protested against passing tolls, and he was glad that that House and the Government had taken a similar view of the matter. The duty to be imposed by the present Bill was of a twofold character. There was to be a duty levied on tonnage, and another on coals, and to both of them there were many ob- jections. As, however, the Committee on harbours of refuge had spoken favourably of the present undertaking, he would withdraw all opposition to the Bill, provided he distinctly understood from the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Bethell) that the clause imposing a duty on tonnage would be withdrawn, and that the duty on coals would not be continued after the present undertaking was finished for the purpose of constructing any new works.

The present was not a Bill for objects of speculation, nor for any new undertaking, but merely for the purpose of completing a harbour on which a large sum had already been expended, and which, if not completed, was in danger of being washed away.

opposed the second reading, as the shipping interest were all hostile to the undertaking. Considering the injustice of the toll proposed to be levied, he was astonished that the hon. Member for Tyne mouth should have consented to sacrifice the interests of the poorest class of persons concerned in shipping. It had been said that it was to be a harbour of refuge, but its situation rendered such an object impossible; for, not long ago, thirty vessels went to take the harbour and all grounded for want of water before they could reach the port The duty, too, would be heaviest on those vessels which from their size could derive no advantage whatever from the undertaking. He objected to the precedent which would be established, and would move as an amendment, that the Bill be read that day six months.

trusted the House would treat the Bill as it had done the one for the Scarborough harbour, and throw it out.

thought the Bill should pass, as it was for the interests of the public and of humanity that a harbour of refuge should be established on such a dangerous line of coast.

supported the motion. A person well acquainted with the coast had been asked where, if only one harbour of refuge were to be established, he considered the most eligible site was? His answer was Bridlington, and the number of vessels daily passing along the coast and the vast annual sacrifice of life and property showed the necessity for the construction of a harbour to which vessels might run when overtaken by storms.

wished to view this Bill solely in connexion with the public good. It had been observed, that though in form a private, it was in point of fact a public, Bill; and certainly, if it tended to increase the security of navigation, and to prevent the loss of life, as such it must be regarded. At the same time, when private parties, however desirable or important the object might be, asked the House to impose a duty on coals for the purpose of supporting a private harbour, it became very difficult for those who reflected on the important public consequences that might follow the sanctioning of such a principle by the Legislature to give a satisfactory vote upon the question. He had no hesitation whatever in consenting to the second reading of the Bill: but he thought it would be a great advantage to have, from some high and disinterested professional authority, a comprehensive view of the state of the harbours on the eastern coast. If, upon a survey instituted by the Admiralty, and conducted by engineers of eminence, it should be found that this harbour was either the best, upon the whole, for the commercial interests of the country, or at least likely to be productive of much good, and if more advantage were promised by imposing this toll than by forbearing to levy it, then he should be entirely reconciled to the measure; but for private individuals to select one point of the coast, upon a general allegation that the public interests would be promoted by forming a harbour there, was a ground of proceeding so vague and indefinite, that at present he could not form an opinion on it. They might be in error; they might be recommending Bridlington as the most suitable point, when on subsequent consideration another might appear superior. If Bridlington harbour were proved to be the best, he should acquiesce in the imposition of the toll; but if a different situation should eventually be found preferable, they might have to impose another toll for the construction of another harbour. He might appeal to all who had been engaged in inquiries relative to the comparative advantages of various proposed railways, whether great advantage had not arisen from consulting engineers of high professional skill, unbiassed by any connexion with the undertakings. Instances had occurred in which such persons had, by their able and disinterested reports, carried to the minds of all concerned a conviction of the truth of the views which they supported. He advised them to act on this principle in the present case. Let them agree to the second reading if they would, but let them have the opinion of eminent professional men, procured by the Board of Admiralty, without reference to any locality, before they imposed a toll for the benefit of a particular place.

approved of the views of the right hon. Baronet. He should like to see such a report as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman laid before the House. A survey had been for some time going on in the North of England, which he hoped might partly answer the end proposed. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) considered that a harbour formed at Redcar would better answer the purpose contemplated by the present Bill; and he (Sir C. Adam) certainly thought that if a toll were to be imposed on the shipping of the country, it ought to be to further a great undertaking like that, not a small harbour like Bridlington.

said, that Bridlington was the only point on that part of the coast which had a good roadstead, though Red-car was undoubtedly a situation superior to all others for a harbour of refuge for vessels of all classes. He thought it most material that the House should give all the assistance in their power to the improvement of Bridlington.

hoped that the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Tam-worth would be attended to by Government, and that an inquiry would be immediately instituted, with the view of ascertaining the situations best adapted for harbours of refuge. He should vote against the second reading of this Bill.

asked whether or no the Government had made any arrangement with that of France with respect to the valuable fisheries in the neighbourhood of the islands of Jersey and Guernsey? He was firmly impressed with the advantages that the present good understanding between the two countries offered for a settlement of any disputes concerning those fisheries, and he should be glad if the present opportunity were not lost of effecting an amicable arrangement of a point that had been a fruitful source of ill-feeling.

said, that the Government had agreed with that of France to nominate two Commissioners, one to be appointed by each Government, to draw more satisfactorily the boundaries of their respective fisheries, and he hoped some such measure would be carried into effect.

rose to bring forward his motion for a repeal of the Septennial Act. He would have brought the question forward at an earlier period, but he was unwilling to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers and was in hopes that they would have brought the matter before the House. It was with great pain he learned that he should not have their support, more especially as he believed them to be actuated by a sincere desire to promote the best interests of the country. Having now, however, arrived at the third Session of the second reformed Parliament, without anything having been done on this important subject, it became a matter of indispensable necessity and public duty that he, in the absence of a more competent person, should submit to the House a proposition for the substitution of triennial for septennial Parliaments. Having on former occasions stated the whole bearings of the question at considerable length, and having entered into all the historical details connected with it, he would not detain the House by a repetition of what he had on those occasions stated. In former times, previous to the reign of Henry 8th, the people, it was well known, enjoyed annual or sessional Parliaments, and it was in his reign that the first usurpation of the rights of the people in that respect had taken place. That usurpation, the object of which was to render the Legislature less responsible to the people, had been productive of serious evil and injury. It was not his intention, however, to propose the return to annual Parliaments; he did not, in this respect, go so far as the hon. Baronet the candidate for Westminster went in 1817. He considered, that triennial Parliaments would perfectly satisfy the wishes of the people in this respect. In the Bill of Rights the shorter duration of Parliaments was a point insisted on. In the 6th of William 3rd the Triennial Act was passed, on the ground, as the preamble of the Act with great force and unanswerable truth expressed it, that "frequent and new Parliaments tend very much to the union and good agreement of the king and the people." This Triennial Act existed only twenty-two years, and he had never heard any charge made from any quarter as to the conduct of any one of the Parliaments assembled under it. He believed that a course of regislation more legal and more pure had never been known in the annals of the country. The Triennial Act was repealed in 1716; but so great were the evils which the people found themselves to endure from the septennial system, that in 1734 a motion was made in the House of Commons that a return should be made to triennial Parliaments. The motion was lost by a majority of forty-nine, and all the motions which were subsequently made for the same purpose were in like manner rejected. Then came the great question of a comprehensive reform of the representative system, and this fully occupied the public attention until the Reform Bill past. The advocates of Parliamentary Reform had always divided that question into two heads—the amendment in the representation of the people, and increased responsibility in the Members elected. The first of these objects was to a great extent secured by the Reform Act, the second could only be effected by shortening the duration of Parliaments. It was this latter object which, as the Ministers of the Crown had declined to bring it forward, he now sought to secure, as he had already done on two occasions. It was used as a sort of argument against him that, as it was, Parliaments rarely lasted, now-a-days, above a couple of years. It was true that the duration of the last two or three Parliaments had been short enough, but this had been owing to the simple circumstance that a dissolution of Parliament, however short had been its existence, suited the views of the ministry of the day; but he believed, that had, for instance, the right hon. Baronet opposite, when he last took office, got together a House suitable to his political objects, neither would the right hon. Baronet have retired from office, nor would the Parliament have been dissolved until it reached its seventh year. Had this been the case, with the political views entertained, however honestly, by the right hon. Baronet, the liberties and best interests of the country, and all the benefits expected from the Reform Bill, would, ere the dissolution of that Parliament, have been almost irrevocably destroyed. It was not a power which could safely be intrusted to any ministry. No Parliament ought to be elected for so long a period that the constituencies would not be able to judge of the nature of the measures likely to be brought under its consideration. Standing on that principle he felt that he was upon ground which was perfectly secure. The House of Commons was in a different situation now, as regarded the Septennial Act, from that which it occupied before the passing of the Reform Bill. Prior to the passing of that measure, more than one half of the Members were what he would call the fixed furniture of the House of Commons. They were returned by the rotten boroughs, and constituted a majority which, by its influence and power, secured a steady course of events. What was the case at present? From day to day new questions were arising of the very highest importance. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers had not made up their minds to persist in opposing the repeal of the Septennial Act. He could tell them that the people of England would never rest till they had obtained the recognition of this principle, and the restoration of their right—a right which was as sacred as that of the trial by jury. The question was only one of time; then let not the House, let not the noble Lord, delay the concession till, like the Roman Catholic Act, and the Reform Act itself, it was wrested from them. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Septennial Act.

seconded the motion. He contended that the Septennial Act was carried much in opposition to the national will, and every succeeding generation had considered it as a violation of the constitution of the country. It was an infraction of the Declaration of Rights. It could not be denied, that the Reform Bill had failed to give satisfaction to the country; the Parliaments elected under it had not been sufficiently in conformity with public opinion to give those reforms which the people expected. The dissolution of the last Parliament did not take place because it was not in unison with public opinion; that dissolution was the result of court intrigue, and had for its object the restoration of a party whom public opinion had expelled from power—a party who were identified with all the old practices of corruption. The hon. Gentleman went into several historical details, through which it was impossible to follow him, and concluded with an earnest appeal to the House to support the motion.

French opposed the motion. He thought that a return to triennial Parliaments would lead to an increase of political animosities.

was in favour of the shortening of the duration of Parliaments, They ought, in his opinion, to remember that they had not now to appeal to any nominees, but to the people. He considered it a very great evil to have the prerogative of the Crown constantly suspended over them in that House. It was his opinion that the more frequently the constituents had the opportunity of reviewing the conduct of their representatives, the more likely was it that the conduct of the representatives would be satisfactory and conducive to the public interests.

thought that it was exceedingly indecent in hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to have, in their address to his Majesty, passed a vote of censure upon the hon. Baronet below him, for having dissolved a Parliament which sat for two years, when they at the same time came forward to make a demand for triennial Parliaments.

was one of those who was always willing to vote for responsibility on the part of Members of Parliament. The responsibility which they owed to their constituents could not be so well accomplished by the seven years duration of Parliament as by the three years. If they were acting rightly, why not appeal, from time to time, to their constituents? It would be found by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, if they asked the opinions of their constituents on the subject, that seven years were considered too long for the duration of Parliament. The question was, had they enough of responsibility with a seven years' tenancy of a seat? In his opinion they had not. Considering the manner in which business was done in that House, he thought that Members ought to be long enough in the House to know their duties. Considering this, it was his opinion that annual Parliaments would tend to an evil, and that they would not be able to go on with them. He should like to know from hon. Members if they would trust to individuals the management of their private affairs for seven years without calling them to account. If they would not, why should they do so with regard to matters of public concern? With reference to what had been said by the hon. Member opposite as to the dissolution of Parliament by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), he begged to say that the right hon. Baronet was censured for that dissolution, because it took place without due notice being given to the constituents. He was opposed to a ministry having the power to dissolve Parliament when they pleased. Upon this subject he wished to have the opinion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department.

considered, that they ought not to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Marylabone, and defer the division on the present motion until hon. Members had taken refreshments. He had upon a former occasion given his opinion so much at length upon this subject, that he did not feel it to be at all necessary to enter into details upon the question. Still, as he had been called upon by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he wished to state what was his opinions upon this question. The hon. Member who had seconded the motion, quoted a sentence used by him, he believed, on introducing the Reform Act. He thought that the hon. Member should not only have quoted that sentence, but another that immediately followed it. An hon. Member had quoted him correctly, as giving a speculative opinion in favour of the duration of Parliament for five years, in the place of seven years. That opinion he certainly entertained, but at the same time he was not to be tempted to support his hon. Friend's motion, and to join with those who might wish for Parliaments of three or four years, or for any other period. The way for the House of Commons to deal with such a question as this, was not by leaving the number of years that Parliament ought to sit in blank. Opinions were greatly divided against this question. Some were for three years, and others for having annual Parliaments. In circumstances like these, he did not think that the evil that was complained of was one that was immediately felt, nor was a Bill, from the circumstances existing, required for shortening the duration of Parliaments. With respect to the period of three years, the hon. Member for Middlesex appeared to be in favour of such a proposition, while he declared that one year would be too short. With great truth and justice the hon. Member had remarked, that the amount of public business would make it very inconvenient to have elections every year. Then that hon. Member said, that there was a clear distinction between the business of a Legislative body, and the affairs of a private individual. Although the hon. Member said this, still he put the matter on the analogy of their not suffering persons to act as representatives for seven years, because no man would allow another to manage his affairs for the same period without calling him to account. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, supported it upon the ground, that the people of this country had a right to Parliaments of a particular duration. He thought that the argument in respect of the analogy of very ancient times, was as little applicable as the analogy of private individuals. The time of Edward 3rd, when the knights and burgesses came up and continued for a short time at great inconvenience, Was not at all like the present time, when so many complicated affairs were brought before the House of Commons. A great deal of blame had been always thrown upon those who had passed the Septennial Act. He was sorry and surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman who seconded this motion say, that he thought that the period of the accession of the House of Hanover, was the worst period in the history of this country. He considered this the time when they had the establishment of a popular and free Government, and when the pretensions of the House of Stuart were finally set aside. With respect to the Septennial Act, they took care to state in the preamble of the Act the grounds of it, and they did not leave to posterity to say, that it was an Act of mere temporary necessity. The preamble of the Act stated, that its object was, to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. Among the other consequences of the House of Commons not being a body continually changing and fluctuating, there was one consequence which he thought attributable to it. It was in the very nature of things, that if there were two bodies, such as the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the one of which always continued, and the other only for a very short time, the House in which the Members always continued, had more weight and authority than that in which they were continually fluctuating. So much weight had this on the mind of Milton, that in some of his speculations, he gave it as his opinion that the Members elected by the people should be for life. From the time of the Revolution up to the time that the Septennial Act was passed, the whole leading authority in this country was centered in the House of Peers. Look, for instance, at the Duke of Shrewsbury, the Duke of Marlborough, Lords Sunder-land, Somers, and Godolphin. There were two others who held great power, namely, the Earl of Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke. Both of them, as soon as they came into power, sought to be placed in the House of Lords, and the cause of the great quarrel between the Earl of Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke was, that Lord Bolingbroke did not receive so high a title as he thought he had a right to expect. But what was the case since the passing of the Septennial Act? They found that Sir Robert Walpole, and the first and second Pitt, and Fox, and the other men who exercise great influence, were generally Members of the House of Commons. The fact was, that that House had acquired great weight and power in consequence of the Septennial Act. With respect to an alteration to triennial or annual Parliaments, it was very possible that the consequences might ties very different to what he anticipated. He thought that such a change would give great instability to the Government, and they might be more likely than at present to have a House of Commons, elected in times of popular ferment, which would not preserve the constitution as it at present existed. He did not think that at present there was any great desire in the public mind for this measure. He did not think, he must confess, that general opinion was pressing for this change, or for changes of this kind. His opinion, and he thought the opinion out of doors, was, that they should attend to practical questions. They had effected a very great change in the constitution of that House by the passing of the Reform Bill. In proposing the Reform Act, he certainly said, that this question, and another question, namely, that of the Ballot, might at a future period come to be considered. But at the same time his opinion was, that with respect to this question in particular, there was no great desire in the public mind that they should adopt the proposed change. He considered, that a change to triennial Parliaments would be very injurious, arid therefore he was not prepared to adopt it. He thought that they would do far better by attending to those questions of practical importance, in which the immediate interests of the country were concerned.

said, that from the speech of the noble Lord, it was quite clear that the duration of Parliaments would continue the same, as long as the people allowed them to remain so. It was quite clear, that in order to have the desired change, they must have the pressure from without. The Septennial Act was passed for a particular object, which was not required now, but there would always be abundance of excuses found for its continuance. The noble Lord seemed to be of opinion that the people did not desire that the Act should be repealed. He thought that the noble Lord would entertain a very different opinion before this day twelve months. He thought that the noble Lord ought not to forget what was passing at this moment in the immediate neighbourhood of this House. The aristocracy of the district in which that House was situated, was at that moment canvassing and using every possible effort to return to that House a man [Sir F. Burdett, who had vacated his seat for Westminster, and was a candidate to be re-elected on the Tory interest], who had pledged himself to annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot. That was the very course they were following. He had never seen the Lords working so industriously for the return of a Radical Reformer to that House. His object in rising, was to show that they had the power in their own hands to have either triennial or septennial Parliaments. When he was elected, nearly three years ago, he made a promise, that at the end of three years he would resign, as being friendly to triennial Parliaments, he wished to give the electors a proof of his sincerity. He should resign. He should not go before his constituents and say, that if his conduct had not satisfied them during the time he was in the House, he would resign. He would adopt no course of that kind. He would apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, and walk out. He would tell the Conservatives of Finsbury, that this was his determination, and he only hoped that they would have a fair battle. It depended upon the people themselves, whether they should have triennial Parliaments or not. He hoped they would take advantage of the discussion that night.

said, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) opposed this change because he thought it would interfere with the stability of Government. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) did not wish for any change that would affect the stability of Government and, therefore, he desired a Bill of this description. He desired that Parliament should exist for three years, neither more nor less, that it should be dissolved on, say, for instance, the last day of December, and that they should not be dissolved either by the King or by the Ministers beyond a given time. If the House of Commons were thus elected every three years, and continued for that period, they would not be subject to instability that arose either from the demise of the Crown or the going out or coming in of ministers. He considered that this plan would give stability to the Legislature. Such a system existed in the United States and produced the best effects. He should vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth as a step to what he wished, but he did not expect that such a proposition would find favour in this Parliament. But the time, he hoped would come when the duration of the Parliament would depend on the law and not upon the King or his Ministers.

moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.

said, that before the Speaker left the chair he wished to suggest an opinion on the subject of this Bill. He must say-that the state of destitution that existed in Ireland was exceedingly underrated in this Bill. He never knew an instance of such a complete falsification of evidence as that which arose in Mr. Nicholls's report. He had trespassed upon the House upon a former occasion, and would not detain them two minutes. He had declared, that in the present state of destitution in Ireland any thing like adequate relief would amount to a confiscation of property, whilst the present provision was not only not desirable, but would lead to increasing irritation. Having to select between them, he had made up his mind for confiscation, and not for increasing irritation, and therefore he must state, that he would not oppose this Bill. But he would divide the House upon that part of the Bill which confined relief to workhouses; and he would take the sense of the House upon a clause to enable the guardians to give out-door relief. He felt it his duty to express his opinion that the relief must be more extensive, or they had better have no relief at all.

said, that it seemed now to be settled that a Poor-law should be introduced. He saw there was to be another rate imposed upon the people of Ireland before the tithe question was settled. They had now for three years resisted the payment of tithes. On the first of November there would be four years to pay. Was it intended by the Legislature to impose a new tax upon the people of Ireland before the adjustment of the tithe question? He felt public opinion was pronounced, and irrevocably pronounced, upon the subject of an Irish Poor-law. But while he felt quite convinced that a Poor-rate must be imposed, he was most anxious that the tithe question should be settled before the rate was imposed upon Ireland. It must be manifest to every body who knew any thing of the constitution of this country, that where the mass of the people, already by the most effective and, in his opinion, justifiable or- ganization, resisted the collection of tithes—it must be manifest, that until the tithe question was adjusted it was impossible that any other rate should be imposed on the country with the smallest chance of a successful collection. He wished that the Government would direct its attention to this subject. He wished they would adopt the only means of pressing a measure which would conduce to the pacification of the country. He for one was anxious to know what was the course to be pursued. He would put no questions to Government. He did not think that the people of Ireland would be satisfied until the question of tithes was satisfactorily settled. He would as he said before, put no question, but he should certainly like to know what course the Government meant to adopt.

was as anxious as the hon. Member for Tipperary for a settlement of the tithe question, but he did not agree with him as to the mode in which this should be effected. The hon. Member said, that it would be four years next November since tithes had been collected in Ireland. This, however, was a fallacy; for tithes had been tolerably well paid in Ireland, at least in three-fourths of the country, during the last year; and any difficulty in their collection was only experienced in one-fourth. He would venture to assert, that tithes were as well paid as any other duty or tax. With respect to this Bill, he thought that a great fault of it was, that it went much farther than the noble Lord had made provision for. He also thought that the noble Lord had greatly miscalculated the number of applicants for admission into the workhouses; they would certainly be much greater than he imagined. It would have been much better, in the first instance, if they had confined relief in the workhouses for the weak, the sick, and the infirm. He could not help feeling, however, that the whole measure was a fearful experiment on the property of Ireland, as well as the habits of the people.

was satisfied that the principle of relief in workhouses never could be acted upon in Ireland. He differed from the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary as to the settlement of the tithe-question before the Poor-law Bill; he thought that the latter should be delayed on no account.

I do not think it necessary to enter upon the general argu- ment as to the Poor-law measure, on which I before addressed the House, both on the introduction and on the second reading of the Bill, but I feel bound to take some notice of the question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary. Indeed, I suppose that it is the wish of the House that I should state the course that the Government intends to pursue as regards this subject, and I must say, that is a matter of considerable difficulty to state what course should be taken in certain contingencies, it resting on observations, or matter in the shape of observations, as to the course taken by the party opposed to me as regards one of these Bills. It must be recollected that we introduced three separate Bills with respect to Ireland, namely, the Municipal Corporation Bill, the Tithes-Bill, and the Poor-law Bill; these were three separate measures, but tending, as we believe, to the tranquility, the improvement, and the well-being of Ireland, and also to the more firm establishment of the union between the two countries. On the other side of the House it has been held, that these measures were not to be taken as separate measures, but as measures connected together, and that one should not be judged of without the consideration of the other. Denying, as I do, the justice of this opinion, still I have to say, that we have now brought forward, or at least stated, the nature and what we proposed to do with respect to each of these measures. We have sent up to the other House of Parliament a Bill respecting Municipal Corporations in Ireland. We now propose to go into Committee on the Poor-law Bill; and my noble Friend stated, with great clearness, the provisions of a Bill which he proposes to introduce respecting tithes; therefore, the whole of our plans on these subjects are before the House. Knowing, then, that the plans proposed on the part of the Government are before the House, we are of opinion that these measures are best calculated for the attainment of the objects meant to be obtained. But I understood the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of the debate at the close of the discussion of one of those Bills in this House, namely, on the debate on Municipal Corporations—I understood him to state, that although he was not decidedly opposed to a measure on this subject, yet that the measure before the, House exceeded as it was framed such a measure as he could approve of; and although he did not deny that a primá facie case had been made out for the establishment of Corporations in Ireland, in resisting our measure, he did not state the nature of the amendments which he would have wished to have introduced, nor the nature of the Bill which he would support. He, however, opposed the further progress of the measure, because the other measures as to tithes and Poor-laws were not before the House. I have stated, that I regarded these Bills as separate measures, but which he stated he wished to regard as a whole. Thus I understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he is present to correct me if I am incorrect. But, I must say, what has actually happened since, is an occurrence wholly unprecedented in the history of Parliament, but, at the same time, one to which it is difficult to affix any definite meaning. I take the interpretation of this part of the constitution from the practice and from the professions of the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that I differ much from him in stating that, when measures have been passed repeatedly by considerable majorities of this House, they must, in the end, meet with the concurrence of the other House of Parliament. Undoubtedly, I am not about to enter into a lengthened examination of the opinion to which I have referred; but I must observe that, so far, the Bill we sent up, met with the concurrence of the other House, for it was read a second time in the other House, and I did not hear, and, indeed, the contrary would appear to be the case, that no notice was given of a motion similar to that proposed and carried last year with respect to this Bill in the other House of Parliament, and which was proposed last year, and also this year to this House of Parliament, but which was, on both occasions, negatived, namely, that instead of provision being made for the reformation and reconstruction of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, that provision should be made for their total abolition. Judging, therefore, wholly from the fact, that the other House was disposed to follow that which was the practice in the best times of the constitution, namely, agreeing to a measure which the settled and deliberate opinion of the representatives of the people was in favour of. I supposed that the House of Lords was prepared to consider the Bill on the subject which had been sent to them. At the time when the Bill was read a second time, this appeared to be the course that would be taken, above all, when no intimation was given of such an instruction as I have mentioned being proposed to the Committee. But without notice of any kind, the motion being made in such manner as precluded many of those who intended to support the Bill from having their names recorded against the motion made, and successfully made, to postpone the Bill to the 9th of June. Therefore, as I said before, putting aside the original proposition, that the Bills should be considered separately, the House of Lords adopted the amendment that was proposed, that the Bills should be considered together; and, I must say, in all fairness, and in hope of coming to an adjustment, that it would have been right to have stated and propounded, in a formal shape, the amendments which were to be made, and then, if they had thought proper, they might adjourn for a week, fortnight, or longer time, the further consideration of the subject. These amendments thus being in our power, we should have been able to form some judgment, some definite opinion, as to the nature of the measure to which that House appeared willing to assent; and also to form a judgment on the success of the measures which we are now pressing forward. I must also add, that the course of which I complain, has not been followed with a view to come to an adjustment of this question. It is a course which must very much embarrass his Majesty's Government, and throw obstacles in the way which will greatly interfere with us while we have to deal with the Bills before the House. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to state what course it is proper to pursue, for it might be said, and suspicious minds might adopt such an opinion, that those who, without any notice, proposed this course, and who have, on all occasions, spoken against the popular principles contained in the Bill, and now appear as hostile to that popular principle as they ever were—it might be said that their object was to act in such a way as to enable them to force the Bills on the other subjects which are consonant to their feelings, while they would keep up the form and substance of Corporations in Ireland, effectually shutting out the popular principle, for these Corporations would be preserved, as they now are, exclusive bodies. Such I hope, is not the interpretation to be put on this proceeding; and I should be very sorry to take any hasty or premature steps founded on conclusions that it was not intended by the other House to consent to the foundation of popular institutions in Ireland for the management of local affairs. But another course which I may be told might be taken by the other House was this, that they would say, "We will take out of the Tithe Bill all that is displeasing to us, and we will put into the Corporation Bill something that will be displeasing to you." As to what this something may be, we know not—as to whether it is a simple alteration of the Bill, or whether it will entirely militate against the vital principle of the Bill, we are left only to conjecture; and anything we hear in conversation, and all that is repeated in the public prints, as being the deliberate opinions of certain noble Lords, only involves the subject in greater doubt and difficulty and uncertainty. Under these circumstances, I think it is my bounden duty to proceed with the Bills without suspending their progress, and in the manner in which I originally proposed to deal with them; at the same time, we should not be doing our duty to this House and to the constituency, if we did not warn the House of Lords that it is not possible that there can be a satisfactory adjustment of this question, if we do not endeavour, while carrying on the public service in such a manner that it do not suffer inconvenience or detriment, to take care that none of the essential powers and privileges of this House should be departed from, which House of Commons has given confidence to the administration, and which confidence we should be misusing, if we merely persisted in carrying Bills which were afterwards totally defeated elsewhere. I believe the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin, stated, with respect to the tithe question, that it was not essential that the Tithe Bill should be passed during the present Session. I will not give an opinion on this subject, but I believe such was the inference to be drawn from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I must state further, that in what I have hitherto explained to the House, I have not seemed to answer the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, or laid down any definite or clear course of action; but the hon. and learned Member must recollect, that in the very doubts that I have expressed as to the situation in which we stand, and as to the intentions of our opponents, and I must also add the other House of Parliament, would lead us to the conclusion, that it is better that we should wait and see whether we have mistaken the intentions of our own opponents, instead of adopting that decided course which it would afterwards be shown we were not justified in pursuing. We shall endeavour to come to a settlement of these matters, and to come to that settlement in such a manner as will produce benefit to Ireland, and also to carry these measures in such a way that those who represent that country, and those who sympathies with the feeling of Ireland, will be satisfied that some progress has been made during the present Session. But at present I feel, after the vote of the other night, which cannot be interpreted in a way which will lead us to anything conclusive as to the course of proceeding of the other House, that it is essential at the present moment that all in the majority of the House of Commons should remain firmly united together on the present occasion; and I think I may say, that if the supporters of the present administration continue their present confidence in it, that with such support, and with such a majority, the Ministry will not desert them. I feel, also, that other considerations affecting this subject, of very great and paramount importance, but into which I will not now enter—considerations affecting the maintenance of the authority of the two Houses of Parliament—I remain, as I ever have been, an adherent of the established form of Government, which has recognised an hereditary House of Parliament as part of the constitution of the country; from that opinion I am not disposed to depart; and I feel convinced—such is my confidence in the excellence of the British constitution—such is my confidence in the temper which has carried us hitherto through whatever dangers and difficulties we have had to contend with—that there will at last be an agreement with respect to these Bills, as there has been before when differences have arisen. Under these circumstances, I think that the constitution ought not to be lightly parted with, and that no misunderstanding, as to the postponement, the delay, or the retarding these measures, ought to be considered an obstacle to the maintenance of that constitution, and to its being continued on a basis of harmony and concord. With these opinions, and without expressing any doubts as to coming to any settlement on the Corporation or tithe-questions, I must conclude, at the same time, with stating, that I am convinced that there is nothing in the constitution of this House, or the other House of Parliament, which could finally prevent such a settlement; and therefore it would be better that, instead of the determination being left to the chances of collision, or to the winds of fortune, that we should maintain that constitution which has hitherto worked with such admirable effect, and which is still capable of producing most admirable fruits to both England and Ireland.

was satisfied that the conclusion of the noble Lord's speech was directly at variance with the facts which he had stated in the course of it. He had no doubt, however, but that Ministers would do their duty, and stand by the House now they saw the clear course before them. That House, at the early part of the Session, passed a Bill, which had for its object the establishment of local Government in the towns of Ireland. The cause of Ireland seemed, however, to be unworthy of the attention of the other House, at least till the 9th of June. He wished the noble Lord to state whether he intended to carry the Church-rates Bill, and the other measures before the House, as fast as possible, and send them up to the House of Lords, or whether he intended to postpone them until after the 9th of June? It appeared to him to be trifling with the feelings of the country not to stale distinctly what course the Government intended to take, to prevent the stoppage of the public business. The two Houses must be placed on a footing of harmony to carry on the legislation for the country. He knew that the noble Lord was afraid of the subject of the reform of the Lords. The noble Lord said, that he was anxious to adhere to the constitution which had hitherto worked so well: had that been the case for the last two years, during which period all the measures sent up by that House have been mutilated or broken in pieces? He wished to have a distinct answer from the noble Lord as to the course he intended to pursue, as to whether he meant to press the measures before the House. He was satisfied, if the obstacles were found to remain with the other House, the country would no longer suffer it, but would lop away the impediments in its way, and would assist the Government in applying a remedy. They had arrived at a period when there was a complete stoppage of legislation, and it was necessary that they should have some understanding as to their future proceedings.

had thought he had made himself understood, but he begged at once to state that he intended, with as little delay as possible, to proceed with the measures before the House.

I am extremely sorry that a discussion, so mixed up with party feeling and party interest, should have taken place on the question of a Poor-law. I greatly wish the hon. Gentleman, however legitimate his question may be, had taken some other occasion for putting it, for I feel that, if we once permit party feeling to mingle in the discussion of a Poor-law for Ireland, it will greatly prejudice that discussion, and materially tend to discourage the hope of a satisfactory-completion of a measure which, as it is, is looked upon with very considerable doubt and anxiety. As the noble Lord has made distinct reference to me, I find it necessary, not adopting a different temper from that in which the noble Lord spoke, to say something on this subject. I understand from the noble Lord, that it is his intention to proceed with those measures which were indicated in his Majesty's speech from the throne, as affecting the internal peace and tranquility of Ireland, with the consideration, namely, of the Poor-law Bill, and the question of Irish tithes. I rejoice to hear that such is the noble Lord's determination, and I regard it as a much more prudent decision than the one I understood him to indicate on Friday last, of a contrary description. The noble Lord complains of the course taken by the House of Lords on the subject of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. I am bound to say, that I think that the course of the House of Lords is perfectly consistent with justice and good sense. I can say this with perfect truth, because the noble Lord will do me the justice to remember, that when this matter was first brought under the consideration of this House, I expressed an anxious wish that, before we came to a final decision on the Corporation question, we ought first to consider the other two matters. I said this with an abstract view of the question, and without any reference whatever to the course the House of Lords might think proper to adopt. I thought it of the utmost importance, that before we pronounced our final opinion on the Irish Corporation question, we should be in full possession of the intentions of Government, and the probable course the House of Commons would be called upon to pursue in reference to Irish tithes, and Irish Poor-laws. I think the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary must admit, that it is perfectly consistent in the Peers to find an intimate connexion between questions of this kind, for in the very speech which he has just delivered, he himself said, that he thought the questions of Irish Poor-laws, and Irish tithe, so intimately connected together, that he protested against the consideration of the Poor-laws, until the House was put in full possession of the Ministerial measure respecting Irish tithes. "For," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "tithe, in many parts of Ireland, is in arrear for three years, and, at Christmas next, will be four years in arrear; before you impose a new rate of any kind in Ireland for the relief of the poor, let me know what is the final settlement you propose to make, as to the tithes in that country." Now, if it be the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that two out of these three questions are so intimately connected together, that he declines pronouncing an opinion on an Irish poor-rate, until he has ascertained the feelings of Government and of the House, as to Irish tithe, how can he deny to other parties the exercise of that judgment which he not only claims for himself, but pronounces, or how could he refuse them the right of thinking that the three questions have that intimate connexion with each other, which he himself admits to exist between two of the three? If, therefore, I wanted any vindication of the reasonableness and justice of the course which has been pursued by the House of Lords, I find it in the distinct admission of the hon. and learned Member. The hon. Member for Middlesex seems to think that there is something in the course taken by the House of Lords which is disrespectful to the House of Commons. I beg to say, I myself have that feeling for the honour of a House, of which I have been so long a Member, and by which I have been received with only too much of favour. I have that deep interest in its honour and character, that nothing could induce me to acquiesce in any course which I thought disrespectful to this House: but I beg the hon. Member to call to mind, that it was distinctly intimated to the House of Lords, in the Speech from the Throne, that in the course of the present Session, their attention would be drawn to "three measures intimately connected with the tranquility and welfare of Ireland," and that, on the invitation of the Ministry, their Lordships presented an address to the King, in which they expressed a hope that they might be able to make some arrangements conducive to the welfare and peace of Ireland, and pledging themselves to an early consideration of the three measures which were specified by Ministers in the Speech from the Throne. If, therefore, the Lords concur with the Commons in the principle, that there is an intimate union between these questions, without any reference to the proceedings of the House of Commons, have not their Lordships had authoritative and indisputable declarations made to them, that these three measures would be presented for their consideration, and if they think them so intimately connected, can anything be more natural or reasonable than that they should desire to postpone the consideration of one Bill, until they know on what principle the others are founded? I before stated to the noble Lord, and with perfect truth, that if the order of these measures had been reversed—if he had perfected the Poor-law Bill, and settled the tithe question, I should then, on the discussion on the Corporation Bill, have frankly stated the connected view which I took of all the measures; but as things have been arranged, the Municipal Bill came in this House to its third reading, before anything was known as to either of the other measures. The noble Lord seemed to apprehend the possibility that in the course now taken, some advantage is intended to be laid hold of this kind, that one Bill will be passed into a law, and the other indefinitely postponed; for instance, that a tithe Bill rendered satisfactory to the House of Lords will be passed, and that then the Municipal Bill will be thrown overboard. Now, this result would be altogether a matter of impossibility, unless this House were a consenting party; for, whatever the scheme of adjustment adopted by the House of Lords as satisfactory to them, this House is, of course, in no way called upon to accept it; and, therefore, the danger which the noble Lord apprehends as possible, is altogether out of the question. I will not enter further into the consideration of these questions, being most unwilling that anything of party asperity should connect itself with the discussion of a Poor-law. I will merely repeat, that as reference was made to me by the noble Lord, concerning the course of the House of Lords, I felt bound to express my entire acquiescence in that course; my conviction that it was perfectly consistent with justice and equity, to ask to see all these measures before it considered the details of one of them; my conviction, further, that had any other course been followed by the House of Lords, if they had at once proceeded to consider the details of the Corporation Bill, such a course would not have facilitated an amicable settlement of the questions, but would, on the contrary, more probably have led to their indefinite postponement; and lastly, my conviction that in the course so adopted, there could have been no intention to offer disrespect to the House of Commons. I believe that no such disrespect was intended; the proceedings of the House of Lords had no necessary reference to any inconsistent proceedings of the House of Commons; their Lordships' themselves declared, in their answer to the Speech from the Throne, that they would give full consideration to each of the three measures that speech pointed out, in reference to Ireland; and feeling as they did the intimate connexion between the three subjects, it was impossible for them fully to consider the one, without being in possession of the principles on which the other two were founded.

could not help thinking there were some fallacies, and those of no ordinary importance, in the statement of the right hon. Baronet. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman or the other hon. Gentleman who differed with Ministers on the essential principles on which the Government of the country, and more especially the Government of Ireland, was to be carried on, whenever the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen appeared disposed to apply to authorities of the kind just invoked by the right hon. Baronet in support of their arguments, he was always disposed to suspect that there lurked some fallacy which they sought to impose upon the House in borrowed arguments. Thus it appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet, in attempting to prop up his arguments by illustrations drawn from the statement of the hon. and learned Member referred to, manifestly showed that he had no very strong case of his own to rely upon. What did the borrowed argument of the right hon. Baronet prove? What was it to the purpose? Nothing. That a Member of their own House, conceiving a connexion to subsist between several measures before the House, should ask to see them in a combined form before he formed his judgment on one or all of them, was perfectly consistent with the rules and forms of Parliament, and was no violation of the constitution, receiving no influence whereby the House should seek by its proceedings to follow the proceedings in another. But the moment such an argument was raised elsewhere, it became a very different matter. It raised a principle for which those who raised it must hold themselves deeply responsible. It raised a principle which might be raised, and he hoped justly, in the present instance, only by inference; but whenever it was raised actually and positively by designs, and with a view to affect a given purpose, it could never be so raised without great danger to the constitution. The argument of the right hon. Baronet as to the propriety of a Member of that House demanding to see all these three measures before he decided upon one of them was correct enough as asserting the constitutional rights of a Member of one branch of the Legislature in the chamber to which he belonged, but it was totally inapplicable if raised in a question between the two branches of the Legislature. He would even assert the right to free and independent action of both Houses of Parliament, but, at the same time, he would resist any attempt on the part of either to overawe or control the other, as an attempt most dangerous to the constitution. He did not for a moment mean to draw from the course stated to have been taken by the other House any inference that its intention was to overawe and control the House of Commons: all he had a right to know of the matter was the statement on the journal of that House, that the mea- sure in question had been postponed; and he was willing to imagine that this postponement of the Bill by the other House was not for the purpose of depriving the country of the benefits which Government anticipated from the passing of the measure. If it were probable that any Bill had been delayed in the other House for the purpose of holding out to the House of Commons either a threat or an inducement to take a particular line in reference to other Bills pending before it, the individuals who took such a course in the other House, were indeed incurring an awful responsibility; but as he saw nothing of this declared on the journals of the House of Lords, he could not in justice impute to any Members of that body any such design. If such were the design of any Members of the Upper House, they might rest assured, that it would be entirely defeated by the spirit and resolution of the representatives of the people, The two branches of the Legislature were co-ordinate, but they were not co-equal, and this would manifestly appear were anything in the shape of a conflict to occur. It was the House of Commons which was in possession of measures without which the public service could not for a week be carried on. With the postponement of the measure to the, 9th of June the House of Commons had nothing to do. It was for the House of Commons zealously to persevere in its duty; to carry on the business to which it pledged itself in the commencement of the Session; to discharge its functions faithfully; and, having done this, the House of Commons would stand firm in the affections and confidence of the people of England! Whether the House of Lords was in the wrong or no, it was for the House of Commons to keep itself in the right. Whatever party in the country put itself in the wrong in the eyes of the people, that party would be sure to be the sufferer. Supposing for a moment the case to be that the House of Lords had in the views of some parties put itself in an inconvenient position in reference to the House of Commons, it was the duty of the House of Commons to persevere in the right, by calmness and moderation, and by undeviating adherence to the principle of serving the public interests, by being swayed by no party views or party animosities one point beyond the track in which they would have walked if this occurrence had never intervened. The right hon. Baronet had implied that the Ministry had changed their minds on this subject since Friday. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could assure the right hon. Baronet he was mistaken in this respect. The Ministry were taking precisely the course which they had marked out for themselves in the first instance. They made no interruption in their arrangements for conducting the public business. They left to the other House its full right to judge of all the measures sent up to it. The sole and simple object of Ministers was to carry into effect the largest measure of national improvement, to promote to the utmost possible extent the happiness and prosperity of the people. In conclusion he might observe, that there was one observation of the right hon. Gentleman in which he fully concurred in approaching the most arduous and most difficult duty ever imposed on men, that on which a greater mass of misery or happiness never depended, it was essential that all should divest themselves of party feeling, and he trusted that the discussion on this subject would on all sides of the House be for the future carried on in the same spirit in which it had commenced, and which had suffered no interruption until the interlude which had just taken place.

said, if there was to be a compromise with the House of Lords on this question, let it be frankly stated.

was really very sorry to see so bad an understanding on this occasion between Ministers and Gentlemen with whom, in general, they were so friendly, and without whose assistance they could not keep in office for a week. For his part, he did not understand the clamour raised against the House of Lords for their very reasonable request to know the nature of one measure before they decided upon another, these measures having so intimate a connexion.

protested against the House of Lords being permitted thus to hang up Ireland by the neck till the 9th of June. If the Lords were quietly allowed to shelve this essential measure till the 9th of June, they would in the same way postpone the Poor-law Bill till the 9th of July, and the Tithe Bill till the 9th of August.

did not conceive that he had asked any question of the Government; he had suggested a difficulty with respect to two measures, but he had not inquired which course they meant to pursue either with respect to the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Bill, or the Irish Tithe Bill. He, however, had heard with great satisfaction the declaration that they would not desert their post while sustained by the House of Commons.

rose to submit an amendment. There ought to be a separate set of Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland, who were acquainted with all the details of the existing system. What, information could the English Commissioners be supposed to possess? What did Mr. Nicholls know of the condition and wants of the Irish? He had been a sailing captain of an East Indiaman. Was that an education peculiarly fitting him for a Poor-law Commissioner? They could not have an opportunity of practice in both countries; the circumstances were not the same. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved as an amendment that three Poor-law Commissioners be appointed to carry this Act into execution in Ireland.

concurred entirely with he amendment.

was sorry to see his hon. Friends take the course they were taking with respect to the Commission. The question was whether they would accept the services of men who had had two or three years' experience in the working of the Poor-law system. Were their services to be accepted to perform what was acknowledged to be a difficult duty, or would they reject them and support those who had all this to gain? He did not think that his hon. and learned Friend had dealt with this matter with his usual consideration. He objected to Mr. Nicholls, because he was brought up at sea. Was that a way to judge of a man's abilities? "Why I," said Mr. Hume, "was brought up at sea." Experience assured him that the English system of Poor-laws had been well worked by the Commissioners. It was but justice to the Commissioners to state, that in the Committee which sat up stairs, not the least evidence was taken reflecting prejudicially either on the law or on the way in which the Commissioners had carried it into execution.

did not impugn the con- duct of the Commissioners with respect to anything that they had done in England. He believed, that they had here done wisely and well; but what he contended was, that the principles on which Poor. laws ought to be administered in Ireland, differed toto cœlo from the principle on which they might be administered in England.

said, that mendicancy could not be put down by the law, unless they made some provision for the really destitute. He thought there should be a board sitting in Dublin; and if the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny went to a division, he would vote with him.

thought the discussion had been carried further than the principle embodied in the clause called for; and as the system of Poor-laws in England differed so materially from that proposed for Ireland, it would have been better to have postponed a great deal of what had been said, till they came to the clause relative to workhouses. In allusion to what had been said by the hon. Member for Middlesex, relative to the Commissioners, he would state, that it was necessary to have for Commissioners, men of great experience; and that it would cause very great inconvenience to appoint three gentlemen totally unacquainted with Poor-laws, as they would be totally inadequate for the object in view. He thought it would be necessary, for some years, to have a board sitting in Dublin, composed of gentlemen possessed of local knowledge; but, at the same time, it was absolutely necessary to have a general board to carry out the system on general grounds, not applicable only to Ireland, but such as might be adopted in other countries to which a Poor-law might be necessary. He did not see anything so peculiar in the state of Ireland to prevent the application of those general principles to that country. With regard to the imputations made against Mr. Nicholls, he wished the House to understand, that that gentleman had been sent over to Ireland at the express request of the Government, and that he was not responsible for having set aside the report of the Commissioners. In fact, he was more responsible for that than Mr. Nicholls.

thought it was of great importance, that there should be a local board subordinate to the general board. The people of Ireland were in the habit of consulting the authorities in that country, and it would be desirable that there should be Commissioners in Dublin to whom they could apply for information and advice.