brought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the papers relative to the appointment of Mr. D. W. Harvey, the Member for Southwark, to the office of Registrar of Hackney Carriages, and directed to report whether Mr. Harvey having accepted the said office has vacated his seat.

said, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, which he would observe was unanimously agreed to, and in which they were assisted by the law officers of the Crown, unless any hon. Gentleman wished for time in order to induce the House to come to a different conclusion, he thought it due to the electors of the borough of Southwark not to keep them without a representative, and he therefore moved that a new writ be issued for Southwark, in the room of Daniel Whittle Harvey, esquire, who, since his election, has accepted the office of Registrar of Metropolitan public carriages.

had no hesitation in expressing his concurrence in the opinion of the Committee, and the question appeared to him as plain a one as could possibly be submitted. He rose only to state, that there had been many instances of Members of that House receiving the public money, and being appointed to public offices, without vacating their seats, and without any notice being taken of it, and it would appear that the objection in the present case was directed against Mr. Harvey. He hoped that the rule which had now been enforced would in future be rigidly observed, and that there would be no ground henceforth given for any imputation as to the partiality of the House, for there was nothing so important as that strict impartiality should be observed in their proceedings, and no person ought to be injured by that House on account of his political opinions. There was no doubt this was a very hard case as to Mr. Harvey, and he only hoped, for the credit of the House, that the same rigid rule would be followed in all other similar cases.

as one of the Committee, felt bound to say the case was so clear, and the facts so settled, that there was not the slightest shadow of a shade of doubt upon the subject, and the Committee deemed, that they were only discharging a public duty in putting an end to the uncertainty with regard to the borough of Southwark, by the report which they had presented.

would not have said a word, but for the assertion of the hon. Member who had just sat down, that there was not the shadow of a shade of doubt among the Committee which was not strictly correct, for he (Mr. Aglionby) had suggested a doubt; which doubt he still felt, although he had on the Committee submitted to a superior legal authority, whether there was not a distinction between the acceptance of an office, to which a salary was at the time of its acceptance attached, and the acceptance of an office to which there was only a contingent and uncertain salary. In this latter case, as the Court of Queen's Bench would not grant a mandamus, neither did the rule of vacating the seat in that House apply.

trusted, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny would allow him to suggest that if he was aware of any other instances that fell within the same principle, that he would have the goodness to mention them, and move for new writs. If the hon. Member made such a motion, he should be disposed to second it for the sake of impartiality.

had no hesitation, in explanation of what he had said, to state to the right hon. Baronet that the first question he had put to some of the Members of the Committee was, whether they had inquired into the precedents of that House. He had asked whether they had inquired into the case of the hon. Member for. Marylebone, who had been sent abroad. Whether they had inquired into the case of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who had been allowed a sum of money for a special commission, and also, whether they had inquired into that of the hon. Member for Dundee. This was the first blot that had been discovered. He (Mr. Hume) did not disapprove of that discovery, but he would take care, that in all future appointments, inquiries should be made, and also into those that were now existing.

said, with respect to the case of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, to which the hon. Member for Kilkenny had alluded, he (Mr. Goulburn) had called the attention of the House to the subject himself, and no person was more vigorous in casting imputations upon him for doing so than the hon. Member for Kilkenny.

denied the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. That right hon. Gentleman had made some imputation which he considered improper with reference to the estimates on that subject, and what be had stated was, to deprecate the course the right hon. Gentleman pursued.

on behalf of the Committee, wished to state, that they were appointed to consider whether Mr. Harvey had vacated his seat, or not, and it was no part of their duty to inquire into the circumstances of the cases of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, or the hon. Member for Dundee. If the hon. Member for Kilkenny was aware of any other case, it would be his duty to bring it under the consideration of the House. He could not but observe, that the present law upon the subject was deficient, inasmuch as there was no provision calling upon parties to inform that House of the appointment of Members to official situations. There were other cases, but they were passed over sub silentio; if, however, these were brought before the House from any quarter, the House would then inquire into them.

rose, to give an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomery, to contradict a rumour which was very prevalent in Wales, that since the last election he had received a place of profit under the Government, the lordship of Denbigh, for which he received something for doing certain duties. Now it was within his own knowledge, that the patent was made out since the last election. It was true it was dated before, but it was dated on an era- sure, and be was informed it was not in fact made out till the month of Mardi, 1838, while the election took place in August, 1837. He was told, that the right hon. Gentleman had applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the election, but he apprehended, that the appointment not having taken place until after the election, the date of application made no difference. The date of the warrant being upon an erasure, and having been dated subsequent to the election, the circumstances called for explanation. The right hon. Gentleman was originally appointed to the office in the year 1796—it was an office held during the pleasure of the Crown, and of course was vacated by the demise of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had held the office during the reigns of George 3d and William 4th, he believed without any renewal of the patent. The election took place, and the right hon. Gentleman applied for the receipt of his salary. It was then inquired of him, whether he had any patent, which, being produced, was found to be dated upon an erasure. He had made inquiries at the office, and he was informed by the officer there, that though the appointment was made on the 5th March, 1837, it bore the date of the 18th July, He thought he had stated sufficient grounds to entitle him to call upon his right hon. Friend, if he would allow him to call him so, for an explanation. He could assure him, that it had excited a feeling in the minds of many Welchmen, that he had vacated his seat by the acceptance of the office in question.

thought, he had a good right to complain of the unfairness of bringing a question of that nature before the House without first favouring him with some notice, or without, so far as the hon. Gentleman was concerned, the slightest intimation of his intention. As it happened, however, he had had notice of this case, because his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had informed him, that the hon. Member had been making inquiries into the subject. He would meet the case by stating the real circumstances attending his appointment. It was true, that he received the appointment originally in the reign of George 3d, in the year 1796—it was perfectly true, that he had held the appointment throughout the reign of George 4th, without any new patent, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament which rendered such appointments legal unless there was an actual tender of them. Upon the death of William 4th, and prior to the election, he was still holding the office, which he might legally do for six months. Before the expiration of that time he wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to know whether it were intended to continue the appointment, and in reply, before the election, he received from the right hon. Gentleman a letter, stating, that the appointment would be continued, and that the patent would be prepared forthwith. Though he had received the patent after the election, still he apprehended that it would not vacate his seat, because, before he was re-elected, he had in fact in that letter received his re-appointment to that office. Under these circumstances he considered, that the hon. Gentleman had, what was vulgarly called, found a mare's nest.

said, that he felt it to be his duty to say a few words on the subject; he might, perhaps, not express himself so clearly on the subject as if he had been present the other night—but he believed there could be no doubt of the fact, that before the election, the hon. Gentleman had applied on the subject of the appointment, when he was informed, that the re-appointment would take place as a matter of course, and the only reason for the delay which had occurred, was, that a doubt had arisen as to whether the appointment was to take place under the Woods and Forests, or under the authority of the Treasury. With regard to Gentlemen accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, which was constantly occurring, Gentlemen were in the habit of applying for the appointment of steward to the Chiltern Hundreds, and between the making out the appointment and the acceptance of the office, a delay of two or three days frequently took place, In fact however, it was the acceptance of the office, and not the making out of the appointment, that brought the law into operation. If any had occurred, he was responsible for it, and it arose out of an uncertainty as to what department it should be referred to.

certainly would not have mentioned the case at all if the right hon. Gentleman had not wished to know if there were any case at all analogous to that of the hon. Member for Southwark. Whether he might be right or wrong he really had no intention of doing anything injurious to the right hon. Gentleman. He contended, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no authority to give away the office; he merely recommended the appointment to the Crown, by whom the office was granted, and he subsequently signified his approval in the usual manner. Although the appointment was made on 5th of March, the office was not legally given away until the patent was actually made out, for all such appointments were made by record, and till the warrants were signed, the appointments were legally in existence. It seemed to him, therefore, that if they were to act with strict impartiality and were to subject the hon. Member to penalties for every vote he had given, that further inquiry was necessary, and other persons should be treated in the same manner.

rose, pursuant to notice to call the attention of the House to the taxes on internal communication, with a view to their equalization and reduction. It was at all times an irksome task to him to intrude himself on their notice, but it was his duty on this occasion to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. A Committee of that House had come to resolutions on the subject, and on those resolutions he should base the motion which he was now about to lay before the House. He proposed to consider the taxation to which the public conveyances by the old mode of communication n this country were peculiarly subjected under the following heads:—lst, the assessed taxes on coachmen and other servants connected with public conveyances; secondly, the duty on the hire of carriages; thirdly, mileage duty on stage coaches; fourthly, the licence duty; and fifthly, the duty on draught horses. He should then call the attention of the House to those modes of conveyance which had recently been established by the introduction of a new motive power, and which were almost wholly exempt from taxation. He alluded to the power of steam, which either by means of railroads or of vessels, conveyed persons from place to place in great numbers; and yet those modes of communication were only taxed at about one- eighth of a penny a mile, while stage-coach communications were taxed at the rate of three halfpence per mile. The consequence of this most partial system of taxation was to give a great pecuniary advantage to railways, and to impose on stage-coach communications, a pecuniary burden which if not soon removed, would bring ruin upon all the postmasters and innkeepers in those parts of the country through which lines of railway had been opened; but its effects were not confined to them, they extended to persons employed by, and dependent on, them, and in the end the revenue of the country would feel it. All the taxes and duties, he had mentioned, bore upon that mode of conveyance in which animal power was employed, while railway travelling was entirely free from them. To show how unequal these taxes were, he would mention one fact: in the year 1836 no fewer than 1,200,000 passengers travelled on the London and Greenwich railway, yet the duty which was paid by that railway company amounted to no more than 400 l,, while the stage-coach proprietors had paid 6,250l. The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from letters and papers furnished by coach proprietors, post-masters, innkeepers, and others, to show that since the establishment of railways they had suffered a considerable diminution in their business,, and as a consequence the amount of duty on post-horses and carriages paid by them had diminished in proportion—in some cases as much as two-thirds of the sums they had been accustomed to pay formerly. Numerous petitions had been presented to both Houses of Parliament complaining of this state of things, and praying for the adoption of some measures by which the petitioners would be placed on equal ground with railways in respect to taxation, and that thus a chance of fair competition might be afforded them. By the evidence which had been given before the Committee, which had sat to inquire into matters relating to this subject, it appeared that unless some alteration was made, an entire stop would be put to stage coach travelling. Already as many as forty-two coaches, making up and down eighty-four, had been taken off the public roads, and that in a very short time. If the post-horse duty were taken off on the one hand, and the taxes on carriages equalized with those on steam travelling, he was certain that all the cross- roads would be traversed, and men of enterprize would enter into plans for taking up the Government communications and the mail bags at the different termini, and thus great public advantages would be secured. On the other hand, if nothing were done, a great departmect of national industry would be destroyed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find a serious diminution in the revenue. It was true, that in the mean time modes of conveyance were established by means of steam. But he would ask whether it would be proper to suffer the means of travelling and communication by animal power to decay? When the whole country became planted and intersected by railways, the public would be completely at the mercy of the shareholders, because if the present system of taxation remained, it would be impossible for other parties to compete with railroad proprietors. He was of opinion, that the Legislature were not required to treat in any respect very tenderly those Gentlemen. It would be recollected, that when a bill was brought in last Session to compel railways to convey Government communications, leaving the amount of remuneration to be settled by appointed assessors, a great outcry was raised against the injustice of such a proceeding. They wished to have everything settled in their favour. Yet those gentlemen, though they came cap in hand to the House, and very humbly asked leave to carry their plans into execution, alleging, that they were intended to promote public convenience, no sooner succeeded in getting their bills than they proved to be, as he had always found, the most stringent of all monopolists. He much regretted, that a noble Duke in another place had not followed up the very able and just remarks he had made upon the regulations under which railways ought to be placed. He should like to see the Legislature adopt some practical measure on the subject. He contended, that the monopolizing character of the railway companies ought not to be fostered at the expense of the public convenience, and to the injury of persons who had embarked large capitals in other modes of conveyance, and who were subject to heavy duties and restrictive laws by the Legislature. Yet he was sorry to say, that such was the case. So far had the system of favouritism gone that the advertisements announcing the arrival and departure of trains, in the Liverpool Mercury (according to a complaint made by that paper) were exempted from the payment of duty. He should like to see all such imposts abolished; but, while they remained, they should not be exacted from one party, and another party, who had no better claim to such favour, be exempted from them. Great as were the advantages of railways to persons travelling from point to point at great distances, still he contended, that to persons travelling short distances and by cross-roads they were unproductive of benefit; and to do justice to this latter class, the Legislature and the Government must enable them to travel at something like the same rate of taxation as those who travel by railway. He regretted, that the return he had moved for, and which had been made, had not been printed and in the hands of hon. Members; but as he was aware of the contents, he should state some of them to the House—for instance, the amount of mileage paid on railways and on stage-coaches taken together. In the year 1837 the composition for mileage on both amounted to 514,039l., in 1838 to 489,086l., and for the year ending the 6th of January, 1839, to 494,130l.; thus showing a decrease in the amount for the first and last year of above 20,000l. If a comparison were made between the amount of the returns on stage-coaches alone, he believed, it would be found, that the composition had fallen from 583,742l. to which sum it amounted in the year 1835, to 534,496l., the amount returned for the year ending the 6th of January, 1839; thus showing a decrease of 49,246l.; and as the earning of the coach proprietors ought to amount to at least three times the amount of duty, there was a falling off shown in their earnings of 393,968l. Again, he was inclined to think, that the amount of post-horse duties had equally fallen off, and he was borne out in that opinion by the information he had received from an individual post-master in one town, by which it appeared he had paid for the months of October, November, and December last, less duty by 81l. 18s. 9d.½ than he had paid for the corresponding months of the preceding year. Indeed he was convinced, that unless there was a diminution in the rate of post-horse duties that source of revenue would be utterly swept away. He contended, that without a reduction of at least two-thirds of the existing duties, the masters would not be able to contend against their rivals by steam, and that thus the public would be deprived of a large and most beneficial source of convenience. He meant, therefore, to conclude by moving that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of taking into consideration the whole of those duties. When in Committee it was his intention (and he would now state it for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer), to propose the abolition of all assessed taxes on coachmen and other servants, to lower the annual licence on stage-carriages from 5l. to 7s. and 6d.; he should propose to charge the mileage duty on all coaches, whether travelling by common or railroad, at the rate of one eighth of a half-penny per mile he should also propose that the duty on passengers should be charged on railways in the same way as it was on other coaches; that was to say, not upon the number of persons actually conveyed, but on the number of seats provided in or about their coaches, and this duty he should propose to be fixed at the rate the railway proprietors now paid. He should propose to reduce the post-horse duties by two-thirds—namely, from three halfpence to a halfpenny, and he was convinced, that no smaller deduction would enable the postmasters to keep up that mode of travelling. Such were the duties he intended to take off, and he was aware he might be met by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that these reductions would effect a diminution of the revenue to the amount of upwards of 700,000l.; but he (Mr. Gillon) was confident, that so far from a diminution, the reduction of duties would tend to increase the annual revenues in these respects much above their present amount. These, then, were the duties with which he proposed to interfere; he then had had two new duties to impose. The first was, a small tax on gentlemen's carriages conveyed by railway. At present a gentleman travelling from Birmingham to London put his carriage on the railway, and, instead of paying a tax upon it, only paid a small tax on the conveyance of each person; whereas, if he travelled with a pair of post-horses from Birmingham to London, he would pay a tax of 1l. 8s. to Government; but now, if he with his car- riage, his wife and two servants, in all four individuals, went by railway, he would only pay 4s. 8d., making a difference of 1l. 3s. 4d. in the tax payable to the Government. Therefore it was, that he intended to propose a small tax on gentleman's carriages passing on railways. He had also a second tax to propose, in the shape of a small licence duty on steamboats. He meant on those proprietors of steam-boats who carried on board their vessels the trade of licensed victuallers—who dealt in ale, spirits, wine, and other commodities without a licence. Unless the licence duty was abolished on shore, it ought to be imposed on those who dealt in such commodities on board vessels conveying passengers, and therefore it was, he should propose a licence duty of 10l. per annum on any person carrying on the trade of a victualler on board steam-boats. On the whole, he contended, that the time had arrived when it was actually necessary, in justice to all parties, that some change in the existing unequal system should be made; he asked not abolition, but he required equalization. The object of taxation was not to press on any one class, but to operate equally upon all, and as he trusted he had shown that one party was unfairly dealt with by an unequal scale of taxation, the House, in whose hands he left the matter, would entertain the proposition he had now to make; that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration the whole acts relating to these matters.

said, that without pledging himself to the accuracy of the details submitted by the hon. Gentleman to the House, or to the propriety of all the changes he proposed to make, he rose to second the resolution of the hon. Gentleman; and he was the more anxious to do it, and to engage the attention of the House for a short time, because on a former occasion he had been requested by a very large body of postmasters and innkeepers to lay their case before the House and before her Majesty's Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion did, he believed, all that he could do—namely, he relieved the parties from certain vexatious interferences connected with the post horse duty; but the right hon. Gentleman did not afford that relief which the hon. Member for Falkirk sought. The difficulties with which the postmasters and innkeepers had now to contend with were increased fifty-fold since last Session. The circumstances of which they then complained were now brought to a state bordering on inevitable ruin. It was to be lamented, that so great a public benefit as that which railways were calculated to produce, should be accompanied with so much individual suffering. The postmasters were a body of men more highly taxed than any other portion of her Majesty's subjects. Beginning with the duty on carriages, then that on horses, and the assessed taxes on houses, (the window duties on the large establishments which they were obliged to keep up being very great), it was impossible to point out a class more heavily taxed; and at the same time their trade was daily falling off. The only alternative they had was either to close their houses altogether, or to keep them open as hitherto, under all these disadvantageous circumstances. It was owing to no mismanagement of their own, that their business had fallen off. It was impossible, that any one could have anticipated the gigantic strides which steam communication had made over all the world within the last few years. It was well known, that when, in 1817, application was made to the Admiralty to establish steam tugs to convey ships into harbour, the then Secretary of that establishment, Mr. John Wilson Croker, issued a sort of circular in which he declared, that it was a scheme altogether impracticable, and that though steam vessels might possibly succeed upon canals, they never could come into use on the sea. Scarcely twenty years had elapsed, however, and now they beheld ships of the greatest burden traversing the broad Atlantic in the space of thirteen days by means of the mighty power of steam, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin enabled by the same wonderful agency to come from that city to the British metropolis in less than four-and-twenty hours. But if the sympathies of the House were not excited towards that respectable body of persons for whom he was now feebly pleading, he would call their attention to an evil of the greatest and most vital magnitude to which they were themselves particularly exposed. First, however, he begged to say, that he was a friend to rail-roads; he admired the advance which science and art combined had made in accelerating the communica- tions of men living in the most distant parts of the world, and which had brought even India itself comparatively close to our own shores. He was grateful, therefore, to those who had embarked their money in bringing these great undertakings to such a high state of usefulness. Still he must warn the House against the dangers that might be involved in these very improvements. He would call upon the House and the Government not to let this Session pass by without taking care to protect the public against a monopoly which, in his humble opinion, was fraught with a weight of tyranny, vexation, and extortion, such as no government or legislature was justified in allowing to continue. The proprietors of railways had obtained a power which no other body of men had ever been allowed to exercise over the comforts and enjoyments of the people. He had observed this day a bill brought into the House by the Birmingham Railway Company, asking for power to raise more money. Now, before further power should be given, it would be the duty, he conceived, of that House to ask in what manner the money which had already been raised had been expended, and to ascertain whether it had or had not been expended with a view to create that monopoly of which he complained. He believed that proof could be given that much of that money had been expended otherwise than in purchases necessary for making the railway; and that a sum not less than 3,000l. had been given to one individual coach-proprietor, in order that the whole of his interest might be thrown into the hands of the Railway Company. To such an extent had this system been carried that there was not, he believed, at this moment, more than one coach running in competition with that line. What was the result? Why, in that part of the country with which he was acquainted, he knew many who had travelled by the railway either over a portion of the line, or through the whole of its extent, to the metropolis; but he had not seen any one of those individuals who had not complained either of some gross imposition, or of an outrage of some description. Not long since, the servant of a noble Friend of his and his own servant went to the station to take seats in a second-class carriage, they were told that there was no room in the second-class carriages and they were offered seats in the first class on pay- ing the second-class charge. The statement that there was no room was untrue. When the men arrived at the terminus in Euston-square they were required to pay the difference between the charge for the first and second class. They complained of this; but the answer they received was, "It is of no use to complain now! you must come to-morrow; we cannot attend to it now." The next day the men attended, and the answer they met with was—"Oh! it is no business of ours; you must go to the sessions." Thus it appeared that unless for the sake of a few shillings any person was willing to go to law with this great proprietary, there were no means by which he could obtain redress. If such were the uses to which this great body applied their powers even before their monopoly was complete, what, he asked, would be the extent to which the abuse of those would be carried, when the monopoly should become absolute, unless Parliament powerfully and promptly interposed. He was sorry to hear the President of the Board of Trade state last night that he had no intention to interfere in this matter. He hoped that if her Majesty's Government did not interfere, the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, whose intimate knowledge of the subject so well qualified him to undertake the task, would feel it his duty to make some proposition to the House respecting it. At all events, he begged to assure the House, that unless some other hon. Member brought the subject forward, the present Session should not pass without a motion being made by himself that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into it. With reference to the motion before the House, he believed that great injustice was perpetrated against those who had hitherto been faithful servants of the public, but who were now labouring against a power which they had no means of competing with, unless assisted by that House. He did not mean that even that assistance would make the difference to them between ruin and prosperity; still unless some redress were afforded them, inevitable ruin must befal them quickly; while if the Legislature should neglect to interpose, and check the evil of that growing monopoly which railway companies were assuming, he anticipated the day when railways, instead of being an advantage (as he still hoped to see them) would be a perpetual source of injustice and of tyranny to society.

by no means regretted, that the attention of the House had been called to this subject. It was undoubtedly a question which deserved the attention of Parliament; and it was his intention, in the course of the present year, to introduce a bill, with a view to correct many of the inconveniences to which his hon. Friend had adverted. There was an inequality in the rate of taxation at present existing, which it was not proper should continue. It was an unjust distinction, and an interference with the fair spirit of commercial competition which it behoved Government and Parliament to put an end to. At the same time, he could not accompany his hon. Friend in many of the statements he had made. His hon. Friend had proposed to take off certain duties; and he then said, that he should propose certain new duties which would supply the deficiency of revenue which the first part of his proposition would occasion. The different manner in which these two very distinct proposals were received might induce his hon. Friend to sympathise with him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) a little on the very difficult and delicate task of proposing a new tax. Whilst, however, he agreed, that the present unequal rates of duty imposed on postmasters and on railways gave an unjust advantage to the latter over the former, still his hon. Friend was entirely in error in supposing that some of the duties to which he had adverted were progressively diminishing. The years which his hon. Friend had selected for instituting his comparison were not altogether fairly taken. Out of a series of years, two years might be selected with sufficient adroitness for the purpose of establishing a comparison that should support almost any side of a proposition. His hon. Friend had taken the year 1837, when the duty on stage carriages amounted to 583,742l., and had compared it with the year 1839, when the duty amounted to 534,496l., and then said, that the difference showed the diminution which had taken place in the amount of duty. But out of the five years to which the return applied, his hon. Friend had selected the year ending the 5th of January, 1837, which was precisely the very highest of the whole five years. If his hon. Friend had selected any other year for making his comparison, the result would have been totally different. His hon. Friend had acted in the same manner as to the mileage duty. If he had compared the first year with the last—that was the year 1835, when it was 487,000l., with the year 1839, when it was 494,000l.—he would have found an increase instead of a diminution. Although the return exhibited a diminution of the duty paid by carriages, it showed an enormous increase in the proportion of duty paid by railroads. At the outset of the establishment of railways under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, compositions were entered into. These compositions had expired, or were expiring, and directions had been given by the Treasury to the Stamp-office that no new composition should be allowed to be made. The increase of duty on the railways was this:—in the year ending in January, 1885, the amount paid was 931,000l.; in the year ending the 5th of January, 1839, that sum had been increased to 970,000l., or actually by no less than 39,507l. There had also been an increase of the amount of the post-horse duty in 1839, beyond that of previous years (except the year 1837), contrary to all expectation. Undoubtedly, when it was considered that railway passengers only paid about the eighth of a penny duty, while coach passengers paid a farthing, and while postmasters paid an amount equal to three farthings, it must be admitted to be perfectly clear, that this system of taxation was not just. As soon, therefore, as the completion of the financial accounts of the year would permit, he should introduce a bill upon this subject. But let not the House be led astray by a notion, that under any possible circumstances, they could now have the same extent of stage-coach accommodation as had existed in former years, before railroads were constructed. The thing was quite impossible. The mere facility which the railways afforded to the public in going from place to place with increased speed would (all other considerations of cheapness and comfort apart) necessarily cause in particular lines a great diminution of coach travelling. He had heard, for the first time, from the hon. Gentleman behind him, that the directors of rail-roads were buying up existing interests in stage coaches; but these attempts would be wholly ineffectual if other parties could, on the same lines, set up coaches which would produce a profit. Such purchases if they had taken place were only an anticipation of a result which competition would not fail to produce: for if it were worth some 1,000l. to the company to put down coaches on a particular line of road, it must be worth while for another party to set them up again. The fact was, however, that the railroads had in some cases created as many carriages as had been put down—they might be called omnibuses instead of coaches, or flies instead of chaises—but there had been a large increase of travelling by carriages, occasioned by the railroads. It was only necessary for hon. Members to pass from the metropolis to Birmingham to see the increase of many kinds of carriage communication. He might also appeal to the experience of hon. Members connected with Ireland upon this point. Upon the first establishment of the Kingstown railroad, there was an important traffic carried on by means of carriages from Dublin to a village called Blackrock; it was thought by the persons interested, that the railway would ruin their trade; but he believed that the very opposite had been the result, and that there was now a larger traffic than before the establishment of the railroad. He had not mentioned this with the view of opposing an alteration of the post-horse duties, which he admitted required revision; but because, he feared that if he had not made such a statement, an unfair impression would have been made on the public mind by ex parte arguments. He was sorry that his hon. Friend behind hint had cast reflections on the conduct of individuals, or of the companies; he knew that there must always be some cases of abuse, especially in the infancy of these undertakings; but he believed; that on the whole, there was every disposition on the part of the railroad proprietors, as it was their direct interest, to provide for the accommodation of the public. Where he had apprehended a monopoly, was with respect to the communication by post; he had then asked the House to interpose; the House had interposed, and he would again ask the House to interfere whenever he saw the possibility of a monopoly which might interfere with the Post-office arrangements. He believed, however, that it was the interest of the proprietors of railroads in general to have the best organised establishments, and to give the greatest satisfaction to the public. He would not then go further into the question; but he thought, that the subject had better be left in the hands of the Government. He admitted the principle that there should be an alteration in the post-horse duties; as his Bill was not at present prepared, he could not hold out the hope that it would be altogether satisfactory to his hon. Friend; but if his hon. Friend were not satisfied, when the measure was before the House, he might propose to mend it. This would be a better course than by going into a Committee of the whole House, and then moving a resolution which hon. Members would not have had an opportunity of fully considering. He hoped the House would permit him to make a remark or two on the form in which these resolutions were brought forward. The object of giving notice was, to enable hon. Members on all sides to be prepared to discuss the subject. They had got into a habit of late years, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, had more than once indulged in the habit, of giving a notice which seemed rather as a blind than as a guide. It was most important, that they should know exactly, what it was they were to discuss; but to place a general notice on the paper, and afterwards move specific resolutions, this was, surely, not the proper mode in which to conduct the business of the House, either with satisfaction to themselves, or with advantage to the public. He felt quite sure, that the House would see the propriety of adhering to their rules as strictly as possible. He would say no more, but he would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his motion, and he would repeat his determination to proceed with a bill in the present Session of Parliament.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman's object were only to arrange this system of taxation he would not have said one word; if the hon. Member had proposed to reduce the post-horse duty to a level with the duties on steam vessels and railroads, the proposition would have met with the general concurrence of the House; but when the hon. Member suggested the placing of additional taxes, he hoped that all persons interested in railroads and steam-boats would take the alarm. He remembered a former proposition by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Althorp, which they had happily defeated, of placing the railroads under the blighting influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was proposed also to appoint an inspector of gas-lights, as it was proposed now to appoint an inspector of steam-vessels; but he believed that it would be a great evil to place either under the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Steam navigation was a progressive art—one year it was a great feat to steam from the Thames to Plymouth—but in the next year the vast Atlantic was traversed in safety: if left alone improvement would go on; but once let the Chancellor of the Exchequer in, and then "good-by to all." He was surprised to find the hon. Member for Falkirk endeavouring to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What had that right hon. Gentleman told them? Why, that so far from the increase of steam communication having lessened the amount of the post-horse duty, the revenue had increased. What did this show? That it was of the greatest benefit to the revenue to provide for the public the cheapest means of communication; and if they placed new taxes on railroads they would interfere with the people taking fresh air, and it would be so far impolitic that if they imposed this duty on railroads, they would cause a decrease of that revenue which was now increasing. So far, therefore, from receiving a benefit from additional taxation, they would see only a diminution in the whole amount. But what was the value of additional taxation compared with the case and convenience of the people; he hoped that they would not place any fetters on internal communication. Country gentlemen, so far from benefiting themselves by imposing taxes on railroad communications, would only diminish the number of travellers, cause a less consumption of oats, and the employment of a smaller number of horses. He trusted that the railroad proprietors would have their attention awakened to the subject, and he hoped that the House would not back the Chancellor of the Exchequer in placing upon these means of conveyance any new taxes.

said, that the House ought not to dismiss this question without an express declaration of what was to be done. He had not understood the right hon. Gentleman to have talked of any new duty, and he for one thought that there should be a reduction rather than an increase. He believed, that the cross posts in Ireland which were not taxed were much better than they were in England, and he thought that the taxes upon carriages prevented the approach to less frequented places in England. The great advantage possessed by this country was the great facility of communication, and why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeal the taxes preventing this? Because he had no funds. If the Government had only been just to Canada and to our colonies, they would have had ample funds to enable him to take off these duties. Thus the people of England would see the connection between their interests and this misgovernment, for if the expenditure of the country had not exceeded the income by a million, owing principally to the expenses in Canada, there would have been enough to take off these taxes. Every man experienced the vexatious interference of taxation with communication. He had done all he could to prevent the taxation of steam-vessels and railroads; he still deemed it an injudicious and impolitic tax, and whether they looked at it in a commercial point of view, or as a manufacturing question, or, above all, as it affected the communication of the people, he thought that the Government ought to use every effort to take the duty off railroads and carriages.

owed an apology to the House for addressing it under the disadvantage of not having been in his place when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke. If he accurately collected the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and the right hon. Gentleman really had any intention of increasing the present very heavy, and he might add very productive, taxation on railway communication, he submitted it to the House whether the right hon. Gentleman ought not, in common fairness, to give an explicit declaration of that intention at this, the earliest, moment that the subject was mooted. The House was doubtless aware of the fact that a heavy tax was laid upon, and had already been paid by, many railroads, whilst no return had been made to the proprietors upon their outlay; and if before the capital invested was capable of producing anything like a fair return, the taxes upon these undertakings were to be increased—if a struggle was to be entered upon with gentlemen who had enlisted themselves in hostility to the railroads—for his hon. Friend the Member fur Falkirk appeared always ready for such hostility—if this were to be the course, he trusted they should at least be immediately told of the intention. He hoped that there would be no such disturbance of the large and important interests engaged in providing railway communication; and if there were any such intention, he trusted that the House would not be a day longer without receiving a specific notice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his intentions.

was happy to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had consented to take up the subject, and he, for one, was prepared to leave it in the right hon. Gentleman's hands, and give it his best consideration when the right hon. Gentleman brought it forward.

hoped that the project of subjecting steam vessels conveying passengers to some inspection would also be considered. They must be aware that the proprietors would run boats to the last moment that the machinery would last. He did not speak of individuals, but it was the system, and it must be so while there was so much competition. He thought, therefore, that this being the consequence of the system, a general inspection should be instituted.

had made it a rule, to which he invariably adhered, never to press a Chancellor of the Exchequer for the reduction of any particular tax, until he had an opportunity of observing the state of the national revenue, and of comparing the claim for the reduction in the individual case with other competing claims. He should like to compare, with the subject now under discussion, the policy of reducing a portion, at least of the duty upon raw cotton, and, in fact, of every other item of the national revenue. Whether these were taken individually or abstractedly, there could not be a doubt of the propriety of fairly considering the claims of each. He thought that the only satisfactory way of adjusting this question was, to take off altogether the duty on post-horses. There would then be a fair competition between railway and other modes of travelling. The older description of vehicles must fairly take their chance of suffering by the introduction of other modes provided by the progress of science. What the legislature should say upon the subject should be this: "We give you your chance, without any inequality of taxation. It is impossible for us to interfere with the progress of scientific improvement, but you shall have no unequal portion of taxes to contend against." It would be found extremely difficult in practice to make compensation to the postmasters by any attempt to equalize the taxation; but he hoped that, before they were called on to decide, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them the fullest information on the subject; that, for example, they should be made acquainted with those lines of road in which the duty on post-horses had fallen off, and those in which it had increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that it would be vain to endeavour to make such an arrangement of duties as would enable the post-masters on the great lines of railway to contend against the overpowering competition of the railways. What he was afraid of was, that if, in point of fact, the duty on post-horses were reduced to ½d. per mile, and if the railways were subjected to a duty of ld., it would be of no benefit to the postmasters upon the great lines of road, while it would be productive of great injury to the railways. In subjecting the country to any new fiscal regulations respecting railways, it should be considered how far the facilities afforded by railways tended to increase the amount of taxation in other articles. There might be an additional consumption of taxed articles in consequence of those railways, and that was an important point. They should likewise consider whether or no their new system of taxation would not bear unequally upon the different classes. He understood, for instance, that railways had been of great service to those persons in the lower condition of life whose capital was their labour, and they should consequently consider what great advantage it would be to that class of the community to have a rapid transfer of their capital from one part of the country to another. On the other hand, it was the upper class of society that was chiefly interested about post-horses. Great caution and consideration were therefore necessary before the House proceeded to increase the taxation upon railroads or steam-boats. It was a question whether the increased communication had not upon the whole been beneficial to the revenue, and whether, by forwarding private interests, they would not be injuring the revenue, and the general interests of the country.

in reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Bateson) said that he had the other day answered a similar question which had been put to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, stating that two gentlemen were now employed gaining information relative to accidents by steam-boats, and arranging plans which he hoped to be able to lay before Parliament this Session, with the view of preventing future accidents.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the increase in the post-horse duty had not taken place since its collection had been in the hands of Government, and had not been farmed out.

replied that the change in the mode of collection had been a great relief to the parties concerned; it had prevented them from being subject to vexatious prosecutions, and had, no doubt, caused some increase in the amount of the revenue; but he believed, that the revenue had increased not in these years alone, but that the increase had been progressive for five years.

in reply, said that it had been held out that he was an enemy to railroads, but he must deny that imputation. He had, however, joined with the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the establishment of monopolies: he would always interfere to put down monopolies, and he would rather be under the dominion of the Khan of Tartary than under a committee of railroad shareholders. It was true, as had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there might be an increase in the number of short coaches going only a mile or two, but that the coaches going long stages had decreased in number was proved by the falling-off in the receipts of the first gate out of London, the Kensington gate, the receipts of which had been diminished by 163l. 12s. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted the whole principle contended for, and as it would be preposterous at that moment to pledge the House to details, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion.

rose for leave to bring in a bill to enfranchise property held under Copyhold and Customary Tenures. He believed, that it was generally admitted, that the principle of some such bill was desirable, and the only doubt was, how far such principle should go. A bill upon this subject had been brought in last Session, which had been referred to a select committee, who were almost unanimous in coming to an important report, which went to the entire abolition of this species of tenure in this country. The committee, in their report, had made these recommendations:

"Under these circumstances, your Committee have come to the conclusion, that the abolition of this tenure would not only be a great public benefit, but should be made, if possible, a national object. They are also of opinion, that no plan which merely leaves the option to the parties to enfranchise, will meet the exigency of the case, and they are, therefore, desirous of seeing a plan of enfranchisement introduced which shall have a due regard to the rights as well of the lord as the copyholder, but which shall be eventually compulsory on both. A plan having this object was submitted to your Committee, which will be found in the appendix; but your Committee entertained a strong opinion adverse to the system of arbitration suggested in the paper alluded to. It has, however, appeared to them, that the tithe commission, which has been recently established by Act of Parliament, might be rendered available, as affording a tribunal well qualified to deal with this important subject. The tithe commissioners have for some time pursued an inquiry of an analogous nature, and have at their disposal a machinery adapted for adjusting the rights of all parties interested in copyholds. Your Committee are, therefore, happy to state, that the tithe commissioners having been applied to, have intimated an opinion, that they could undertake this duty advantageously—and your Committee beg to refer to their evidence on this subject, which they deem highly satisfactory. In conclusion, therefore, your Committee look forward with confidence to the speedy and entire abolition of this tenure, as a means of greatly simplifying and improving the law relating to real property. They earnestly desire, that measures may be speedily taken to accomplish this object with reference as well to lands of customary as of copy-hold tenure; it appears to them, that the best mode of effecting it would be by giving every facility to enfranchisement for a short term of years, and that after that period, the enfranchisement should proceed on the compulsory principle, and they recommend that a bill having this object should be introduced in the next Session of Parliament."

The Members of that committee were some of the most distinguished men in the House—Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Goulburn, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Freshfield, Mr. Hayter, Mr. Aglionby, and the Attorney-General. He now moved to bring in his bill, with the full knowledge and sanction of the Attorney-general, and also with the full knowledge and sanction of many Gentlemen on the other side of the House; and he had yet to learn whence the opposition, if there were any, was to come. He thought, that the bill might very properly be printed, and he would be content, that the discussion should be taken on its second reading, or some subsequent stage. He should, therefore, move for leave to bring in the bill.

rose to call the attention of the House to the injury inflicted on British commerce by the duties levied at the town of Stade by the King of Hanover. As it was a subject of vast interest to the commerce of the country, he hoped he should be permitted briefly to explain the origin and nature of those duties, in order to do which he should not have to travel very far back. At the congress of Vienna, in 1815, a claim was preferred by the King of Hanover to levy upon all the ships and cargoes passing the town of Stade on their way to Hatnburgh, that great mart of commerce on the river Elbe, certain tolls or duties; which claim, amongst other pernicious measures, was admitted and sanctioned by the congress. It was subsequently referred to the convention which was held in 1821 in the city of Dresden, upon which occasion the ministers admitted the right of the King of Hanover to levy those dues, but, at the same time, required, that he should lay before the convention a tariff of the dues be proposed to levy, and that he should never increase them without the consent of the parties interested in them. Such was the brief history of the origin and existence of the Stade duties. He entreated the House to remark, that this extraordinary and unprincipled concession was made to the king of Hanover, without any advantage, right, or immunity whatever being granted by him in exchange; and that the emoluments arising from it went, not into the public exchequer, but into the private purse of the King of Hanover himself. He never could forget the conduct of the British Minister, who, for the purpose of gratifying the ambition and increasing the private income of his Sovereign had consented to a measure so detrimental to the commercial interests of this country. But there was a treaty! And, however, they might lament its effects—however, they might deplore the subserviency which dictated it, they must respect the faith of that, as of all treaties, and dare not without any indemnity, propose its abolition. He knew, that many of his constituents had spoken of that treaty, as being founded in injustice, and of Hanover as a weak and powerless state, by which it was unfit that we should be dictated to. But he should be extremely sorry that the Government or the Legislature of this country should prescribe one law for the weak and another for the strong; and, if Hanover could establish her right under the treaty of Vienna, and exact those dues, he was ready to admit, that it would be both impolitic and unjust on the part of England, to attempt their abolition. He contended, however, that the King of Hanover had infringed that treaty, inasmuch as he had never redeemed the pledge which he had made by his Minister, to lay before the Congress a tariff of the duties to be levied at the town of Stade. No such document was ever laid before the Congress; or, if it had been, it was immediately and surreptitiously withdrawn, and finally extinguished. He had taken the greatest pains, as Member for Hull, to obtain a copy of that document, but it was not to be found. He had searched for a copy of it even in Hanover, but without arriving at the prospect of success. He need hardly suggest that a knowledge of the tariff was an object of great interest to all persons connected with commerce, and to all representatives of commercial communities; he accordingly felt it to be his duty to apply to the right hon. Gentleman near him, the President of the Board of Trade, requesting a copy of that document, or extracts from it, but at the Board of Trade no knowledge of any such document existed. British merchants knew no more of it than that which they derived from the painful experience of being sufferers under it. They had no knowledge of the nature and extent of those duties, with the exception of that portion of them which they were compelled to pay; and, in fart, so little was known of it, that one might almost venture to affirm, it had no real existence, except in the will and pleasure of the King of Hanover. In the absence of direct proof, he must endeavour to lay before the House such presumptive evidence as it had been in his power to collect. Ever since the year 1821, the duties had been continually varying, and almost always increasing. He could show, that on the same articles the duties varied according as the articles were entered by German or by English names. Thus, it would seem, that every thing depended upon the language in which the entry was made. To establish this startling fact, be would refer to evidence of the most unexceptionable character. He had obtained a copy of a pamphlet, published in Hamburgh by a person of great consideration there, and who was naturally prejudiced in favour of what were supposed to be Hanoverian interests. From this publication it appeared, that if bales of merchandize or manufactured goods, were entered in these terms, they paid a certain specified duty of very large amount, whereas, if the words were translated into German, the parties who had to pay, became great gainers by the change. The unhappy use of the word "toys," instead of the German term, inflamed the duty six-fold. These were the exact terms in which that sensible and judicious pamphlet noticed this part of the subject:—

"There is a precision observed in the wording of invoices, so as to tax the denomination of the article imported, not the nature of the article. Thus, if the word 'bales' is introduced into the invoice, it is made to pay double the duty that it would pay if called 'ballen,' although the only difference between the two terms consists in this, that one is English and the other German. The same singular distinction is made with respect to toys, which pay six times the duty on spielzeug, because the former word is English and the latter German. Of all foreign powers trading to Hamburgh, England is by far the most interested in the removal of this grievance."

But, injurious as the high rate of duty is to our commerce, inasmuch as it offers a premium pro tanto to the manufactures of rival nations on the continent not exposed to them, it was ten times more injurious on account of the rigour and spirit of oppression with which it was enforced: this he would explain, by stating the manner in which the duties were collected. On the arrival of a ship off Stade, she was compelled to "lay to;" the captain went ashore, and delivered over to an officer of the Hanoverian Customs, the ship's papers. The papers were forwarded to Hamburgh, and, should there appear on the discharging of the cargo the slightest discrepancy between the ship's manifest and the goods on board, she was exposed to seizure, detention, fine, and even confiscation. Let any error be detected, however trivial or unavoidable, let the Hanoverian officer discover any variation, however free from suspicion of fraud, and the vessel and all she contained, fell into the tender mercies of the King of Hanover, by whom she was disposed of according to his arbitrary will. Dr. Adolph Soetbur mentioned the case of a ship whose papers had described her as containing an anker of wine instead of two half-ankers, and for this error of technical denomination, she was seized, and released only on the payment of a fine. He had, moreover, a statement in his hand, sent to him by a merchant of Hull, which he thought, was worthy the attention of the House, both on account of the hardship it described, and the high respectability of the party from whom it proceeded. He was sure, that the noble Lord, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and many other Members of that House, would corroborate his statement, when he asserted, that any allegation by one of the family of Mr. Tottie was deserving of every attention in that House, and in any other assembly. Now, what said Mr. R. Tottie, of Hull?—

"Two cases which have recently occurred, will serve to illustrate the practice under such regulations. The first was, a bale which contained 900 lb. of worsted yarn, and a few pounds of linen yarn as a sample, and was shipped from Hull in April last, on board the Lee, for Hamburgh. Upon the plea that this small parcel of linen yarn was omitted in the bill of lading, which only expressed the contents of the bale as worsted yarn, notwithstanding this omission made no difference in the rate of duty, and that no fraud was or could be imputed, the ship was detained until a fine had been paid. The discovery of this sample of linen yarn was made by the Hanoverian inspector, resident at Hamburgh, who has access to the custom-house there, and to all entries of goods imported. The Stade duties are levied at certain rates per package, whether large or small, and vary according to the denomination of the goods they contain—viz. a rate for manufactures or merchandise another rate for worsted or linen yarn, and a third rate for cotton twist, &c. The other case was a fine of 22l. 7s. 10d. levied on fifteen bales of manufactured goods or merchandise, shipped at Hull, in the Tiger, for Hamburgh, in August last. The plea for this fine was, that those bales were denominated in the Hull custom-house cocket 'cotton twist,' while the bills of lading expressed their denomination to be 'merchandise,' and for this misnomer in the cocket, the fine above-mentioned was levied, although the Stade duty was claimed and paid as merchandise which is subject to the higher rate."

Such was the statement of Mr. Tottie, of Hull. He could multiply evidence of the same description did he not fear to fatigue the patience of the House, and thus to injure a cause he so ardently desired to promote. Perhaps he had said enough, to convince the House that the manner in which the King of Hanover enforced his assumed rights on the Elbe, was wantonly injurious to British commerce, and discreditable to the honour of our national flag. He hoped, also, that the House had followed him to the conclusion, that the manner in which the Stade duties were collected, was an infringement of the treaty of Vienna and of the articles of the Convention of Dresden. Now, then, he should wish to know how long these proceedings were to be endured. In the area of the world, from China to Peru, he could discover no sovereign so bound by personal obligations to treat the people of this country with leniency, kindness, and consideration, as the King of Hanover, not only on account of his British birth and education, not only on account of his close connexion with the British throne, but because, King of Hanover as he was, he received 20,000l. per annum from the people of Great Britain. He was sure, that these acts of insult and outrage, coming from any other quarter, would have been replied to from the mouths of our cannon. He could discern no special reason why the King of Hanover was to be treated with so much tenderness, and he hoped the House would support him, at least in the resolution which he now submitted, and which, he trusted, if agreed to, would be the medium of arresting the progress of this oppression and injury. He moved, "That this House had seen with regret, the conduct of the King of Hanover in regard to the dues levied by the authority of his Majesty at Stade, on British vessels and cargoes; and that this House is of opinion, that no foreign power should be permitted to levy on British shipping or commerce, any tolls, dues, or charges whatever, till its right to do so has been first clearly and fully established."

was ready to admit, that the case which had been brought before the House, was one on which there appeared to be a good ground for complaint. But, at the same time, he must say, that that ground was not precisely that which the hon. Member had attempted to prove. The ground on which he thought they were entitled to complain of the conduct of the Hanoverian authorities was, that they had levied these duties, exceeding in many cases, as he thought, the right of collection; and that there had been a system of vexation and an arbitrary exercise of power in the application of the duties. He should be glad, if he felt able to state to the House, that the King of Hanover had not a right to levy these tolls; and he should, in that case, be undoubtedly prepared to vote for the resolution which had been proposed by his hon. Friend, and perhaps for one worded in stronger terms, if the hon. Gentleman had proposed such an one; but he apprehended that no doubt could exist as to the right of the King of Hanover to the duties which he claimed. What the origin of them was, he was not prepared to say; because it rested in remote antiquity: but as early as 1691, when the duchy of Bremen belonged to the kingdom of Sweden, a treaty was entered into between Sweden and Hamburg, by which Sweden gave up in favour of Hamburg, the collection of the tolls on vessels passing to that port. This statement, therefore, on the one hand would show the authority to demand the tolls, and on the other it would also exculpate the former Ministers of this country from the imputation of having, at the Congress of Vienna, acquiesced in claims made by the King of Hanover, which were not founded on right, because the right of the possessor of the duchy of, Bremen to levy the duties was as old as the period which he had mentioned. Then, in 1719, the duchy of Bremen was ceded by the Crown of Sweden to the. Elector of Hanover, with all the rights which belonged to it at that time; and in 1756, a treaty was concluded between England and Hanover, by which English vessels were exempted from stopping at Stade to pay the toll, and were permitted to go to Hamburg, for the tolls to be paid there. This, then, was another admission on the part of this country of the right to the tolls. Then he came to the treaty of Vienna, and it would be recollected, that that contained provisions that all rivers which traversed more than one State, or which separated two States, should be free to all tolls which should be established by the ministers-plenipotentiaries, and all the parties were bound to acquiesce in such tolls as should be decided upon and established by the Convention. With regard to the Elbe, there was a Convention; and the plenipotentiaries met at Dresdent, in 1821, and at that Convention it was agreed, that the Stade tolls should continue to be levied. He thought, therefore, that it would be impossible for this country to resist the right of Hanover to levy the dues. On the other hand, however, this country had a right to inquire whether the duties demanded were sanctioned by the convention of 1821, and to see that there should be no caprice in levying them, and not merely, that nothing like injustice or violence should be committed, but that every facility was given to the commerce of England. Undoubtedly complaints had been made to the British Government since the year 1825 that abuses did exist with regard to the levying of tolls, and a communication was established, before the year 1830, between the British Government and that of Hanover. After the change of the administration in 1830, complaints were again made, and he and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had been in communication with the representatives of Hanover here, with a view to ascertain how the facts of the case stood. The first thing which they endeavoured to do was, to get the tariff, which was the foundation of all these proceedings. After some difficulty it had been obtained, and he had referred it to Mr. Canning, the chargé d'affairès at Hamburg, for any observations which, from his local experience, he might be able to make upon it. He had not yet received it back from that Gentleman, but he had no doubt that it would reach him in the course of a few days. They had also applied for a copy of the regulations for the guidance of custom-house officers in acting upon the tariff, mid when they obtained them, on comparing them with the tariff, they would be able to judge between them. The House would, therefore, see that the state of the case was, that the British Government was in communication with the government of Hanover with a view of obtaining redress, and he could assure them that he was quite aware of the importance of the subject as bearing upon the interests of British commerce, and that there should be no neglect or indifference on his part in obtaining that redress if it were due. Under these circumstances, therefore, he should think, that the House would be departing from that course which it had been found usually expedient to adhere to if they were to adopt this resolution, and the more so as he thought that the resolution comprehended a denial of a right on the part of the King of Hanover, which he feared could not be borne out. He should, therefore, move the previous question, and should hope that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Hull, knowing that the Government had this matter under consideration, and were endeavouring to do their best to set right what might be wrong, would not object to the Amendment.

on the part of his constituents, felt bound to say, that the present system was exceedingly unjust to the British interests, especially when it was remembered that the vessels of Hanover were allowed to trade to this country on the same footing as British ships. He was therefore glad to observe that the noble Lord had this matter under his consideration, and that some steps would be taken to remedy this important impost. He begged, therefore, to support the motion of the hon. Member for Hull.

begged to be permitted to make one or two observations. He might leave the matter, with great confidence, in the hands of the noble Lord, who had the interest of British commerce at heart; but he could not give up the point that the King of Hanover, having become a party to a contract, had not performed it, as he had not produced the tariff, which he was pledged to do; and therefore that it was not valid.

rose to move for leave to introduce two bills relating to copyright in designs for certain manufactured articles. It would be within the knowledge of the House, that during the reign of George 3rd, three Acts of Parliament were passed for the purpose of giving to the calico printers copyright in the designs used for their manufactures. The last of these Acts gave the copyright for three months from the time of the issuing of the prints from their warehouses. At that time, the use of the designs in question were confined to calico printing; but since then, there could be no doubt a very considerable amount of such prints were used in fabrics of different kinds. The Act, also, did not extend to Ireland; but since it was passed, calico printing had been carried on to a considerable extent in that country, and protection was required for the designs used. At first a doubt had existed whether, in point of fact, the Act did not really extend to Ireland, and while that doubt existed, it protected the designs; but as soon as it was removed, piracy commenced, and was carried on to a great extent. His object, in the first of the bills which he now proposed to introduce, was first to extend the provisions of the Act to Ireland, and then to extend the protection of the copyright in design, which was at present limited to calico, to other woven fabrics which were printed in the same manner. The other bill which he proposed to introduce had reference to the same subject, but was of much greater importance. The subject of patents for inventions and for patterns had been already much discussed, both in the House and in a Committee up stairs. It was not his intention to meddle with the patent Acts; but, at the same time, he had always thought that the Act in question was more especially adapted for the protection of those inventions as to which it was desirable to have the copyright extended over a long period of time—for seven or fourteen years; and that what was still wanted was protection for those inventions which were only wanted for a very short time, anti the inventors of which could not afford to go to the expense of obtaining patents in the ordinary way. It also appeared to him, that one of the reasons why all previous attempts to secure protection for the articles in question had failed was, that the promoters of them had endeavoured to extend the provisions of the patent-laws to those articles which were not by their nature capable of receiving the protection they afforded. He proposed to establish an office in London, where parties might have an opportunity, if they thought fit, of entering their designs, by which they would secure to themselves the privilege for a certain time—for six or twelve months, for instance—of enjoying the sole property in those designs and the articles made with them. He did not propose to make this course compulsory on the part of the owners of the designs; but merely to give them the opportunity of Caking advantage of the law if they thought fit so to do. He further proposed, that a Commissioner or some person appointed by the Board of Trade should have an office of this kind in London, and that he should he paid, not by a salary, but by the fees arising from the entry of designs. Thus no additional expense would be entailed upon the public. A great many branches of manufactures would be benefitted by this mode of protection. It had been over and over again shown, that a great many articles were made, the designs for which took a great amount of time and labour, which were nevertheless subject to be pirated, before they could find their way into the market. For instance, he had himself seen various articles in brass and iron—patterns for grates and stoves, and other things—for designing which artists had been paid 20l. 25l.30l. or 100l., as the case might be; yet, before the persons who had paid those large sums to the artists were able to bring into the market two or three of the articles for which the designs were intended, those designs had been copied by some one else, and they were thus deprived of the opportunity of obtaining what they were justly entitled to, namely, the priority of sale. Of this injustice, parties so situated had a right to complain: they had a right to call on the Legislature to relieve them. Now, these particular articles differed materially from printed calicoes and other woven fabrics, in the nature of the protection they required. In the woven fabrics, there was what in law constituted a publication, for at the end of each piece was printed the number of the piece, the name of the manufacturer, and the date of publication; and here was, at once, afforded evidence of the time of publication, and of the duration which the privilege ought to have. This, however, was not the case as regarded the articles he had last alluded to. The calico printers were perfectly satisfied with the means of identification which they at present enjoyed, and they would consider any change a serious inconvenience. But in the case of the other articles referred to, it was impossible to place any mark of publication on the articles themselves. In the bill, therefore, which he proposed to introduce, a registry would be afforded, of which the parties might, if they chose, take advantage. If they did not think fit to take advantage of it, they would then remain in the state in which they now were as regarded protection. He hoped that the measure of which he had here given an outline, would be found beneficial to those interested. One good feature of it was, that it would cost the public nothing. He hoped the House would give him leave to introduce it.

rose to move for a certain return of the expense of the Earl of Durham's Canadian mission, pursuant to the following notice of motion for a "return of the total expense incurred with reference to the appointment of the Earl of Durham as high commissioner and Governor-general of Canada, distinguishing the amount of salaries paid or to be paid to Lord Durham and each officer or other person employed in or connected with the said commission; also, stating the expense of the outfit of the Governor-general and suite and all other persons, as well during their residence in Canada as on their return to this country." Having heard that the Earl of Durham had stated that he would be 10,000l.out of pocket by his mission, he was anxious to know whether this sum was to be understood to have been expended in those trappings and gew-gaws which the noble Earl might think necessary adjuncts to his state, or whether it had gone in the payment of any of the natural expenses of his station. He wanted to know what the public was to pay for this unfortunate, and, as he feared, most expensive, commission. Indeed, he almost doubted whether the noble Earl would confine his charges to his own personal expenses, for he found in the civil contingencies for 1835 a charge of 4,000l. for the outfit and the equipage of Lord Durham on his Russian mission, and immediately after, another item which, when there was so much avowal of a desire to save the country expense was at least extraordinary, that item was a charge for the entertainment and conveyance of the Countess of Durham and suite on board the Cleopatra, a charge of 176l. There was also a charge for the entertainment and conveyance of Lord Durham to Constantinople on board the Barham of 189l, and a charge for the balance of the expenses of his Lordship's mission in 1832 of 19l. 2s. 7d. When he found all these little items paid by the Government and received by Lord Durham, he confessed that he doubted mush whether this 10,000l. would cover all his personal expenses, and that when the return was given in, it would be found that the country was charged with a variety of things for which the 10,000l. had not sufficed to pay. Some time ago he moved for a return of the expense of conveying Lord Durham and his suite to Canada by the Hastings. That amounted to 573l. Why did not the noble Earl pay that himself? He was afraid, he repeated, that the expense of Lord Durham's outfit and residence would be very great. There was the Lord High Commissioner—plain Commissioner would not do; he must be a "High" Commissioner, a sort of Jupiter Tonans—and there were the secretaries and the principal aide-de-camp and four other aides-de-camp, and an extra aide-de-camp besides. All these officials were justly entitled to be paid for their services; for though he thought the Earl of Durham the very worst person who could have been sent on such a mission, as he had only increased the mischief instead of putting an end to it, he did not think the country ought to attempt to refuse the persons it had employed under him, their just remuneration. The amount, however, would be very great, and he wished to have a return which would show not only the whole of the expense, but also each item of expenditure. These were matters of grave consideration, and he did not see how a Government calling itself economical, and professing to set every thing right that was wrong, could refuse to accede to the application he now made on the part of the people. If Government refused the returns, he should take the sense of the House on the motion, and if he were defeated now, the noble Lord might expect to hear from him again in a few days on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member concluded, by moving for the returns.

seconded the motion; not that he concurred in many of the reasons that had been adduced by the hon. and gallant Member, but because he considered it of the utmost importance, that the public mind should be satisfied on the subject of the extraordinary expenditure attending Lord Durham's mission to Canada.

rose, not to oppose the motion, but to protest against the spirit in which attacks were made, both in and out of the House, on Lord Durham, with regard to the expenses of his mission to Canada. Such attacks were disgraceful and discreditable—

Does the hon. Member mean to apply his remarks to any Member of the House?

I mean that the attacks are disgraceful and discreditable. I do not mean to apply those terms to any individual Member.

I understood the hon. Member to say, that attacks were made, both in and out of the House, on Lord Durham, which were disgraceful and discreditable. Did the hon. Gentleman, in doing so, allude to any Member of this House?

I do not allude to the hon. and gallant Member. Had I thought his observations of that character, I should have stood up and protested against them. What I mean is, to protest against the attacks which are made here and elsewhere upon a nobleman, to whom the country is, in the highest degree, indebted, who has distinguished himself on various occasions, at home and abroad, and who has succeeded in every mission he has undertaken, up to the time of his acceptance of the Lord High Commissionership. I have not the honour of the personal acquaintance of the noble Earl, but I feel called on to protest against and repudiate the imputations cast upon him. These attacks, though they may produce no effect in this House, are taken up by the public journals, and I maintain, that it is the duty of every honest Reformer to protest against such conduct. I know the base uses to which these returns will be put by the public journals, and I protest against all such attacks on the character of the nobleman in question.

I rise to ask the hon. Member whether he applies the word "disgraceful" to me with reference to my conduct on this or on any other occasion?

The hon. Gentleman need not have asked that question. I have already stated, that I did not apply that expression to him.

had no objection to the return, although he must say, the hon. and gallant Member had moved for it in a somewhat singular, and perhaps inconvenient shape. As his motion stood in the printed paper, it was not very consistent either with common sense or with the English language. Perhaps the hon. Member had reconsidered it. He really thought, without imputing any motive to the hon. Gentleman, that a Member of that House, before making the observations he had made, should apply himself to learn the usual course adopted by persons employed in the public service with regard to their expenses. The hon. Gentleman could not expect the Earl of Durham to go out to Russia or to Canada as the representative of his Sovereign, or for special purposes, and to incur enormous expenses out of his own pocket, to the payment of which the State should not contribute. If such a principle were adopted in the public service, none but very rich men could ever be employed. The outfit given to the Earl of Durham when ambassador, which had been alluded to by the gallant Colonel, was the same as was given to all other ambassadors. The charge also of conveying the Earl and Countess of Durham, and family in her Majesty's ship was also similar to that paid to the captains of all vessels for the expense they were put to in entertaining ambassadors in conveying them to their destination. If the gallant Colonel would attend to these things, he would proceed in a more orderly manner. The charges which he alluded to regarded all ambassadors, instead of appertaining to the noble Earl alone. As to the Earl of Durham not having been the proper person to be sent to Canada, he would only observe, that this was not the time to go into the subject; but as to the noble Earl receiving a sum of money for outfit and expenses, he was sure, that if the gallant Colonel would look to the general returns, he would see, that the charge was not singular in this case. He did not object to give the returns, but he trusted, that the gallant Colonel would amend his motion.

contended, that his motion was consistent with common sense; he should persist in it, without adopting the change pressed by the noble Lord. As for the observation of the noble Lord, he repelled the insinuation with sovereign contempt, in as strong language as the House would allow him to use, in answer to the unbecoming language of the noble Lord. He could tell the noble Lord, that he would not venture to make use of such observations out of that House.

I am sure that the hon. Member must see that such language is out of order; and that he will admit that it is so.

I have feelings as well as the noble Lord; and I should not have applied the remark to him, had it not been that he imputed to me a want of common sense.

The hon. and gallant Member must be aware, that the remark that he made, namely, that the noble Lord would not venture to make use of such observations out of that House, is highly disorderly.

I think that I am entitled to some explanation from the noble Lord before I am called upon to say anything. No such observations as you refer to, Sir, would have fallen from me, had I not have been attacked in the first instance. I deny, that I had any intention of casting a direct or implied imputation on the noble Lord alluded to; but I consider that I am justified in questioning the conduct of any public man. If censure was to be cast on any one, it was on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for art improper expenditure of the public money; and that right hon. Gentleman was absent, and the noble Lord came forward in his defence. But I ask, was the noble Lord justified in attributing to any Member of this House a want of common sense.

What I understood the noble Lord to say was, that the motion which the gallant Colonel had made was not the same that appeared in the votes of the day; and as it was proposed, it was not consistent with common sense or good grammar.

had no objection to give the returns if the hon. Gentleman framed his motion as he suggested. He did not think, that the House would agree, that there should be any distinction made between this Commission and other previous Commissions. The hon. and gallant Member, in his motion, called for a return of the expenses incurred with reference to the Governor-general and suite, and the number and names of them, and in addition, the expenses attendant on the conveyance, residence, and return of all persons who went out to Canada, whether they returned or not; which motion, in point of fact, would include all her Majesty's subjects. He would suggest, that the motion should be amended, confining it to the expenses incurred with reference to the Earl of Durham, as High Commissioner and Governor-general of Canada, distinguishing the amount of salaries paid, or to be paid, to Lord Durham, and each officer or other person connected with the commission, and also the expense of the progress of the Earl of Durham and suite. If the hon. and gallant Officer refused to adopt this alteration, he should propose an amendment to the effect that he had stated.

said, that he should persist in his motion, and should not submit to its being altered at the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The motion that he proposed was the same that he showed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer up stairs, who told him there was no objection to it; but he found that another motion than that which he had given notice of, had been printed in the votes. He would have his return or no return at all. He protested against such a return being shovelled in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose conduct in this matter he intended to attack by it. The truth was, that the right hon. Gentleman was politically afraid to give the return; and he, therefore, wished to have it altered, so that the matter might be let alone in that House and by the public. He did not care whether his motion pleased the noble Lord or not, or whether he thought that it was consistent with common sense and good grammar, as he was sure that he could never learn anything from the noble Lord; and he was determined that he would never follow in his footsteps.

recommended his gallant Friend to assent to the amendment; and if the return, as presented, should not prove satisfactory, he could bring the subject again before the House.

rose to bring forward his motion for a Bill to consolidate and reform the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland. He would begin by reading an extract from the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the constitution of Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland. It said,

"Our attention has been directed in a peculiar manner to the official and professional services connected with these Ecclesiastical Courts. The general impression is, that the expense of the proceedings in the different ecclesiastical jurisdictions, compared with the superior courts of Common Law, is unreasonable, and that this impression, as applied to the Prerogative Court, is in a great measure well founded, the evidence sufficiently proves. These evils may perhaps partly be attributed to the abuses of official practice, and the excesses in official and professional charges; but there are other causes inherent in the very from and constitution of the jurisdiction itself, to which they must primarily be attributed. The proceedings are conducted on the principles of the civil law, and therefore enhance the expense. The length of the pleadings, the multiplicity of interrogatories, the mode of examination—frequently inefficient in eliciting the truth—tend to an accumulation of expense from which the proceedings at Common Law are exempt. We feel ourselves warranted in laying these statements before the Legislature, to show how much the subject is entitled to their serious attention."

Such was the language of the Commissioners. His attention had for three years been directed to this question, and he had procured the appointment of a Committee of that House upon it last Session. That Committee, of which he was the Chairman, had found the expense and delay of the proceedings in these Courts most oppressive; and consistently with the recommendations of the Committee, and with the suggestions of the Commissioners, that Bill had been prepared (by the highest legal authorities), which he now begged leave to introduce. The Bill was similar in its provisions to the measure which had been brought in by the learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington) in regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts of England. The object of its enactment was, first, to consolidate into one court, all the minor Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, which were at present established in every diocese in that country. Since the law upon tithes had been altered in Ireland, these courts had none of that tithe business, which formerly was their principal occupation, so that now they were utterly useless. The judges in those courts were clergymen, who had no knowledge of the law, and the Bill would enact, that there should be but one Ecclesiastical Court in Ireland—the Prerogative Court of Dublin. The Supreme Judge in that Court would be appointed by the Crown, as the Judges of this country were. The Judge would have the power of framing rules for the regulation of the Court, and also to call in the aid of a jury to try matters of fact. He trusted that the Primate of Ireland would not give any opposition to the Bill Which he now proposed to bring in.

would not offer any obstacle to the Bill, after the great pains that had been bestowed upon it by his hon. Friend. He trusted that its details would receive great attention, not only from the House, but the hen. Members for Cashel and Clonmel. He hoped that his Friend would not press on the Subsequent stages of the Bill until the House had had a full opportunity of making itself acquainted with the details of the meas. sure.

did not anticipate that the noble Lord would have given his assent to the Bill, considering the object it had in view. What was that object? Why, not only to make a revolution in the whole course of proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Ireland, but to rob of his right of patronage, the head of the Church of that country. He thought, if such a bill was to be introduced, it ought to have been brought forward by her Majesty's Government. He should, therefore, enter his protest against the measure, and he felt convinced that the end of the matter would be, that her Majesty's Government would themselves feel compelled, at a future stage, to give their determined opposition to the measure.

would give his support to the bill, considering that it would be of essential service in Ireland.

did not think that his hon. and learned Friend opposite, exactly apprehended all the circumstances of the ease. He did not mean to enter into a particular relation of all the facts connected with the English Ecclesiastical Commission. He would merely remind the House that that commission had been appointed by the Duke of Wellington, in 1828, and had received the sanction of the successive Ministries; had been acceded to by many Bishops and other high ecclesiastical authorities. No important difference of opinion had taken place amongst them, and with regard to the matter referred to, all the Commissioners agreed. Bills founded on their recommendations, had from time to time been introduced, one in particular, by the Government of Lord Grey. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Lambeth, had also taken up the subject. It was not quite correct to state that the measures had failed from the opposition given to them. The real state of the case was this—a measure founded upon these recommendations had been introduced into the House of Lords, and there was this difficulty felt respecting it: The Bishops were of opinion that it should be preceded by a Clergy Discipline Bill. A measure of this sort had been introduced, but had not passed the House of Lords. With respect to the patronage he would just state, that, having waited on the Archbishop of Canterbury to submit to that Right Reverend Prelate a measure, the effect of which was to deprive that Right Rev. Prelate of patronage to the amount of 12,000l. a-year, his Grace had said, "Give me ten minutes to consider of it;" at the end of the ten minutes he expressed himself perfectly ready to give up the whole—and every one of the Bishops had expressed themselves in the same manlier. He was perfectly convinced of the necessity of some such measure for Ireland. He was perfectly satisfied that until some reform took place in the Ecclesiastical Courts of that country—until a consolidation of those Courts, and a suppression of the minor jurisdiction took place, that a Session would never pass without complaint on this subject. It was impossible that persons not brought up to the legal profession, whatever might be their determination to do their duty, could so deliver their judgments as to secure the confidence of suitors in that Court.

said, that the objection which his right hon. Friend had made, had not been met by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. The objection of his right hon. Friend was, that this measure had not been brought forward in such a manner as to claim the support of the House. It was not brought forward by a Member of her Majesty's Government. With respect to the English Bill, mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it appeared that the measure had been submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he should like to know whether any such course had been pursued on the present occasion? With all due deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he did not think the measure had been brought forward in a way to meet with the concurrence either of the House or of the parties concerned. Had it ever been brought before the Prelates of Ireland, who were so deeply concerned in the subject? He considered that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, entertained a somewhat similar objection, at least so he interpreted the expression of anxiety made use of by the noble Lord with regard to the presence of the Solicitor General for Ireland, who had been so short a time a Member of that House. If the hon. Gentleman would agree to place his bill in the hands of the Government, he should have no objection to it; and he believed that the noble Lord (Morpeth) would be nothing loath to take charge Of it. This was a measure which required very great care and deliberation, and however competent the hon. Gentleman might be in other questions, it could not be disputed that he ought to have had the ample materials and the extensive professional experience, that would be necessary in one bringing forward a bill for effecting a total change in the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland. As the bill in the case of the Charity Commissioners was left in the hands of the Government, he did not see why this measure also should not be so left. If the measure was left in the hands of her Majesty's Government, he (Mr. Shaw) had no doubt that it would receive the most careful and extensive preliminary consideration. In that case, also, it would have a better chance of success. He was also of opinion, that a new arrangement of the Diocesan Courts might be introduced with great benefit.

could not agree with the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), that everything should be left in the hands of her Majesty's Government. If this bill was bad, let it fall—if it were good, why should it not succeed on its own merits. He objected to the right hon. Gentleman's principle, as poor and miserable. He also objected to the corollary he deduced from it. It was in fact, recommending a Member of the House to abandon his independent privilege of introducing bills if' he thought proper. Nor was it necessary that the introducer of a legal measure should be a lawyer. The hon. Member for Roscommon introduced the Medical Charities Bill last year, yet he was not a doctor. Upon that principle, any measure connected with the reform of the Corporation should be left to the right hon. Gentleman, for though he was not a lawyer he was the champion of the Corporation. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth introduced his bill for the consolidation of the laws respecting property especially in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman did not make a single objection on the ground of the mover not being a professional person. He thought therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should not persevere in his opposition.

knowing how anxious, laborious, and unpleasant a task it was to bring forward a question of this sort, and how difficult it was for a Member ever to bring a private Bill through the House, would at once agree to leave the bill in the hands of her Majesty's Government. Its necessity must be evident from the vast masses of property which had been squandered and dilapidated in consequence of the abuse of the Ecclesiastical Courts. They had had the results of the labours of a commission which had sat for twelve years, to give them information on this question. The learned Member for the Tower Hamlets said, that a commission of the most eminent men in England had been at work upon this subject. True; and it was in consequence of the recommendation of that commission, sanctioned by two Tory Governments, that he had prepared his bill. He had had the assistance of the most eminent men in both kingdoms. The most experienced practitioner in these courts had for months given his undesired, unbought, and unpurchaseable attention to the bill, before he (Mr. Barron) had ventured to bring it before the House. He had merely taken upon himself, with their most able assistance to remedy evils and abuses which had been recognized and complained of by two commissions, by one Committee, and by every lawyer and witness who had any connection with those Courts. He (Mr. Barron) had had painful individual experience of the expense of those Courts, and the impossibility of obtaining justice in them. He was ready to surrender the measure to the noble Lord (Morpeth) and his learned Friend the Member for Cashel. But he trusted, he at least would not be prevented from bringing in a bill merely because he did not happen to be personally agreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to bring forward any measure during the present Session for the reform of the corporation of London?

answered in the negative. Leave given.