brought up the report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of Public Charities.

hoped, that after 200,000l. had been expended in this inquiry, the Government would now proceed to introduce a Bill for the purpose of carrying the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect. He desired to know from the noble Lord if they entertained such an intention?

replied, that after the attention bestowed upon the subject by Lord Brougham, it was intended to leave the matter in his hands. Her Majesty's Government certainly wished to see the recommendations of the Commissioners accomplished.

said, that he observed we were to have a new tribunal to decide on election petitions, that recently a new tribunal had been established to take cognizance of affairs in bankruptcy, and that now a third was to be created, having jurisdiction over charities. He decidedly objected to the ancient courts of the country being cut up into so many subdivisions. It was his opinion, that the want of general practice would in a great degree disqualify judges from that discharge of their duties which was now so beneficial to the public.

hoped, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give a patient and attentive consideration to the recommendations of the Commissioners before he decided against them.

replied, that he had given the subject a great deal of attention, and the reason of his making this remark, with which he had ventured to trouble the House, was to account for his name not having been signed to the report.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve the Ecclesiastical Commission of England and Wales from the duty of laying before her Majesty in Council a scheme for uniting the sees of Carlisle and Sodor and Man. The see of Man being an island in itself, the greatest inconvenience would arise from adding to that see any portion of the main land. From time immemorial the Bishop of Sodor and Man had been of the greatest use to that island. Bishop Wilson was the first person who had translated the Bible into the Manx language, and he had also collected the ecclesiastical constitutions until he had so perfected them that, if the ancient discipline of the Church were lost to the rest of the world, it might be found in all its purity in the Isle of Man. The same rev. Bishop had also founded parochial schools and parochial libraries, and had likewise founded that system of education which it had been the object of the House to extend to all parts of the empire. It was of great importance to have a resident Bishop in the island, and the present Bishop had trodden in the steps of Bishop Wilson, having succeeded in building and repairing no less than twelve places of public worship, and having founded a college, containing two hundred students, not for the purpose of adding to the emoluments of the Church, but for the purpose of extending a liberal education to the subjects of her Majesty generally. Dissenters of every persuasion were admitted, there was no sort of religious bigotry, and for the trifling sum of 8/. a perfect school education might be obtained, under professors from Cambridge. No test was required to be signed upon admission; and, in fact, the benefit of the see was felt in the amelioration of the condition of the inhabitants of the island. Some individuals might think that the ecclesiastical establishments might as well be superintended by the Archdeacon and resident clergy, but no Archdeacons could ever have collected such sums as the Bishop had been able to collect for the purposes he had stated. Under these circumstances, he hoped that all parties would concur in the measure he was about to propose. It was proposed in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Report to unite the island with the bishopric of Carlisle. This, he undertook to say, was a most inconvenient arrangement. The Bishop of Carlisle had to spend half the year at least in London, attending his Parliamentary duties; a great portion of the rest of the year in Carlisle; and if he could spare any it must be a very small portion in the Isle of Man. It was, indeed, far better to have a Bishop resident among them in the island, acting as the patron of all their interests. He was anxious to enlist the attention of hon. Members on both sides. He appealed to those hon. Members who thought that no Bishops should be in the Upper House, as their time could be better spent at home in the discharge of their episcopal duties. Those hon. Members would not approve of the proposed change, which would deprive those who had now the benefit of a Bishop's residence of the advantage they enjoyed in this respect. He would ask, if a Bishop occupied with his spiritual and other duties elsewhere, could attend to those committed to his care in the Isle of Man? He therefore appealed for support to those hon. Members, who thought that no Bishops ought to be returned in the other House; but he appealed more strongly to hon. Members opposite, who considered themselves peculiarly the friends of the Church. He called on them to retain one Bishop more on the ecclesiastical establishment of the country. No Bishop had been more practically beneficial to those over whom he had charge than the Bishop of Sodor and Man was at all times. The present Bishop exercised the functions belonging to his charge with the most animated feeling of beneficence for those over whose spiritual interests he presided. Although affected by age and infirmity, he still took a deep and lively interest in the welfare, spiritual and temporal, of all those with whom he had been so long connected. The hon. Member concluded with submitting the motion to the House, amidst cheers.

would have supported a proposition for transferring the income of the bishopric, after existing interests were satisfied, to the Archdeacon and clergy of the Isle of Man, but he could not agree to the present motion, which he thought quite unreasonable.

would decidedly urge the Bill on the House, though upon very different grounds from those advanced by the hon. Baronet. The ground on which he proceeded he believed to be a far higher one than that of the hon. Baronet. The question at issue was not whether a new bishopric should be created; if it were, he (Sir R. Inglis) would be very ready to support such a measure, as he thought there was a necessity for more bishoprics, in order to meet the increasing wants of the community; but whether they should wantonly destroy the oldest bishopric in her Majesty's dominions, one which had furnished many saints (in the strongest sense of the word), and one in respect of which a prime minister of France had, a century since, given orders to the privateers of his country to spare the island which it comprised. This, too, they were about to do, in defiance of all the wishes of the people, as expressed in their petitions against the plan. As the motion had been made and leave given to bring in the Bill, he could not but hope, either that the noble Lord would withdraw his opposition, or that, the House would overrule it.

supported the motion. He had always expressed his opposition to the bishops having seals in the House of Lords, because he considered it injurious to the country. The bishop who was not in the House, but who devoted his time to the spiritual wants of his country, ought to be held up as an example worthy of imitation.

said, he should give his best support to the motion of the hon. Baronet opposite.

said, a commission had been appointed to inquire into ecclesiastical revenues and duties, with the view to suggest such changes as might be useful. They had encountered considerable opposition from those who thought that no change should be made. They, however, acting according to the best of their conviction, had suggested certain reforms, and recommended their adoption; and the hon. Gentleman opposite, two years after a Bill had passed, carrying into effect the reforms suggested by them, now came forward to propose their abolition. If the House of Commons took that course in one instance, it would very soon be called upon to take it in others.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish grand juries in England. He was aware that the subject, though one of great and general importance, was not a very entertaining one. At times, however, it became necessary to inquire whether certain institutions had not outlived their usefulness, and did not any longer answer the end for which they were instituted. At one time the grand jury system was justly considered as one of the great bulwarks of English liberty; but now grand juries were no more than an appeal from the committing magistrate. According to Lord Somers, who was a high authority upon the point, grand juries were instituted to search out crime—to find out offences—and not, as now, merely to put cases in a train for trial. In his opinion, the grand jury system was, in many cases, an obstruction to justice. In Scotland there were no grand juries, but there was a public prosecutor; and when a judgment was given against any one it was submitted to the Lord Advocate or the Sheriff. He was not about to propose the adoption of any such principle in this country, although it would be competent for him to do so if he thought it would do good. The hon. Member proceeded to quote a variety of evidence as to the inefficiency of grand juries. Mr. Harvey Coombe, the magistrate of the Lambeth-street police-office, had stated before a Committee of the House of Commons that the grand juries, as at present constituted, were an impediment rather than an advancement to justice. The Recorder of Worcester had said before the same Committee, "After a man has been imprisoned for several weeks, it ought not to be left to a secret tribunal to determine whether there was a sufficient case against him." He wanted no intervening tribunal. He conceived that in the present state of the magistracy in England and Wales, formed as it was by enlightened and intelligent gentlemen, such a tribunal was not necessary. If it was contended that it would be a saving of time, he did not admit the force of such an argument; if there was a gain of time in one respect there would be a still greater loss in another. The time of the judge would, no doubt, be saved, but then they would occupy the time of from three to five thousand gentlemen during the year, and in this point of view more of the time of the country would be consumed. But he would never admit that time was a consideration in such cases. They ought alone to consider how justice could be most speedily and impartially administered. He would not occupy the time of the House further than to express a hope that, if his motion had no other effect, it would call attention to the subject, and that there would be further opportunities of discussing it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish grand juries in England and Wales.

rose for the purpose of opposing the motion. He thought that there was a general impression in the House the other night that the House would not in future give leave to bring in a Bill unless there was a reasonable prospect that it could be carried into a law during the Session. His hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cambridge, had asked for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish grand juries in England and Wales, Why, if grand juries were so faulty an institution, he had not proposed to extend his Bill to grand juries in Ireland, saving always their fiscal jurisdiction in that country, he had not thought proper to explain. He did not wish it to be supposed, because he opposed this motion, that he considered the institution of grand juries one of the best possible institutions for criminal jurisprudence; on the contrary, he thought that an officer like the public prosecutor in Scotland, who was appointed by the Government, liable to the same responsibility for his actions to which all other Government officers were liable, would be a far better institution. He was convinced that you must either have grand juries or a public prosecutor; and if his hon. and learned Friend had proposed, upon abolishing grand juries, to appoint a public prosecutor, he might have respectfully entertained that proposition, although he warned the House that it would be a proposition which could not be carried into effect in this country without many difficulties. But his hon. and learned Friend had not proposed any substitute for the institution which he desired to abolish; and as there was no chance of carrying such a Bill as he had proposed through the House, he must, with all deference to his hon. and learned Friend, withhold his assent from the motion.

could not assent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, that the House had on a former evening laid down a rule, that if there was no prospect of carrying a Bill into law in the course of the Session, leave was not to be given to bring it in and discuss it. To such a rule he should never for one moment yield his assent. If such a rule had been established in by-gone times, they must have kicked out in their very first stages the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, the Registry Bill, the Catholic Emancipation Bill—ay, and as an hon. Friend near him suggested, the Reform Bill itself. He felt inclined to support the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cambridge, as a proposition wise and salutary in itself, and he did hope that his hon. and learned Friend would be permitted to introduce it with a view to have it submitted to discussion. If the institution of an office like that of the public prosecutor in Scotland was so advisable as the hon. and learned Attorney-General represented it to be, let him consent to the introduction of this Bill, and then, when it was in Committee let him propose a clause appointing such an officer. If his hon. and learned Friend divided the House on this motion, he should certainly have the benefit of his vote.

complained, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, had not represented correctly the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General. His hon. and learned Friend had stated the impression of the House to be this:—that if there was no reasonable prospect that the principle of a Bill could be carried into law, it was not advisable to give leave to introduce it. Now. he was not prepared to abolish grand juries altogether; and such being the case, he should oppose the motion of his hon. and learned Friend for leave to bring in his Bill.

meant to support the proposition for leave to bring in this Bill, but would not pledge himself to support it hereafter. He also complained of the manner in which his hon. and learned. Friend had endeavoured to stifle all discussion upon it.

said, that the question was, whether this Bill was a fit subject for the consideration of the House. He was of opinion that it was, and that it did not deserve to be classed with those frivolous and trifling Bills which had wasted so much of the time of the House in former Sessions. He should support the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cambridge.

said, that it was not possible to maintain the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, that the introduction of a Bill was to be resisted unless there was a reasonable chance of carrying it to a successful issue in that Session of Parliament. The mode of dealing with the introduction of new Bills must depend upon the nature and merits of each distinct Bill. There were many Bills which, although not perhaps at all likely to pass into a law, might, notwithstanding, be very fit subjects to be discussed, while others ought to be rejected without any discussion. With regard to the present measure, he must say that there were, in his opinion, very satisfactory grounds for refusing to entertain it. No practical reason had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman for striking out of our system of criminal jurisprudence this important branch, which gave, as he believed, perfect satisfaction to the people. If the House were to consent to abolish grand juries on the plausible philosophical reasons adduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, what was to prevent him from recommending it to abolish petty juries also, for the same specious but unsatisfactory reasons? He could tell them that it was very absurd to have a tribunal of twelve persons to try every species of offence. He could tell them that it was still more absurd to require unanimity in their verdict, and to lock them up in a room till they came, in spite of all differences, to that unanimity. These might appear to some to be good plausible philosophical arguments; and when he had carried his Bill for the abolition of petty juries, and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had carried his Bill for the abolition of grand juries, the only part of the community who would receive their legislation with satisfaction, would be that part of it which was in the habit of preying on the property of its neighbours. He thought the House had a right to require of the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose some substitute before they proceeded at all to discuss such a proposition as this. It was bad policy in a branch of the Legislature to condemn any portion of the jurisprudence of the country on which the lives and property of the community depended for protection, merely because a philosophic speech had been delivered to recommend such condemnation. It would be much wiser, he thought, to permit the present system to remain as it was than to deprecate that system, without any substitute being proposed in its stead. He would, therefore, refuse his assent to the introduction of the present Bill. A public prosecutor had been suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney-General), such as they had in Scotland; but would not the objection hold as strongly, if not more strongly, against one individual putting a man upon his trial, after hearing evidence in private, than against a grand jury? It was far from his wish to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed this Bill, that he ought to publish his philosophical arguments in favour of it in some magazine, but while he would offer no such advice, still, at the same time, if the hon. and learned Gentleman should act upon the advice already given to him in this respect, and would oblige him by telling him in what magazine the arguments appeared, he would promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would read them, and give them the most impartial consideration. At present, seeing, as he did, that no substitute was proposed for that which it was intended to abolish—seeing that grand jurors were a powerful check upon the committal of the King's subjects for trial in a public court by magistrates without sufficient grounds—and seeing that the country generally was satisfied with the present system, he believed that to abolish that system abruptly, without viewing and considering it in relation to all the other branches of the jurisprudence of the country, would be attended with bad results and much dissatisfaction. For all these reasons he was prepared to give a decided negative to the introduction of the present Bill to abolish grand juries.

said, that every man in England who had paid the slightest attention to the subject, knew that the grand jury was a species of Star Chamber, which served the purpose of screening the magistracy. The remark appeared to be felt, but he would repeat his belief that its only use was to screen delinquent magistrates. There were hundreds of commitments under the game-laws, which would throw disgrace on the magistracy, if the parties were brought to trial; but they were not tried, because the grand jury conveniently interposed between the com- mitment and the petty jury. If the House rejected the motion and disposed of the question without consideration, they would show the people of England that they were prepared to deny them justice on a most important branch of jurisprudence.

remarked, that commitments under the game-laws did not come before quarter-sessions at all. That court only took cognizance of aggravated offences, such as assaults. The hon. Member ought not to make a charge against the magistracy of England, without any sufficient foundation.

said, that some time since, in the north of England, a contest took place between a gamekeeper and a person supposed to be a poacher, in which the poacher was killed. A coroner's inquest was held on the body, and the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against the gamekeeper. The grand jury, when the matter came before them, ignored the bill. He thought this fact afforded sufficient grounds for the assertion he had made.

rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a subject which intimately concerned every individual Member, not only of the present, but of all future, Parliaments. The object which the motion with which he meant to conclude had in view was, if possible, to ascertain how far the expenses of controverted elections could be lessened. He wished it had been in his power to suggest any plan for regulating the expenses of counsel, as well as the fees of the House in such cases; but although he was not able to say how far their power extended in the former case, he had no doubt whatever, that the latter was a matter which was entirely within their control. The present scale of fees had existed since the year 1785, and certainly it was high time that some alteration on the subject should be made. He would not trouble the House by entering into a detail of the abuses of the system, but he might be pardoned for mentioning one or two instances, which would show how monstrous it was. By the Standing Order, or original rule, the sum of 2s. 6d. was charged for every witness who might be examined. He could refer to one case, in which the number of witnesses was only nineteen, while the charge was for 487, and this arose from the circumstance of every party, who during the investigation, might be called back to answer even a single question being treated as a distinct witness. As often, therefore, as a party giving evidence before a Committee was recalled for examination he was considered as a new witness, and this practice it was that had led to the multiplication he had stated of 19 into 487. In this case, instead of 2l. 10s. a sum of 60l. 17s. was actually paid. He would now show, that the same system prevailed with respect to papers given in evidence. For every paper produced during the inquiry, the charge was 2s., and it followed, according to the present practice, that if the same document were presented twenty times, there would be twenty 2s. fees to pay. By this means, the individual fees payable during the inquiry were swelled to a sum of from 100l. to 1,000l. Now, as every Member of that House might be subject to a proceeding of this kind, it was a duty which they owed to themselves to remedy the evil of which they complained, and to throw as few impediments as possible in the way of trying contested elections. He was anxious last Session to bring the subject forward, but was prevented by the sudden termination of the Session. The fees charged in public offices had undergone inquiry, and two years ago, at his suggestion, a commission was appointed by the Government, and what was the result? Why, that the fees payable in fourteen of the public offices connected with the Customs and Excise had been abolished, and only thirteen offices remained in which fees were once payable. He hoped soon to see all such fees done away with. He was not aware that there could be any objection to the inquiry which he now proposed, as he believed every Member of that House was anxious to ascertain how far the expenses of election petitions could be lessened. It should not be forgotten, that compensation had already been given to the officers of that House for the emoluments in the way of fees of which they had been deprived, and even if the abolition of the fees payable in the investigation of controverted election petitions were to burthen the expense of that House with a few hundreds a-year additional, it would be of little consequence in comparison with the good which such an alteration would effect. With this view he brought forward his present motion, and therefore, without further observation, he begged leave to move "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the fees on the trial of controverted elections."

hoped, that his hon. Friend would comprehend in his motion, not only the fees of that House, but all fees charged under the authority of the Speaker. In cases where petitions were reported to be "frivolous and vexatious" surely some control should be exercised over the charges for fees to counsel. He apprehended that the Speaker had power to allow them or not. [Cries of "No, no."] He believed he stated only what was the fact, as the Speaker had the appointment of the officer by whom such costs were taxed. They all knew how large a proportion of the costs of a controverted election the fees of counsel formed, and, therefore, he hoped that his hon. Friend would make this subject a part of his motion.

said, that although he had the appointment of the taxing officer, he had nothing whatever to do with the costs beyond granting the certificate under the Act of Parliament which enabled the parties to recover their costs. He acted merely in his ministerial capacity.

said, that he had no objection to have such an inquiry as would enable them to ascertain the whole of the expenses, but he doubted whether they could carry the investigation beyond what he proposed,

said, that the inquiry must be limited to the fees paid under the authority of the Act of Parliament. He had no authority whatever to do more in such case than to grant, when applied to for the purpose, the certificate to enable the party to recover his costs.

rose, pursuant to his notice, to move for a return of the names of persons in the employ of the Post-office against whom complaints had been made for voting at the late elections, and also of those who had been dismissed for that cause. The hon. Member said, that the grounds on which he moved for this return were, that at the late election for the borough of Lewes, which he had the honour to represent, a person in the employ of the Post-office there had voted for him, and had since then been dismissed from his situation. He had been given to understand, that a similar rule had not been applied in other cases where parties in the employment of the Post-office had voted for other candidates. In that he might have been misinformed, but at all events he could form no correct judgment on the subject until the returns for which he moved were laid before the House. If it should appear to be the general practice in all cases, he could not complain; but if it were not, it was a case of hardship to which he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House. This motion was in effect an act of kindness to the Government, as it would give them an opportunity of correcting, if it were erroneous, the very general impression that had gone abroad, that never had the influence of Government been more strongly used to effect the return, than at the last general elections. The returns for which he now moved would go far to rid the Government of the imputation, if it were unfounded.

seconded the motion, and said, he was equally as anxious as the hon. Member that the House should have the returns before them. If any dismissals had taken place from the Post-office for voting at elections, it was not the result of a regulation made at the moment. Notice had been given in 1835 under the late Government, in consequence of many persons in the Post-office having voted at the elections, that if in any future election any person so employed should have complaints made against them for having voted at all, no matter how, they would be severely dealt with, which was well understood to mean that they would be dismissed: and wherever any such complaints had been made, and the fact established, the parties were dismissed, without any distinction being made as to the party for whom they voted. He begged to deny the imputation cast by the last speaker, that the Government had used, most strongly used, its influence to affect the returns at the last elections. He was aware that charges of that kind were made in some of the newspapers, but of those he was not disposed to take any notice, but he was disposed to notice charges of a more tangible nature; one of these had been made in a letter from a gentleman con-netted with his (Mr. F. Baring's) own county, in which he had charged the Government with gross oppression, and canting and clamorous hypocrisy, with reference to the late elections. Now, he did think that a gentleman who felt himself warranted in making that charge ought in justice to himself and to the public, and to those charged, to bring it publicly forward and substantiate it by proofs, if he had any, and he would most readily give him the fullest opportunity of so doing.

said, that he did not know the individual to whom the hon. Member alluded, but this he could state, that the complaints of the conduct of Government with respect to some of those who had voted against them at the last election were not confined to one individual, or to one county. He would beg to call the attention of the House to a case which had already made its appearance in some of the public papers. The facts were stated on the authority of the Rev. Mr. Charles Gilbee, a gentleman entitled to the highest credit. The hon. Baronet detailed the facts as they appeared in the following extract of a letter, addressed—

was afraid he did not perfectly understand the charge of the hon. Member. The points of his statement, as far as he could collect them, seemed to be, that on the recommendation of a clergyman, a penny post-office was established at Kilsby, and that a man named Wood was appointed as keeper of that office, without any consultation of the proper authorities. In a few months, on the recommendation of the Treasury, Wood was removed, and another person appointed in his place. This appeared to be the whole charge, and he could only say, that as long as certain appointments continue vested in the Government, a repetition of similar occurrences was likely to take place.