having been heard against the East India Maritime Officers Bill. The question was put that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to go into Committee.

thought the House should resolve itself into Committee. A Clause had been purposely introduced into the East India Bill to meet the claims made upon the East India Company.

said, that the arguments of counsel had convinced him that it would be a gross act of injustice to interfere with the East India Company, in the manner proposed by the Bill of the hon. Member. The East India Company had considered those claims fully, and had determined that compensation could not be given consistently with the rules laid down for carrying into execution the act of Parliament. The company had the power of giving compensation in such cases as they conceived it was merited, subject to certain limitations, but he did not think they should be compelled to do so in every instance, as proposed by the present Bill.

observed that the company had refused to take cognizance of cases of which there was primá facie evidence. Counsel had stated, that notwithstanding the existence of the rules laid down by the company, the company had the power of examining into cases of alleged injustice. Now, officers of the company had stated to the East India Company, that although they had not served within the time specified as necessary, five years, yet that they could show they had had a certainty of future employment, and on that ground claimed compensation for the discontinuance of the East India trade. The company, however, had refused to recognize such claims unless the parties signed a consideration tending to prove that they were beggars—circumstances which had been entirely omitted by counsel. He did think that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had distinctly disagreed with the Report of the Committee, which had stated that that House was bound to consider those claims, he Would stand in a much better position. All that was demanded on the part of the officers of the East India Company was, that their claims should be considered, without those galling and unfair restrictions.

said, that it was impossible he could be influenced by any feeling beyond that Of public duty in opposing the present Bill. He looked at the question in exactly the same light as the learned counsel, who had told them that the House of Commons should not interfere with property with which they had no business whatever. The House of Commons had given to the East India Company a right to exercise their own discretion and control as to what officers they would compensate, and the Court of Directors and Board of Control had agreed upon certain limits beyond Which no compensation could be granted. The Act of Parliament had given to the East-India Company the right and power to make these rules, and having been made, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) came forward and said, that the limit made by the company was unwise and unfair, and in order to make the East-India Company relax their rules, called for the interference of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman's proposition succeeded, he had no hesitation in saying, that the money to meet those claims which the hon. Member advocated should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The company had already suffered sufficient by having been deprived of their trade; and surely that House ought not, under pretence of doing justice to one party, to inflict injustice upon another. Conceiving therefore, that the present Bill was not only one of the most strange, but also one of the most unjust and iniquitous, that had ever been presented to Parliament, he would give it his most strenuous opposition throughout all its stages.

opposed the Bill, as it would open the door to fraud and abuse, and as one instalment towards the repeal of the Corn-laws. He felt it his duty to move, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

was desirous that the experiment which the Bill proposed should be fairly tried; the experiment was due to the commercial and the shipping interests of the country, and it would ill become the House to refuse it. He should give his vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill, and when the Bill got into Committee he should propose some regulations to prevent the possibility of any fraud or abuse being perpetrated.

said, that he could not concur in the proposed experiment, which he felt satisfied would operate injuriously to the landed interest. The manufacture of corn in bond would lead to frauds, the King's locks were not secure, and no guarantee was given as to the future destination of the corn when manufactured. He concurred in thinking the measure as the first instalment towards a repeal of the Corn Laws, and he should therefore give his cordial dissent to the second reading of the Bill.

said, that this was an experiment which the right hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Trade would not venture to try with any branch of manufactures, and he ought to pause before he gave his sanction to such an interference with the landed interests. Was it to be supposed that mills under look would be confined to the grinding of foreign corn alone? The experiment, if honest, was most ludicrous; if dishonest, the right hon. Gentlemen ought at once to say, "We are for doing away with the Corn Laws." He was sure if it were known that such a Bill had been submitted to Parliament, the table would have been crowded with the petitions of the agriculturists against it, and he should certainly vote for the rejection of the Bill.

denied that the measure would in any degree interfere with the home consumption of home-grown corn. It had been asserted that ships making a long voyage were victualled with biscuits made from home-grown corn—the fact was not so, because ships were in the habit of proceeding to Hamburg and other places, and provided themselves there; and even for shorter voyages to the Baltic the same thing occurred.

in justice to those who had sent him to that House felt bound to oppose the second reading of this Bill.

supported the Bill, and denied that any fraud could be committed under its operation, provided the same regulations were provided in this Bill as had been made with regard to the refining of sugars in bond. He put it to hon. Gentlemen who were anxious that the principle of protection should be maintained, whether it were wise to push that principle in cases where there was no occasion for it. He thought they should come into collision with as few interests as possible, and limit their legislation to cases of necessity only.

said, as no Irish Member had yet spoken on the subject, and as he was more closely connected with the commercial than the agricultural interest, which in Ireland was the preponderating interest, he might be allowed to say a word or two. The agricultural interest in Ireland, so far from being opposed to this Bill, was in favour of it. He saw no force in the objections which had been urged from the other side. Some hon. Members had used the objection ad hominem. Their opposition to the Bill was grounded on the simple fact, that it was supported by the hon. Member for Bridport and others who were opposed to the Corn-laws, and that, therefore, it could not be a good measure. The other objection was, that if the Bill were passed, it would be the destruction of the Corn-laws. It was true that the hon. Member for Kilkenny opposed the Bill when it was first introduced upon that ground; but the hon. Member for Worcester had clearly shown, that there was no reason for any such apprehension. He should support the second reading, leaving it to the Committee to alter anything that might appear to be objectionable.

did not sympathise with those who anticipated great dangers from this Bill. He believed it would confer great benefits on the commercial interests of the country. The present law was by no means advantageous to the agricultural interest, and it was openly evaded by the shipowners. He wished to see the interests of both classes protected, and therefore should support the Bill.

said, this scheme had been tried before, and had been found wanting. Returns had been honestly furnished to the House of the quantity of foreign corn bonded, manufactured, and exported, and it was found by those returns, that considerable quantities escaped from the custody of the King's lock, notwithstanding its boasted security. The system proposed to be established by the Bill would never be worth the attention of the millers unless they could keep their mills in full and constant employment. Believing that the measure would affect the stability of the Corn-laws, which ought to be strictly maintained, he should oppose it.

protested against the cruel provisions which the Bill contained, one of the penalties for an Act of bribery was, that the individual proved to have been guilty of it should for ever after be deemed unfit to hold any civil office. That punishment far exceeded the amount of guilt. He believed that bribery would continue to exist as long as Parliaments existed in England, and the constituencies remained in their present state. That splendid measure—the Reform Bill—had opened wide the door to bribery. He thought so, because it had introduced to the enjoyment of the franchise a great number of persons whose circumstances laid them open to temptation. The Bill was very unjust, and he should therefore move, that it be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the amendment. He wished to know why the proposer of this Bill had not brought in one which should tell directly against the practice of the hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Treasury benches, for they were guilty of the most bare-faced bribery. He repeated the words "barefaced bribery;" and he was not aware that he was out of order in using them, or guilty of any disrespect to those hon. Gentlemen. They must have faces of brass if they could deny what he said. There was an old saying—"A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse." That might suffice, but he would ask, whether it was not customary for the hon. Gentlemen opposite, during the elections, to send down to Woolwich and other dockyards, and to adopt a system which might be described in the homely, though appropriate, language—"Scratch me, and I'll scratch you." He should wish to hear bribery properly defined. He was in the habit of giving coals to the poor amongst his constituency, and never passed the sick chamber of a man who had voted for him without leaving some relief, and he thought it would be a hardship if this subjected him to the imputation of bribery.

, far from agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Durham, only objected to the Bill, not because it went too far, but because it did not go far enough. There was no provision in it against the payment of head-money, which in his opinion was a gross offence against the law and constitution.

was regardless of the insinuation thrown out against him by the hon. Member for Leeds, for he considered there was as much difference between bribery and head-money as between it and the Greek loan. Head-money was paid by each candidate immediately after the election; it was an old custom to pay two guineas to every voter, and if the hon. Member for Leeds would refer to the hon. Member for Pontefract, he would discover that the practice still existed. It did not at all affect the election, as the money would be paid if there was no opposition; then every elector would receive two guineas from the Member, whereas in a contest each candidate would only pay his immediate supporters.

wished the same provision to be extended to all courts which have now power to direct issues to be tried before the sheriffs, to the amount of 20l., and moved an instruction to the Committee to that effect.

objected. He was fully prepared to carry out his own proposition, which he was not aware that the hon. and learned Member was, with respect to the extension of the power to the courts he referred to.

considered the Bill to be of a most arbitrary nature, as it empowered any person who chose to call the premises his to turn the occupant of a tenement out of possession four days after the term of his tenancy was declared by him to have expired. The effect of such a state of things would in some boroughs be most disastrous. The Bill cast aside trial by jury, and gave a magistrate the power of deciding on trials of ejectment. He was convinced the Bill must be a bad one, as it was so very palatable to a large majority of that House. He should therefore move, as an amendment, that the House do go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.

seconded the amendment. He wished to know if the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth was acquainted with the state of the new trial paper. If he was, he must know, the most difficult questions arose upon the sufficiency of notices to quit, and yet the hon. and learned Member would give a single magistrate the power of deciding these questions and questions of title, without appeal. This was a bill against the poor man, and in favour of the landlord. As the law at present stood if the landlord's notice to quit was sufficient, he might enter upon the premises, subjecting himself, however, to an action of trespass if he were proved to be in the wrong. The only consequence of this Bill would be, that the landlord would be protected in his misconduct, while the poor man would be oppressed.

denied, that this bill was intended for the oppression of the poor. He believed there were many Members in that House quite as zealous for the rights of the poor as the hon. and learned Member for Chester. The country was decidedly in favour of the Bill, and had taken a great interest in its success. A public meeting had been held at Salford, and resolutions in support of it were carried unanimously. He really doubted whether the hon. and learned Member for Chester had read the Bill, for there was no foundation for the objections which he had raised with reference to the decision of the magistrate on questions of title. The Bill only allowed the magistrate to act ministerially, and gave him no power to decide on judicial questions.

stated that the Lords had set down certain amendments to the Dublin Police Bill, which, as they related to taxing the subject, that House could not entertain. He would, therefore, move that the Lords' amendments to the Dublin Police Bill be read that day six months.—Motion agreed to.