wished to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, whether he had received any official account of the disturbances that had lately taken place in the north of Ireland, which according to accounts contained in private letters, were of a very exaggerated character? He did not know, whether the assault was the result of the meeting at the Mansion-house; but it was stated, that the Orangemen had waylaid the Catholics who were returning from a fair, and that upwards of fifty of the latter were dead or wounded.

had not received any authentic information on the subject.

wished the noble Lord would be good enough to state, whether it had come to his knowledge that this attack had been committed by Orangemen. For his part, he was not aware that any such description of persons existed in Ireland.

possessed no authentic information on the subject; and, therefore, it was out of his power to answer the question put to him by the hon. and gallant Officer.

, with reference to the motion before the House, observed, that on a comparison of the schedules of this Bill and that which was presented to the House last year, he found six towns omitted in the schedule of this Bill which were inserted in the schedule of the last year's Bill. He wished to ask the noble Lord on what principle these towns were now omitted?

, in reply, said, that he had omitted these towns on account of their small population.

was understood to remark, that more than one of them had a population of 10,000 persons.

admitted that such was, perhaps, the fact, but none of those towns had enjoyed the advantages of a Municipal Corporation before. If the right hon. Gentleman could show him that any of these large towns with 10,000 inhabitants had had Municipal Corporations, he would restore their names in the schedule.

begged to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, whether any proceedings had been taken by the Government with respect to chartering banks in our East and West Indian Colonial possessions?

said, that with regard to the West Indies, a charter had been given by the Crown last summer to enable a company to establish a bank in the West Indies, not conferring any exclusive privileges, but merely giving them the power to bank so far as this company was concerned. That bank was, he believed, now in operation. An application had also been made in the course of last summer for a charter for a bank to be established in the East Indies. He had communicated the views of the applicants to his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control. His right hon. Friend considered it desirable, before the Government came to a decision on the subject, that a communication should be made to the local government, and till an answer was returned to that communication, no further steps would be taken by the Government.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether an opportunity would be afforded to those who were connected with the outports of representing to the Government their opinions on this question?

promised that they should have the fullest opportunity of stating their sentiments, and that he would give them every consideration.

wished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, whether it were true that any obstruction had been thrown in the way of manufacturing sugar from beetroot by the Government.

said, that it had been reported to him some time ago, that preparations were making in this country for the manufacture, on an extensive scale, of sugar from beetroot. He at once called the attention of the Boards of Excise and Customs to the circumstance, stating, at the same time, that the Government would introduce a Bill on the subject in the course of this Session, not for the purpose of checking the manufacture, but to prevent its being carried on without paying any duty at all, while other sugar was burthened with a duty of 24s. A Bill of that nature was now under the consideration of Government, and would be introduced as soon as possible.

, in moving that this Bill be committed, stated that he had prepared a clause in conformity with a suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord, namely, that a Deputy Recorder should not be appointed in any borough unless the town council determined that such office was necessary. It was stated on a former occasion that this Bill would be attended with an additional expense to the boroughs in which Deputy Recorders were appointed. Now, there were returns on the table which showed how the system had worked in Leeds and other places, and proved that so far from its increasing the expense, that it had led to a great saving. It had been argued that the appointment of the deputy ought not to rest with the Recorder; but from all the consideration he had been able to give to the subject, he was satisfied that that was the best arrangement that could be made. It would be highly objectionable to leave the appointment of a judicial officer to the town-council of a borough.

would ask the Attorney-General, whether he was right in stating, that by the Bill the Recorder might appoint a deputy, if the town-council wished for one? Now, if so, he wished to know whether the council was to have any voice in the appointment, either by a veto or otherwise, or whether it was to rest solely with the Recorder.

said, that the council were to have no veto on the appointment. They were to determine whether a second court was necessary or not, but the nomination was to be in the Recorder.

suggested, that the appointment of the Deputy Recorder should be in the same hands as that of the Recorder.

was of opinion that the responsibility of the appointment ought to rest with the Recorder, and not with the Government or the council.

thought that the Crown should have a veto on the appointment of the Deputy Recorder. He objected, however to the appointment of Deputy Recorders at all, as he considered that it would be fatal to the independence of the bar.

begged the House to recollect that, the Recorder was responsible for his own acts, but he could not be so for those of his deputy. The object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to state the period during which the court was to sit. Now, he would suggest a remedy for this, instead of adopting that proposed in the Bill, namely, that the Recorder should be compelled to hold his court oftener than he did at present.

said, that although he had not introduced the Bill, which had been brought in by the hon. Member for Halifax, he had no objection to state that he approved of the provision. It had only lately come to his knowledge that great inconveniences had arisen in consequence of the quantity of business in the Recorder's court. Before the Municipal Reform Bill, there were two courts sitting at quarter sessions, but since the passing of that measure only one court could be held. This had given occasion to protracted sittings, and had proved very burdensome to the jury, and expensive to the witnesses summoned. The person to be appointed would not he a Deputy Recorder, but the Recorder's assistant, because he would hold his court conveniently, and he would act only pro hac vice; so that if he were found not to give satisfaction, the Recorder might, at the time he held his next court, appoint another.

rose to move an amendment to the effect that the sessions should in future be held once a-month.

contended, that the gentlemen of the bar could not attend if the sessions were held once a-month, and that the business would in consequence be performed in an incompetent manner. The Bill of the hon. Member met all difficulties, and the Members of the legal profession were anxious that it should be adopted. The opinion of the profession ought to have weight with the House, and they should, he thought, be guided by that opinion rather than by the theoretical opinions of non-professional Members of that House. The measure now brought forward by the hon. Member for Halifax had satisfied all demands, and satisfied them, too, without adding a single farthing of expense to the system at present in operation. The whole profession, as far as he (Mr. Baines) could learn, felt under great obligation to the hon. Member for bringing forward the Bill.

contended, that there were other persons deserving of the consideration of the House as well as the barristers — viz., the prisoners. Those unfortunate individuals and their relatives had strong claims upon their attention; and the House would best consult the interests and happiness of those persons by consenting that the sessions should in future sit once a-month, instead of once every three months, as at present. Such views were not theoretical. He wished that all should have full and fair justice administered to them; but the oftener the courts sat the better; for in that way alone could the anxiety of the prisoners and their relatives be terminated, and the guiltless be freed from unmerited confinement. Why, ha would ask, should not the Recorder sit once a-month? The hon. Member for Leeds said, that in. such a case, they would require more pay. That was a haberdashery sort of reason, and not entitled to have any weight. The condition of the prisoners was the point to be considered, and to have the sessions once a-month, would, by freeing those persons from confinement, be the means of saving expense.

thought, that prisoners should not remain in confinement for three, two, or even for one month, if they could be brought to trial sooner. Why should not the Recorder sit whenever there was a prisoner to try? The answer was, that it would be impossible to procure a respectable Barrister for 150l. or 200l, a-year to discharge the duty which would require to be performed were such a plan adopted. It seemed impossible, with the present machinery, to have the Recorder sitting so often as had been proposed; and the question was, whether they should alter that machinery altogether? Was the hon. Member for Bath willing to do that? If he was not, it would be impossible to have the Recorder sitting once a-month. He differed on another point with the hon. Gentleman, as he was of opinion that the presence of the barristers was highly beneficial, From his own experience he could say, that the attendance of the London bar at the quarter sessions had contributed much to inspire the people with confidence, and had been of great advantage to the proper adminis- tration of justice. In his own county, the county of Cumberland, the attendance of the London bar had been productive of the very best effects; and as the proposal of the hon. Member for Bath would render that attendance impossible, he could not consent to its adoption.

, in order that the House might have an opportunity of reconsidering the subject, thought that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. In a desultory conversation it was impossible that its provisions could be properly considered. It was proposed to pay the Deputy Recorder ten guineas a day. He (Mr. Harvey) objected to such a mode of paying a judge, as it held out a strong inducement to protract the sittings. Another point was the mode of appointing the assistant-recorders. It was true they were not to be appointed without the sanction of the town-councils, but the clause relating to their appointment was vague, and it did not appear whether they were to be elected once a-year or not; or what was to be the proper proceeding should the first intimation made to the council be unattended to. He was of opinion that the temptation of deputy-recorderships would fill the quarter sessions with a race of stripling barristers, and thus exclude the attornies who had hitherto been of so much use. In a neighbouring county, he could inform the House, two juvenile members of the profession had presented themselves at the sessions, and insisted on clearing the court of the attornies; and those individuals, who had long practised before the court were obliged to give way. Those two barristers made the bar; one taking one side, and the other the opposite, in all cases which were to be decided. But the House could not do justice to such Bills as the present in a desultory conversation. In order, therefore, to give the House an opportunity for reflection, he moved that the Bill be sent to a Committee up stairs. This motion it was suggested could only be made in the House, not in the Committee.

in moving the Order of the Day for bringing up the report of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill, said, that he had done every thing to meet the views of his hon. and learned Friend opposite. One alteration, he had made related to the expenditure of the town-councils. The 92d clause of the Act specified certain purposes to which borough funds might be applied. To provide that the expenditure for other purposes than those specified should not be made an abuse, he had prepared a clause by which every money-order issued from the common council, for any purpose not specified in the Act, should be lodged with the clerk of the peace for three weeks, and be subjected to the opinion of the recorder of the place, or other corresponding functionary, and if disallowed by him, should be declared null and void.

rose to complain of a want of courtesy on the part of the hon. Member for Kent in bringing forward a petition reflecting upon his (Mr. Marjoribanks's) constituents without giving any notice of his intention to present that petition. The petition to which he referred purported to be from certain burgesses of Hythe, in Kent, and was presented by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for East Kent on Wednesday last. That petition was got up at a hole-and corner meeting, and the statements it contained were gross exaggerations of the facts of the case. What he complained of was, that the usual notice had not been given him by the right hon. Baronet; and although they had met on the Monday previous to the presentation of the petition, yet the hon. Member for East Kent had not informed him (Mr. Marjoribanks) of his intentions. He had thus been denied an opportunity of stating to the House the real merits of the case.

begged leave to explain. The charge against him was of want of courtesy He did not think the complaint was well founded, for he was always most anxious to consult the feelings of every Member of the House and certainly in the present instance no offence was intended. The hon. Gentleman had said, that they had met on the Monday previous to the presentation of the petition from Hythe. On that day however he had been confined to the House. [Mr. Marjoribanks, it was perhaps Tuesday.] He had an- swered a specific charge; but as the hon. Gentleman had shifted his ground, he hardly knew how to deal with the complaint which had been brought against him. He admitted, that when one hon. Member had a charge to bring against another, it was usual to give him notice of it. But he (Sir E. Knatchbull) had no charge to bring against the hon. Member. "But," said the hon. Member, "you brought a charge against my constituents, and you ought to have given me notice thereof." Now, he contended that no such duty was imposed upon him either by the law or the usage of Parliament. What he had done was this,—he had given notice to the House that he would present a certain petition complaining of the misconduct of the Mayor of Hythe, and he thought that that was a sufficient notice to the hon. Member that he intended to present such a petition. The next day the hon. Member had met him in the House and with a degree of warmth which he himself was not in the habit of exhibiting, reproached him with not having given the hon. Member the ordinary notice. He told the hon. Member that notice of his intention was inserted in the papers of the House; to which the hon. Member replied, that he had left his house at ten o'clock and that those papers had not then arrived. He thought that he had now said sufficient to convince the hon. Member that he had not been guilty of any want of courtesy towards him. If he had he begged to state that it had been unintentionally. He would now ask the hon. Member for Hythe whether he was in the House during the discussion on the petition? [Mr. S. Marjoribanks: He was not.] That was just the answer which he anticipated. He admitted that the petition contained a serious charge against the Mayor of Hythe, but he had not presented it with a view of instituting a charge against any person, but with the view of obtaining such an alteration in the law as would prevent the Mayor of Hythe or the mayor of any other place from acting in a similar way in future. He had said that there were other allegations in the petition, which showed the animus of the parties; but he had refrained from noticing those allegations, because he did not wish to cover those parties with obloquy. These were the facts of the case, and he would now leave the House to judge, whether he had acted wrongly or unkindly to any of the parties concerned. The hon. Member for Hythe had spoken of the meeting at which this petition was got up, and had said that our party was very skilful in the practice of getting up hole-and-corner meetings. Now the hon. Member had made that assertion very boldly, and he would meet it as boldly with a counter-assertion. That petition was not got up at a hole-and-corner meeting. Any opposition which he had given to the Bill was given with the intention of amending it, and the clause which the Attorney-General had brought up that evening exactly met his view of the case. He hoped that the Attorney-General would let the Bill, as amended, be printed, in order that the House might have an opportunity of seeing it in a corrected form before it left the House.

asked whether the Attorney-General intended to have these clauses printed before the Bill was read a third time. If he understood correctly the clause which his learned Friend had now introduced for the better control of the municipal funds, it was calculated to increase the very evil which it was professedly intended to check. Oh! then he did not understand the clause which his learned Friend had introduced, and that was a sufficient reason for having it printed for further consideration.

begged leave to bring up a clause for the better regulating the election of aldermen. The present mode of electing aldermen was in violation of the principle of the Bill, which, as he understood it, was intended to place corporations under popular control and superintendence. At present the aldermen were elected by a majority of the council. He proposed that they should in future be elected by the burgesses at large. The result of the present mode of electing aldermen was, that the minority in the corporations had no representatives at all among the aldermen. This gave both parties an interest in carrying the election of a majority of their own party as councillors; and it often happened that those who were rejected as councillors, were elected as aldermen by their party in the council, to give if additional strength and influence. To cure this, he would give to the burgesses, instead of to the council, the power of electing the aldermen.

could not say that the plan of allowing the aldermen to be elected by the burgesses at large was not a good one. It would, however, be a fundamental change in the constitution of these corporations. The clause which his hon. Friend wished to alter, was a clause framed elsewhere, no doubt with the same wisdom which pervaded all its legislation. It was connected with in any other clauses, and any alteration in it would dislocate the Bill exceedingly. He thought that his hon. Friend had better bring in a Bill to amend the state of the law affecting corporations, and to cure the defects which had been introduced into it by amendments made elsewhere. At present, according to the clause framed elsewhere, the aldermen were elected by the council. This Bill introduced no organic change into the original Bill, and he therefore must object to the reception of the present clause.

rose to move another clause, the object of which was to give to every corporate town two sheriffs, as in London and Dublin. The circumstance of there being but one executive officer was calculated to create distrust and excite political and party feeling. It was perfectly natural that men should feel, or at least suspect, that juries were not impartially chosen when there was but one sheriff. To the case of elections, the same objection applied with equal force. The clause which he then submitted to the House, would neither interfere with the duties of sheriff, the mode of election, nor the persons by whom elected, but merely alter the number of those officers in towns corporate, electing them as the aldermen were elected.

would oppose the clause. He felt some hesitation as to the election of aldermen, but he should decidedly object to the application of the same principle to the choice of sheriffs. He conceived that the Bill would not be improved by the introduction of this clause. There appeared to be no reason whatever why two sheriffs should be appointed. Why not have three or five, that there might in case of differences of opinion be a casting voice? If there were to be two sheriffs, why not two mayors and carry the dual number throughout the whole corporation.

knew of no case where the circumstance of the office of sheriff being executed by two persons occasioned doubt or delay. The duty of sheriff was merely ministerial, and he therefore thought that the clause he proposed might be advantageously adopted; but as his hon. and learned Friend did not concur with him, he should not press the question to a division.

proposed the insertion of the following clauses, declaring,

"That nothing in the Municipal recited Act contained, shall prevent the levying and collecting of any rate by the town-council in any such borough or place in the said recited Act mentioned, for the purpose of paying any debt chargeable upon the rates of any borough or place contracted before the passing of this Act or the said recited Act, or the interest of any such debt, &c."

He had been induced to propose these clauses to prevent the hardship to individuals which otherwise might occur. To show that such a provision was called for, he had only to mention a case that had recently occurred at St. Alban's. Before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, the liberty and borough of the town of St. Alban's were authorized conjointly to raise money on the security of the rates for certain local purposes. A rev. gentleman, on the faith of the law as it then stood, lent a sum of money to the corporation to build a court-house; and since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act a question had arisen as to whether the interest should be paid by the liberty or the borough? The effect of the doubt was to deprive the party of his interest; and unless the Legislature interposed to protect him by an enactment of this kind, a great injustice would be inflicted upon him, as it was by no means certain that the Court of King's Bench, or any other legal tribunal, could afford him relief. Under such considerations he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not oppose the motion.

was very sorry that he could not comply with the hon. Gentleman's request. The clause was unnecessary, and, therefore, he must oppose it. It was a mistake to suppose that the rev. gentleman alluded to, would not get his money. The law as it stood would afford him all the remedy that he was entitled to have, and as to which party, whether the borough or the liberty, was liable to the payment of the interst, that was a matter for the decision of the Court of King's Bench, and not for that House.

regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman should think this was not a case for the interposition of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed it as his opinion, that the party who lent the money had a remedy in the Court of King's Bench, but although that might be his opinion, and he knew that the Attorney and Solicitor-General were usually considered, no doubt properly so, the giants—the Gog and Magog—of the Bar—still it so happened, that in this very case, a different opinion had been given by another lawyer who had been consulted upon it.

said, that as it was impossible for the House to determine the judicial point which had arisen in the case referred to, it would be most improper to introduce such clauses as these into the Bill. He must, therefore, give it his opposition.

thought, that the case had not been fully staled to the House, The fact was, that if the Municipal Corporation Bill had not passed, such an injury as was now complained of, never would have arisen. The party advanced his money on the faith of an Act of Parliament, which empowered the Corporation to pledge the rates. He lent his money to build a court-house, and although he had got a mortgage on the rates, it turned out that, owing to a difficulty which had arisen out of the new law, he had been deprived of that interest to which he was Strictly entitled. This was not just, and whatever might be the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, to use the words of his hon. Friend, "the Gog and Magog of the bar," he must deny that it was consistent with justice to leave the individual alluded to, the expensive remedy of a suit in the Court of King's Bench, when the evil might be remedied by a provision such as his hon. Friend had proposed. They should not forget that the whole of the difficulty was of their own creating.

, thought that in such a case, that House ought not to interfere. The question as to the liability of the liberty or the borough, was one which a legal tribunal alone could decide.

repeated that, as the injustice had arisen out of the Municipal Corporations Bill, they were bound to remedy it.

said, that if the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, the law officers of the Crown, were justice, all he could say was, that justice was but an empty name. Equity and justice would suggest a very different cause.

did not think that House could decide such a question.

said, that all they required was, that just debts should be paid; that the saddle should be put on the right horse.

said, that until they were in the position to say on which party the burthen ought to fall, it would be absurd to legislate on the subject.

said, it was admitted on all hands that injustice had been done. That injustice had grown out of their own Act of Parliament; and although the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite declared that the King's Bench could apply a remedy, another professional man had stated that the only way in which the evil could be rectified, would be by a short Act of Parliament, the expense of which he said the Government ought to bear, inasmuch as it was occasioned by "their own stupid blundering." Now, had an application been made to Lord Melbourne, or any other of his Majesty's Ministers, to bring in an Act of Parliament on the subject, was it likely that it would be attended with success? He thought not; but, at all events, he was satisfied that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was so much engaged with his own deep speculations, as to be unable to see the matter in its true light.

said, that as the sense of the House had been so fully taken upon this clause already, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion, that it be brought up. On a former occasion a majority of nearly two to one had decided against the clause. As the law at present stood, the Corporations were empowered to apply the surplus of their funds to the general benefit and use of the inhabitants. Unless the hon. Member meant to make the clause compulsory it would be useless, as the Corporations had now the power to make such a provision if they chose to do so; and to make the clause compulsory would be an injustice, inasmuch as it would compel the application of funds intended for the general use of the inhabitants, to the benefit of a particular class.

contended, that in equity these parties were entitled to the benefit which he sought to obtain for them. Those institutions had heretofore been maintained out of the funds of the Corporations, and he sought to obtain for those individuals a continuance of those advantages which they had heretofore enjoyed.

said, that so far as the Corporation of Newcastle was concerned, it was at present in a state little short of bankruptcy, and it was not likely that it had money to devote to this purpose. If the hon. Member had framed a clause so as to include decayed men, &c, instead of confining the relief to a particular class, he would have supported it.

considered the clause would be nugatory, unless it was made compulsory upon the town-council, so to apply a portion of the funds of the Corporation. He thought if relief of this kind were to be provided, it should not be for a particular class, but for the poor of the borough generally. He felt bound to oppose the clause.

trusted his hon. Friend would take the sense of the House on the clause. He was not surprised that justice and equity should be denied the freemen. He had no hesitation to say that in the language adopted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, justice and equity were out of the question.

felt that the country was greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet for bringing forward his measure, which was calculated to put an end to a most objectionable anomaly.

objected to the motion. It was most important, in order to render the result of this inquiry useful and satisfactory, that the Committee should be free from all imputations of party motives, and have the character of perfect impartiality. He did not think at the time that this Committee was proposed that it was calculated to effect the object it proposed to accomplish. However, seeing that both sides of the House were unanimous on the subject, he gave way. He thought, however, that the plan on which the hon. Member intended to pro- ceed was sufficiently indicated when, at the commencement, he at one fell swoop excluded no less than six Scotch Members of counties, and subsequently two other Scotch Members, from the Committee, on the ground that, as the inquiry would refer particularly to their constituencies, they were not eligible to be placed on this Committee. He protested against this unusual course of disqualifying Members, which in cases where party influence was involved in the issue might be carried to a dangerous extent. He had no objection that the hon. Member for Roscommon, whose impartiality was beyond suspicion, should be discharged from his labours, as he understood that he had urgent reasons for going to Ireland, but he objected to the proposed substitution of the hon. Member for Exeter. He had had a very old acquaintance with that hon. Member, and personally he entertained for him much regard, but he certainly objected to having him placed on this Committee. He perceived that the hon. Member had, a few days ago, been discharged from his attendance on the Committee on private Bills. Unless there was a particular motive in substituting the hon. Member for Exeter he did not know why such anxiety should exist on the part of those at the other side of the House. Now he had reason to know that Mr. Patrick Stewart, the hon. Member for Lancaster, and Lord Robert Grosvenor had stated that they had no objection to serve on this Committee. He had not any objection to the appointment of either of those hon. Members, but he certainly thought that there must be some motive for the eagerness to place the hon. Member for Exeter on this Committee. That hon. Member had, on a recent occasion, shown little capacity to separate the innocent from the guilty, as he had voted for the punishment of a large number of admittedly innocent and incorrupt voters because certain other electors of the borough to which they belonged had been proved guilty of bribery and corruption. From all these considerations, and feeling the importance that the Committee should possess an undoubted character for impartiality, he should oppose the motion.

wished to call the attention of the House to the principle on which the Committee had been appointed. It was composed of an equal number of Members from both sides of the House, with an intermixture of others of moderate politics. One of the Members who had been placed on the Committee, the hon. Member for Roscommon, was obliged to go to Ireland, in consequence of a family affliction, and was not likely soon to return. The Committee was to sit on Tuesday next, and it was proposed to substitute in his place a Member of equally pronounced politics, in order to keep the balance of the Committee equal. There was nothing in that proposal which could be called unfair. And to take an hon. Member from one Committee to serve on another was nothing unusual.

said, that the Committee was of a peculiar character, being, as he considered it similar to an Election Committee. For his own part he saw no occasion whatever for it. The votes on which it was to make inquiries had been already decided on by the Courts of Registration, and there was no necessity to go over them again. Great care ought to be taken in meddling with the Committee, after its having been once appointed, and he thought it singular to remove an hon. Member from one Committee to place him on another.

was of opinion that to substitute the hon. Member for Exeter for the hon. Member for Roscommon was quite reasonable.

begged leave to observe, that the hon. Member for Roscommon was a man of moderate politics, and that, constituted as the Committee was, they were bound to substitute some Gentleman whose opinions were of at least as moderate a nature, in order that the House and the public might have confidence in the result of the inquiry. He believed the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. P. M. Stewart), who was in every respect fitted to assist in that inquiry, would have no objection to be named on the Committee in the place of the hon. Member for Roscommon, and he would move as an amendment that his name be substituted therefore.

supported the original motion, and defended the original constitution of the Committee, a list of the members of which he had previously shown to the hon. Member for Edinburghshire.

said, that when a noble Lord, a Member of the Committee, and of that side of the House, was likely to have been obliged to absent himself, they had determined not to propose the substitution of any other hon. Member, but, although a different course was thought necessary on the present occasion by hon. Members opposite, he did not expect that they would have brought forward any motion to alter the constitution of the Committee. There were many hon. Gentlemen present perfectly conversant with the subject of inquiry, and to whom there could be no objection on the ground of holding very strong political opinions, one of whom he would suggest ought to be named in place of the hon. Member for Roscommon.

had proposed to the hon. Member for Buckingham to select one of two names; but that the hon. Member had replied, "No; propose your man, and then I will state my objections to him."

begged to differ with the hon. Member for Tynemouth, in defining the politics of the hon. Member for Roscommon as of a moderate character. Now, the hon. Member for Exeter was a Whig or very little more, while the hon. Member for Roscommon was a thorough Radical, who had pledged himself to his constituency, at the last election, to support the present Administration. He had voted for the Ballot, the Shortening of Parliament, Universal Suffrage, and was a decided Repealer, and yet the hon. Member for Tynemouth had asserted that he was a man of moderate politics.

wished to state the reason why he felt it incumbent on him to vote for the hon. Member for Exeter. His predilections were in favour of his Friend the hon. Member for Lancaster, but when he recollected that the former Gentleman had been originally proposed, he felt that he could not object to him now without casting imputations on him.

denied that any imputation was intended, by the opposition given to the substitution of the name of the hon. Member for Exeter. A comparison between two hon. Members was an extremely delicate point, and he thought the best way to avoid it would be by hon. Members opposite acquiescing in any reasonable proposal emanating from his side of the House. He was sorry to hear that the politics of the O'Conor Don were of so decided a character as that described, but still there was no man carried further than that hon. Member those notions of honour and impartiality which in a judicial tribunal could alone lead to a correct conclusion.

said, that although he conceived many of the facts as originally stated by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Horsman) to have been founded in misconception, yet he offered no objection to inquiry, stating, at the same time, that the Committee should be so constituted as to meet with the confidence of that House and the people of Scotland. He felt, that as it was to be an inquiry into a question of a legal character, it was not only necessary to have a Committee free from political bias, but one formed of men who, from their professional habits or other sources, were best calculated to turn their attention to a question of so difficult a nature. Being still of that opinion, being anxious for full and fair inquiry, and being desirous that the Committee should be placed above all suspicion, he would suggest that a conference should take place between the hon. Member for Buckingham and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order that they might decide upon substituting some hon. Member to whom there would be no objection.

had seen the original list of the Members of the Committee before it was proposed to the House, and thought it a very fair one. When it was proposed to the House, the only objection made to it was that some of the hon. Members who belonged to the other side of the House might not be able to attend. He had observed that if that should prove to be the case there would be no difficulty in filling up the vacancies with Members of the same side of the House; for no one contended that the constitution of the Committee was irrevocable. Now, however, when an hon. Member from his side of the House was unable to continue his attendance on the Committee, the substitution of another hon. Member of similar political principles was opposed. The hon. Member for Buckingham was not entitled to refuse the proposition of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, and to say, "Do you propose your man, and I will state my objections to him." With reference to the present motion and amendment, he had only to say that he had every confidence in both his hon. Friends' names (Mr. Divett and Mr. Stewart); but that as a substantive motion had been made for the nomination of the hon. Member for Exeter in place of the hon. Member for Roscommon, he could not consent to the substitution of the name of his other hon. Friend.

could not avoid observing that the discussion which had this evening occurred was calculated to depreciate this House in the eyes of the country.