, seeing the Under Secretary for the Colonies in his place, wished to put a question to him relative to certain disturbances which it was rumoured had broken out on the frontier of Caffraria. It was stated, that a conflict had taken place between the emigrant boors at Port Natal and the Government troops, and that the soldiers were nearly all destroyed, and the officer in command and the son of the governor killed. He therefore wished to be informed, as these rumours had created much anxiety, whether the Government had received any information confirming or contradicting the reports to which he had alluded.

was aware of the anxiety created by the rumours to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, and he regretted he was unable to give any satisfactory information on the subject, as the Government had received no despatch from the colony since the time those disturbances were stated to have taken place. The last despatch from the governor was dated one day earlier than the accounts in which the reports of the conflict were contained, and so far from that despatch containing anything from which a confirmation of those reports could be inferred, they afforded every reason to believe, that no such conflict had taken place. Perhaps it would be satisfactory to the House, that he should read the last letter which had been received from the governor, and which contained the latest information which the Government possessed relative to the state of the colony. The letter was from the governor to Lord Glenelg, and was as follows:—

"Cape-town, December 28, 1838.

"My dear Lord Glenelg,—As the vessel is now weighing anchor for England, I have only time to give your Lordship a few lines by her to say, that within this hour I have received despatches from Major Charteris, dated Port Natal, the 12 instant, and a private letter of the 14th instant. All the troops, stores, guns, &c., were landed, and no sick, or accident of any kind. The boors had some time before sent a command against Dingaan. Major Charteris had sent a message to their commandment, Pretorius, to try and persuade him to return to Port Natal, but he feared his messenger would not be able to overtake him in time. Major Charteris had found the boors in much distress. I will forward the whole of his despatches, &c., by her Majesty's ship Wolf, which will sail on the 1st or 8d of next month. But, as I had half-an-hour only, I could not get my official despatch ready, and therefore wrote these few lines just to set your Lordship's mind at ease, as various reports had been spread concerning the failure of the expedition, and which may arrive in England before this reaches you.

"I am, &c.,

"GEORGE NAPIER."

That letter gave no ground to suppose, that any conflict was likely to take place between the boors and the troops, and he trusted in a few days to he able to contradict the rumours which had been circulated on the subject.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the report of the committee which had been appointed to consider what alterations were necessary in the mode of conducting the Private Business of Parliament. In doing so, he wished to state, with reference to the proceedings of that committee during the last and present Sessions of Parliament, that the Members who had been selected had sat and deliberated with the utmost attention day after day on this most important subject, and after hearing evidence and maturely investigating all the plans which had been submitted to their consideration, had given in a report to the House, and upon that report the resolutions which he now proposed to move were founded. Those Members who had at all attended to the subject would, he was persuaded, allow that the present mode of conducting the private business of the House was not satisfactory, that it could not insure the confidence of the public in their proceedings and that it ought, therefore, to be amended. To effect that desirable object two plans had been laid before the committee. The one was an amendment in the present constitution of committees on private bills, which left a representation of local interests; and the other recommended the appointment of a judicial body, excluding local influence altogether. The last of these plans had been advocated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, hut the Committee, after having given it the most mature deliberation, came to the decision, that it was not advisable to exclude the representation of local interests altogether. He understood, that the hon. Member intended to submit his own plan to the House as an amendment on the resolutions which he intended to move, and it would be for the House to decide whether the scheme of the hon. Gentleman, ought or ought not to be adopted. He should not then enter more fully upon the second plan which he had mentioned, but he should be prepared at the proper time to state his opinion in favour of the decision which the majority of the committee had come to, and against the plan of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. That decision having been come to, the committee next proceeded to consider how they could best adopt some remedy for the evil complained of, and they had proposed to do so in the following manner:—1. They proposed to allow a certain representation of local interests to be placed on the lists which were made out by Mr. Speaker. 2. To call on Mr. Speaker to prepare those lists, taking care to make certain reductions. 3. In order to provide against that great reduction of numbers, to allow local interests to be represented, if good ground could be shown for it, and that Members representing local interests should be entitled upon application, to have their names placed on the committee. 4. It was proposed in order to secure impartial committees, that a committee of selection should be appointed who should add to the lists such a number of Members no t interested in the bills in progress as they might deem expedient. Undoubtedly whoever might be so chosen to act by the committee of selection must be prepared to consent to do so; no man had a right to take upon himself the office of a Member of Parliament unless he was prepared to discharge all the duties connected with it—unless he was willing, however irksome or disagreeable the task might be—to do that which the House called upon him to perform, which, in cases of this kind, was one of the most important duties he could have to discharge. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first of the following resolutions.—

"1. That the present distribution of counties in the several lists, for the purpose of forming committees on private bills, prepared under the direction of the Speaker, as prescribed by the resolution of the 19th of April, 1826, has been found not to answer the object for which it was framed, and that the same be discontinued.

"2. That, with a view to give effect to the opinions and resolutions contained in the report of the select committee on private business, presented on the 25th inst., it is expedient, that new lists be prepared under the direction of the Speaker, reducing considerably the number of Members above the line in the lists as now formed, excluding altogether those below the line, and having regard to the new divisions of counties as regulated by the Reform Act.

"3. That a committee of selection be appointed, consisting of the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, and of the Chairman of the committee and of the three subcommittees on petitions for private bills, and of whom three shall be a quorum; and that the said committee of selection do report from time to time to the House with respect to the proceedings on private bills.

"4. That no Member whose name shall be on the list prepared under the direction of the Speaker shall be entitled to attend or vote unless he shall have previously made a declaration, in such form as shall be prescribed by the committee of selection of his willingness to serve throughout the proceedings of the committee on the bill referred to the list to which he belongs.

"5. That any Member who is not included in the list directed to be prepared shall be at liberty to make special application to the committee of selection, alleging, that his constituents have a local interest in any private bill in progress, and the committee shall have power to add the name of such Member to the list, if the importance and reality of such interest shall be established to their satisfaction.

"6. That the committee of selection shall select and add to the list such number of Members not locally interested in the bill in progress, and in such proportion, as in the circumstances of each case shall, in their judgment be necessary."

said, that the attention of the House had been for a series of years directed to the endeavour to correct the abuses consequent upon the manner of bringing forward private bills. He merely referred to hon. Members to ask them whether they were not all aware of the necessity that existed for the correction of these abuses? Public opinion had long since called on that House to erect a tribunal of a more efficient and satisfactory nature than any that at present existed for that purpose He was anxious to see the House undertake the erection of some such tribunal, and at once grapple boldly with this master grievance. When the committee on private bills was first appointed three years ago he had proposed, that the abuses should be remedied by reducing the number of the Members of these committees, and taking away all local interests, as he felt convinced, that this was the only way in which a court of judicature of this nature could be erected which would do justice to the parties concerned, or give satisfaction to the public. This was the sort of tribunal that he had wished to see established three years ago, and he should move resolutions embodying these sentiments in opposition to the resolutions embodying the recommendations of the committee which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and on these he would take the sense of the House, and see how far they agreed with him as to the necessity of taking away local interests and applications as regarded this important trial. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House, that these resolutions had been agreed to by a majority of the committee; they certainly had been agreed to by a majority of the committee, the numbers having been seven to five; but one of those Gentlemen who had voted in favour of the resolutions and against the exclusion of local interests, had the previous year expressed himself most strongly in support of his proposition, and if he had not voted in opposition to his previously declared opinion, the numbers would have been equal, and the decision would have been left to the Chairman. In that committee an amendment for the exclusion of local interests was moved by him (Mr. Hume), and as the resolutions of which he had given notice were so inconclusive, he would substitute it for them. That amendment was, "That it is expedient, that Members representing local interests should be excluded from committees in which such interests are concerned." He was anxious to press that question on the House, because he considered its committees in the light of judicial tribunals. He put it to the House, whether the rule was not well recognised, that when a case came before a jury for its decision each party had the right of challenge. He was aware, that Members of Parliament ought not to be challenged, as such a course would be derogatory to their character and dignity. If there could be any doubt as to the impolicy of the present mode of proceeding he would refer the House to the evidence taken before the committee. Hon. Members were aware, that there were certain persons connected with that House who acted as agents in conducting private bills through it. The committee examined several of the most distinguished of these Gentlemen, and they frankly and creditably unfolded the abuses connected with private bills. They had shown, how bills were carried by canvassing hon. Members—how they were hunted about from place to place, and it was said, "a division is going to take place. For God's sake go in and vote or I shall be defeated." The consequence was, that men who had never heard a word of the evidence frequently turned the scale by their votes. Indeed, no one could dispute the practice that had so long existed in that House. By way of testing these tribunals, he would refer to the evidence which had been given before the Parliamentary committees on this subject. The Duke of Richmond, in respect to what had taken place in the House of Lords, said, that not only were there some Peers who did not listen to the whole evidence on some bills, but frequently there was one chairman on one day, and a different Peer presiding on the next; consequently the proceedings were much longer than necessary, and generally very unsatisfactory to all the parties concerned. The House of Lords, finding that it was necessary to apply a remedy, passed the following resolutions on the 6th of July, 1837: "That every committee should consist of five Members. That every Member of such committee do attend to the proceedings of the committee during the whole continuance thereof. Ordered, that Lords be prevented from serving on a committee on any private bill where they have private interests concerned." Now that was the point which he wished to urge on the attention of the House. The noble Duke stated, that these resolutions had been strictly attended to, and that the result was most satisfactory, and that the working of the private business was much better than under the old system, because it was natural that five men who had attended to the evidence in any ease, having no local interest in it, must be much more competent to decide upon it than a committee of persons who had but partially attended to it, or were in any way interested in the result. The hon. Member also referred to evidence given by Mr. Smith and Mr. Crampton, which was to the same effect. He could read the evidence of nine or ten witnesses, he said, to show that the practice adopted by the Lords of excluding local interests, had given satisfaction very generally, and their committees were no longer likely to be characterized as private tribunals. If the House would adopt his amendment, the committees on private bills would no longer be likely to be characterized as partial tribunals. The resolutions of which he had given notice were those which the chairman of the former committee drew up, but he should propose, instead of them, that amendment which he suggested to the same committee. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an amendment on the resolution, "That it is expedient that members representing local interests should be excluded from committees in which such interests are concerned." If the House should agree to that resolution, the resolutions which followed might be made applicable with very little trouble to form committees on that principle. He had some experience with regard to the working of committees of that House, and he could assure the House that the public would feel a very lively interest in the discussion of that evening, because whatever might be the dissatisfaction which had been expressed in respect to those committees within the House, he could assure the House that that dissatisfaction was felt much more strongly out of doors. This subject had been forcibly brought to his mind only yesterday, by a circumstance which would illustrate what the feeling of the public was. One of his old constituents, a highly respectable person, having seen the resolution handed about yesterday, came to him with great anxiety, and expressed his alarm that this alteration should be contemplated; for, said he, "Anxious as I am, and fearful as I am, of the committees as now constituted, I have much more apprehension that the local interests which will be established in the new formation of committees will be much more overpowering, and we shall have less means of obtaining justice at the hands of the House." He must say, that after every attention which he had given to the subject, the result he had come to was this, that unless they were prepared to go the full length of that which was proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, it would be far better to leave the evil as it stood. He would endeavour, in a very few words, to explain his meaning upon this subject. The dislike to these committees consisted in this, that if a bill were brought before a committee, there was an overwhelming local interest employed to obtain the attendance of members. That local interest was in some degree qualified by members who were put in representing distant places, but generally speaking, local interest was all powerful, and sometimes it acted all in one direction. Take, for example, a Railway question. The promoters of a railway were anxious to seize on individual property and to pay for it, but the individual was reluctant to part with it. That individual he would suppose, as in a case that had come to his knowledge, was a person who had no local connexion with the railroad, except by having property there. All the committee were those in the immediate district. They had embarked themselves in the case of the railway, and it was exceedingly difficult for any individual to gain attention in that committee, when his object was to overpower or balance that local interest.

felt great pleasure in seconding the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. Such had been the case on several committees on railway bills. The question, however, really before the House was, whether or not the adoption of the resolutions of the right hon. gentleman below him (Mr. P. Thomson) would make the matter better; in his (Sir G. Strickland's) opinion, these resolutions would make it worse. It was true that under this plan there would be a sprinkling into committees of members from a distance, and that sometimes justice might be done, but still, on the whole, he was convinced that greater dissatisfaction would be created than at present existed. He, therefore, was of opinion it would be better to follow the example set by the House of Lords, and exclude local interests altogether from private committees. Parties locally interested in a question were excluded from serving on the jury by whom that question was to be tried; the same plan ought to be followed in committees on private bills, and persons left out who had an interest in the measure—he did not mean a corrupt interest (of which, by the way, more had been said against hon. Members than in justice was deserved), but those natural feelings of local interest which must bias the mind of an individual coming with an honest determination to do, but who did not, in consequence, always do, justice. He, therefore, strongly urged upon the House, unless it was prepared to adopt the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, to leave the matter as it at present existed, even with all its evils; if not, he was of opinion, that those evils would only be increased.

said, that having been alluded to by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he begged to offer a short explanation. It had been stated, that on a division in the committee he (Mr. Fresh-field) had voted against the exclusion of local interests. Now, if the hon. Member had attended the committee a little more regularly than he did, he would have been enabled to make a more correct statement to the House. In the last session of Parliament strong evidence was adduced before the committee which sat on the subject, showing the inconvenience of the present system, and one single plan for the cure of that inconvenience was brought before the committee. That plan had been discussed, and it was stated another for the same object would he brought before the committee. The lateness of the period of the session prevented that being done, and the committee had before them the single question "shall we adopt the plan for the exclusion of local interests or shall we not?" Now, he was so strongly convinced of the inconvenience of the present system, that in his then view of the subject he should have been ready to recommend the plan suggested to the House, rather than leave things in the way in which he and the committee found them. But the subject was afterwards fully discussed, and he believed that it was not according to the opinion of any member present, conceived to be safe to recommend that plan to the House; and if the hon. Member would refer to the minutes of the proceedings of the committee, be would find that no division took place on any such question. The question, in short, was never brought to a decision. In the present session the subject had been further discussed, and, for one, he had been thoroughly convinced that the exclusion of local interests would be attended both with inconvenience and mischief, and that the House had no constitutional power to deprive any member from taking a part in the business of his constituents, though it might have the power to regulate the manner in which they should discharge that duty, and to require of them its full and efficient discharge; but the House had no right by its vote to say, that any member should he excluded from discharging his duty. On that ground he had voted in the majority in the committee, and on that ground he should vote against the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, if that amendment was brought to a division.

supported the amendment. The original resolutions before the House interfered as much as the amendment with the constitutional privileges of members of that House, and interfering with those rights, it was proper to obtain the fullest extent of benefit as proposed by the amendment. He thought the public were much more prejudiced by the admission of local interests than by their exclusion. He was in hopes, however, that some medium plan might be adopted. He objected to place persons in that situation, who had an interest in the question quite as binding as a pecuniary interest. Would the house admit, that there existed a necessity for the exclusion of Members having a direct pecuniary interest in the decision of the questions before the committee. If so was there not an equal reason to exclude others who had an interest though it might not be a direct pecuniary interest? There were interests which biassed the minds and feelings of men quite as much as a pecuniary one, and he would wish to exclude all Members on whose minds you could trace an interest at all likely to bias them, so as to prevent their coming to a just decision, whether those interests were consequent upon their connexion with a particular locality, or upon any other causes. The answer to the first question put by the committee to the Duke of Richmond, would illustrate his meaning on this subject. The noble Duke replied, when asked as to the practice of the House of Lords upon this subject, that the feeling of the House of Peers was so strong, as to the impropriety of Peers having a local interest in private bills, having any connexion with the committees on them, that if a Peer having such an interest were appointed to one of these committees, he would feel himself bound in honour to refuse to serve. This system had been found to work well in the House of Peers, and if such was the feeling of that House, he would put it to hon. Members of this House to say, whether they considered it was decent to serve, because themselves or their constituents had an interest in the subject. He thought the exclusion of Members thus circumstanced would give satisfaction to the country and to the House.

rose merely to discuss the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, as to whether or not it would be right that local interests, as they had been called, should be excluded from committees on private bills. In the first place he must say, that he doubted the constitutional right of the House to say to a constituent body of Englishmen, "We will proscribe a whole class of Members from serving on such committees; we tell you, that the Members you have selected not only from a confidence in their principles on political matters, but from their knowledge of the interests of your respective neighbourhoods, shall by the vote of us (the House of Commons) be prevented from exercising that latter duty, which you so thought them qualified to discharge." Now, it was establishing a most important precedent, to adopt a resolution excluding a whole class of Members of that House from perforating their duty. And what had been the argument in favour of this great and serious innovation? In the first place, the hon. Member for Kilkenny said, that the questions and matters arising before committees on private bills were strictly of a judicial character. He doubted and denied that fact. It was true certain committees were judidicial. Election committees were, or ought to be, purely of a judicial character, and therefore they afforded an admirable reason why local interests should be excluded from those committees. Again, the committee on standing orders was of a judicial character, having to determine whether, in the case of each private bill, the rules and regulations of the House had been complied with. But he denied, that the considerations mixed up in a pri- vate bill were exclusively of a judicial character. He would not say, that no question of a judicial character was involved in a private bill, but this he would say, that there were many questions of a local character mixed up in the consideration of every private bill. He would take the case, for instance, of a bill for introducing into a town a new system of fighting it by gas. Could anybody say, that the exclusive question concerned in that bill was of a judicial character? Might it not rather be a question, whether the expense would not be greater than the advantage to be derived, and should he (Sir R. Peel) say, that the Member who represented that town, and who had an opportunity of conferring with his constituents upon the measure, who knew the characters both of the opponents and promoters of such a bill, should be necessarily excluded from serving upon the committee which had to decide, whether or not a new system of lighting should be established? The hon. Gentleman had said, that this was no more than had been done by the House of Lords; but the hon. Gentleman made a great mistake in supposing the character of the House of Lords to be the same as that of the House of Commons. Nobody had any claim on a Peer of the other House to attend to the performance of duties of a representative character, and therefore it might be quite right to exclude local interests from committees of that House, but there were such claims upon the Members of the House of Commons. Now, he begged to ask, in what manner or by what rule was to be determined that which constituted a local interest in order to exclude? That would be a matter of great difficulty; an interest might be very direct, but not local, as for instance he might be interested in opposing a railway, and because he might represent a county through which that railway was to pass, should he be excluded from serving in the committee on the bill? It would, in short, be necessary to inquire into the degree of interest before the qualification or otherwise could be determined. But he (Sir R. Peel's) strong objection was, the great danger of the precedent of the House thus undertaking to disqualify whole classes of Members, from the performance of certain duties to their constituents. The House, he thought, might go so far as to say, that a man should not serve on a committee, unless he undertook to hear the evidence; but he doubted whether they had a right to say to a Member, "On the ground of local interest we disqualify you from performing that duty which your constituents expect from you." But supposing the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was adopted, was an hon. Member by it excluded from the committee to be prevented from voting on the bill in the House? Was, for instance, the Member for Manchester to be told, that he should not represent the interests of his town in committee, the certain consequences would be, that he would declare, that in the House itself he would represent them. Would he not say, "Will you silence me then in committee—do you tell me, that there I am not at liberty to state the wishes, feelings, and interests of my constituents, and vote according to them?" Would not the result be, that the Member, indignant from this exclusion, would force a discussion on all those matters upon the House of Commons itself, and the consequence of this unjust attempt would be, that the time of the House would be occupied in listening to statements made with ten times more energy—energy excited by injustice? But what would be the position of constituents? Candidates in their addresses to constituents invariably, he believed, promised to attend to their local interests, and what could be more strange for them than to find the Member best acquainted with their local interests excluded from serving and protecting those interests? To a candidate of their own neighbourhood they, would have to say "We cannot elect you, because you are excluded from serving us—we must look for some Scotchman—we must follow the example of Kilkenny in our choice to have our business performed. The proposition contained in the amendment was both impossible on constitutional grounds and impracticable. It was true that local interests might sometimes have an undue influence on committees, but in the conflict of those interests he believed on the whole that was done. On these grounds he must on principle oppose a proposition for the proscription of a whole class of Members from performing their duty to their constituents.

said, that the unsatisfactory result of excluding local Members from their committees could not be better illustrated than by adverting to the position in which the town he represented (Brighton) had been placed during the previous Session of Parliament. No less than five different companies endeavoured to run their railways into that town. Assuredly, the inhabitants of Brighton would have been very much dissatisfied if their Members had not been placed upon the committees which were then appointed. He held the constitution of the committees of that House, both public and private, to be monstrous, and he was disposed even to go three-fourths of the way with the hon. Member for Kilkenny. "But," continued the hon. and gallant Member, "I can't stand here to exclude myself, when I have already two private bills on the table." He did not think it possible that the constituencies generally would be satisfied with the amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

thought that the duties of the committees were strictly judicial, and he was satisfied that in the country, from one end to the other, there was great dissatisfaction at the working of these committees. He would ask for what purpose they called parties before the committee with their counsel and their witnesses, which assumed a strictly judicial form, if they were then to be told that Members had local interests by which they were to be vote; that every argument of counsel and the whole strength of the evidence given were to be passed by, and that Members were to give their votes in the teeth of this evidence? He was satisfied, however, that this was the case at present. Let them take, for instance, a question between two lines of railway; and where there were rival lines they might pretty well tell, on looking round the room, how the different Members would vote. One witness examined before the committee, and speaking of the chairman of these private committees, said that he never knew an instance in which the chairman was moved by the speech of counsel or the evidence of witnesses. They ought to look at this in a public light, and not with a view to private interests. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had asked, who was to determine what private interest was?—but by the resolutions as agreed to by the committee, there must be a selection in which this question would arise; so that if there were any difficulty in the amendment it was not obviated by the resolutions. Another point from which the present system was to be viewed was, that it tended to disgrace and lower the character of the House. He asked how any hon. Gentleman who knew the working of committees on railroads, could doubt that any persons having parliamentary interest, who were also possessed of land along the line, would sometimes obtain ten times as much as it was worth? Nothing could lower the character of hon. Members or of the House more than the present proceedings. He might instance a case from his own town. A man called upon him to say that his land would be taken away by a proposed railroad. His answer was, "Why do you not appear before the committee?"—and the man's reply was, "I meant to appear, and had actually presented a petition, but in the mean time the parties have bought off Mr. So and So, who had joined me, by giving him a large price for his land, and I am left in the lurch to go on by myself." Feeling strongly that unless an entire alteration were made, and unless they removed local interests altogether, the present system would soon be revived, and the disgraceful system of private canvass would be continued. He would support the amendment.

said, that he would relate to the House a case which was quite in point. While the business of a railway committee was in progress an hon. Member gave his constant attendance, and voted on a certain side. After the bill had passed both Houses, and when the shares had risen to a premium, the solicitor writes to inform him that there was a certain number of shares at his disposal, and the hon. Member puts the profits in his pocket as the reward of his diligent attendance and favourable votes. [Loud cries of Name, name.] "No," said the hon. Member, "I will not; I could give the name, but I will not. But I say, that such things are notorious, that they are spoken of as passing here almost every day." The question was, how were they to prevent this corruption? By confining the number of members on these committees within the closest possible limits, and thus condensing their responsibility as much as possible. He believed, that the public would be better satisfied if Members possessing local interests declined to vote.

observed, that poor people who were unable to employ counsel would be deprived of any aid before committees if they had not their local members to apply to. He could not assent to this amendment, which conveyed, too, and intimation that he was unable honestly to discharge his duty to his constituents.

said, that in order to qualify that resolution, which was very objectionable in its present form, he should move as an amendment, "That any Member whose constituents may have a local interest in any private bill shall be a Member of that committee, but without a right to vote."

objected to any such proposition. He was sure no Member of that House would like to attend a committee whose decision would affect the interests of his constituents when the House decided beforehand that he was an unfit person to vote.

observed, that he for one would be very glad to sit upon such a committee without voting. He should wish to be there for the purpose of pleading the cause of his constituents with the local knowledge he necessarily possessed of their affairs, and he should wish to abstain from voting, lest it might be supposed that in doing so he was influenced by any bias or partiality.

thought the amendment of the hon. Member for Cockermouth would be exceedingly inconvenient. If a railway bill were introduced, for instance, and ordered to be sent to a committee, and it was intended that the railway should pass through five or six counties, he should be glad to know if the committee or the greater part of it was to be composed of Members who could only act the part of dummies? The proposition, in his opinion was extremely absurd.

thought the House should consider it, having in view another important subject which would shortly come before them—namely, the trial of controverted elections. Under the bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth, they would have a second committee of selection; and he was very much disposed to think that those two committees would be found incompatible, and would frequently clash. Each might select the same individual; and in that case he would ask the House who was to decide? It was a question which he submitted ought not to be considered without reference to the subject of controverted elections, which, as regarded this particular feature, was closely connected with it.

objected to it, as giving to the committee of selection a new jurisdiction, and one which in most cases was likely to be extremely invidious. Any Member of the House, whose name might not be included in the list, was to apply to the committee of selection to have it placed upon the list, alleging, as a reason, that his constituents had a local interest in the bill to be sent before the committee, and the committee of selection, according to this resolution, was to take upon itself to decide the "importance and reality" of such interest before they could allow that hon. Member to serve on the committee. This was imposing a duty upon the committee of selection, likely to be attended not only with annoyance, but very often with odium, and making them do what the whole House refused to do.

was sure that the House would have sufficient confidence in the Gentlemen composing the committee of selection to be content with their decision upon the subject referred to by the hon. Member. It was necessary to place the power of selection somewhere, and he could not see in what better hands they could place it.

could not ever assent to the principle of selection, because he thought it liable to the greatest objection. He could conceive no method more likely to create discontent amongst the Members of the House, and he would suggest, therefore, that this resolution should be amended, at least so far as to give the House an opportunity of supporting or questioning the selections made by the committee of selection. He would not object to give to that committee the power of recommending Members to the House, but he was of opinion, the best way would be, to select their committees on private business just as they did those on public business. They would thus avoid all difficulty, and could, at the same time, take care not to name any one who was not willing to serve in the manner specified in one of those resolutions.

had no objection, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cockermouth, to amend this resolution, by the omission of the words, "importance and," making the resolution run thus—"if the reality of such interest shall be established to their satisfaction." Further than that he could not consent to alter it.

wished to make this remark—that while Members having a local interest were obliged to declare they would serve throughout the proceedings, Members not having a local interest—that was to say, men of whose impartiality there was no doubt—were not called upon, under this resolution, to make that declaration.

said, it was undoubtedly the wish of every member of the committee that impartial Members should give their attendance, but there could be no sort of question that if Members serving on those committees upon private bills were left at liberty to choose the committees on which they were to serve, they would attend those only in which they felt an interest, and therefore perfect impartiality or indifference was not to be expected. It was the general opinion in the committee which had taken this subject into consideration and reported to the House on the 25th of this month, that a great deal for the improvement of committees must be done by private understandings and arrangements amongst the Members of the House themselves. The first proposition on the subject was, that Members willing to serve on committees should be requested to enter their names in a list, on the understanding that they were to take their places in committee, without distinction, whenever called upon. On the other hand, this was felt to be a plan that could hardly work well in practice, for members would put down their names without much reflection, and probably be very unwilling to serve on committees when the proper time for doing so arrived. Taking these views of the matter into consideration, the committee felt that they could not recommend any other plan than that which had been laid before the House.

observed, that if they succeeded in excluding the interested Members, they might limit the committee to a very small number indeed.

said, that the exercise of moral influence was the chief want, and it was to impartial and indifferent Members they must look for the exercise of that influence. In calling on such Members to declare whether they would serve or not, their assent subjected them to no penalties in case illness or any other sufficient cause prevented their attending; there need, therefore, be no difficulty about Members giving an assurance of that kind. Balancing the difficulties with which the matter was surrounded, he thought it would be best to place Members free from local influence upon the same footing as the others, subjecting all to the same rule. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consider this suggestion, and see if it could not be advantageously acted upon.

said, as the present committee very much resembled that in the case of the hon. Member for Southwark, he thought it indispensable, before the motion was put, that an imputation which had been thrown out by that hon. Member (whom he was glad to see again in his place) in his last address to his constituents, should be explained. In that address, the hon. Member used terms which he should be happy to hear him explain. In that address the hon. Member stated, that he conceived himself, although he could not recollect the exact words used by the hon. Member, to have been the victim of the select committee, with whose appointment he had nothing to do, and from whose proceedings he had been perfectly excluded. He believed every Member on that Committee was most anxious to do his duty, and as to the hon. Member for Southwark being excluded from its deliberations, he was present during the whole of the sittings, until there were no further suggestions to be made; but when the Committee was about to deliberate as to their Report, it was intimated to him, that, according to the rules of the House, he was a stranger, and must withdraw. He felt the importance of having the statements in that address modified, because it was most unfair to make such a statement in an address to a constituency, as applied to the judicial proceedings of a Committee of that House. He thought that some explanation was due to the House, before another Committee of the same sort was appointed.

thought it was not altogether regular to call upon an hon. Member to explain what appeared in the public journals. If they once admitted the principle, that Members must be answerable for what was reported in the public papers, or in public committees of that House, see what a situation hon. Members would be placed in. The speech might or might not be correct. His hon. Friend said, it was an address, but even then they had nothing to do with what occurred out of the House.

said, there might be some doubt as to the expediency of putting the question, but he believed in principle and practice, that it was quite right. He contended, that when any statement appeared calculated to prejudice that House, it was their duty to call upon the hon. Member in his place to state whether what appeared in the public papers had been spoken by him, or whether he avowed or disavowed the expressions; that was done in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. When the noble Lord made his motion he had no knowledge of the matter except from the public papers; that was the origin of the proceedings which had occupied the House so long. An objection was now taken to the same course of proceeding, and he saw no other way in which the question could be set at rest, if it were worth noticing at all. He hoped, therefore, the House would call upon the hon. Member to give some explanation. He had seen the hon. Member in attendance at the committee; the hon. Member heard all the questions that were put and the discussions that took place, and he could assure the House, that he had never once lowered his voice in putting questions. The committee might have been wrong in permitting Mr. Harvey to be present during the two days of their proceedings, but he believed, according to the rules of the House, Mr. Harvey was a stranger, and the committee were justified in requesting him to withdraw. So far from there having been any secresy in their proceedings, the grounds on which they had come to their decision were communicated to Mr. Harvey. It was due to the committee to state thus much, and it was due to the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to say, that according to his judgment the right hon. Member had done nothing that was not strictly according to the forms of the House.

having been called upon, said, if the House considered it right, that a Member of that House should be called upon to explain an address to his constituents, he should not interpose any difficulty whatever. He had only hoped, that they had more important matters to engage their attention. As he understood the observation of the hon. Member for Sheffield, he had been called upon in courtesy, and he had no objection to give any explanation that was required. The hon. Member, however, should not have been altogether unmindful of what was due to him, for although he had been sitting in the House since four o'clock, and although the hon. Member had been there nearly for the same period, it was a mere accidental suggestion about five minutes since which led him to understand, that the hon. Member was about to mention the subject, or that he cared anything for what appeared in the public papers. As he had been called on by the hon. Member for Cockermouth to avow or disavow these words, he would at once; and he was not one of those who would take shelter under one thing or another; he would at once avow and explain what he had said. If he was wrong, no one was more ready to explain or retract it. He did write that letter, and he abided by it. It was true, not only in the letter, but in spirit. A secret and select committee of the House of Commons, in whose appointment he had no share, and from whose deliberations he was expressly excluded, had in its wisdom come to the decision that he had accepted an office of profit, and declared his seat to be vacated. That it was secret was not denied, because the hon. Gentleman had admitted, that all strangers were excluded. That it was select was also true, for that was the very title of the committee. In the appointment of that committee he had no share, because the names had never been shown to him, nor had he been asked whether the Committee were acceptable in its persons, or as a whole. True, he (Mr. Harvey) had accidentally suggested to a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Benches, that if there was no objection he would be pleased to see Mr. Sergeant Wilde and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd on that Committee, considering that they were both able lawyers; and with all due submission to the hon. Member for Cockermouth, they might have been useful in such a case, if they got a word in. With respect to that part of the subject he would say, that he not only gave credit to his hon. Friend, when he had stated, that he talked as loud as usual, but he heard nobody else speak. The first day there was no deliberation at all. There were only five Members present, and it appeared to him (Mr. Harvey), that they considered it as a mere conversazione. They walked about the room, and stood at the fire, and there was a great deal of coquetting about who should take the chair. The Solicitor General stated, that rather than nobody should take the chair, he would. He was obliged to the hon. Member for the compliment he had paid him in saying, that he had an opportunity of hearing what he did not recollect. The only deliberation was as to the questions to be circulated among the Members who were to be summoned for the following Thursday. They did assemble on that day, and he carried his point notwithstanding the thunder of the hon. Member's voice, that the hon. Member for Southwark had no business there, the committee being a secret and select one—nothing offensive of course was meant. He immediately said, that all he wished was, that the committee should come to a con- clusion as soon as they could. It was then intimated to him, that he should retire, which he did most readily. The Chairman certainly asked him whether he had anything to state. He replied in the negative, adding, that all he wished them to do was to decide at once. To show how little he had to do with their deliberations, (he did not mean their talk or conversation), and to show how expressly he was shut out from them, the committee directed the messenger to tell him that they would be glad if he would wait in the library during their deliberations. He did wait there, and if they asked their librarian they would find, that during that time a good many of its shelves had been deranged as they sent for not less than twenty books to assist their deliberations, in which deliberations he (Mr. Harvey) had no share whatever. If, in making that statement to his constituents, he had offended the hon. Member or the committee he was sorry for it. Why should he? he was in excellent humour with them all, and so were his constituents. He had nothing to apprehend from their decision, for as soon as the forms of law permitted it he was repossessed of his seat. He would conclude by assuring them, that he had no intention Whatever in framing that address to speak of the hon. Member in any other terms than that of kindness and courtesy.

regretted very much that the hon. Member who had moved the Committee, had seen reason to depart from what he understood was the original intention of the House, viz., to submit the question to the same Committee as before—he was surprised to find the substitution of the names of two Gentlemen to whom he had no objection farther than as it infringed on the principle. The hon. Member was proceeding on the supposition that two Members of the previous Committee could not attend, and that it would be therefore necessary to substitute other names, but he doubted whether that would justify him in appointing other Members. He thought it was their duty not to make any alteration in the original understanding of the House for the accommodation of any particular Member on the one side or the other. He had really considered the question as one which they were not to deal with as a party or political one. The present Committee was a new construction of it, more than one Member being added; and he felt it impossible to give his sanction in such a proceeding. He hoped, therefore, the House would adhere to its original understanding.

said, he had suggested the substitution of another name for his, as it would be impossible for him, however anxious to do his duty, either in this House or before a Committee, to be present. He should be engaged for three days. After that time, he should have no difficulty, but he thought the House to determine as early as possible.

believed, that neither he nor the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to ask any Member proposed, whether he should attend the Committee or, not. He thought, in a case of this kind, which involved the seat of a Member of the House, there should be no delay, especially as the investigation was not one likely to last for weeks or months, but would be decided in two or three days. He should move the appointment of the original Committee.

had no objection; however, he could not substitute Mr. O'Connell for Sir Thomas Acland, nor Mr. Harvey for Mr. Cresswell, because he had not given notice to that effect. He was indifferent about the opinion of the Committee—what he wanted was, to have the facts of the case clearly developed and laid before the public. Let no one accuse him of acting unfairly in this matter. He was willing to undertake the entire responsibility of the proceeding. However, for the sake of expediting the business, if those opposite would strike out of the eight Members which their side of the House furnished, Sir Thomas Acland and Mr. Cresswell, he would strike out Mr. O'Connell and the Attorney-General. Then the Committee would consist of eleven which he moved accordingly.

said, that if there had been a house on Tuesday, the Committee would have gone off well. He was glad of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chester, but some of the arrangements that had been proposed were open to inferences unfavourable to the even flow of justice. He would have the House remember, that some persons were as much alive to their proceedings, as others were sensitive to addresses. When the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, that it was unnecessary to propose a Committee because he was satisfied the Memfor Southwark had vacated his seat, it might be said, that he should not be on the Committee because his mind was made up. Why, if Montgomeryshire were not as safe as Southwark, that would be some reason for him to be on the Committee. They must not be content with mere parole evidence now, they must have ample documentary evidence before the House, and he was satisfied then the House would come to a just conclusion.

had given notice that he would, that evening, move that a certain petition from Dublin should be taken into consideration, and that he would also move for leave to bring in a bill. The petition to which he wished to call their attention, was in favour of that bill. He did not mean to trouble the House with any observations on that petition, but would proceed forthwith to move for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the franchises of Parliamentary electors in England, Wales, and Ireland, and to render the same more extensive. That was the object of his present motion. It was one, perhaps, of little importance to the House, but it was one of the greatest and most paramount importance to the people of Ireland. He had been given to understand, that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to oppose his motion for leave to bring in such a bill; and he would therefore state, as briefly as possible, the reasons why he conceived that the House ought not to concur in that opposition. The principle on which he asked for leave to bring in this bill, was the legislative union now existing between Great Britain and Ireland. If that union had any principle to support it, it was the identity of interests between the two countries. If there was not that identity between them, then it was the union of master and slave, and not the community of free citizens belonging to the same state. Having taken that principle as the basis which was to enable him to ask for leave to bring in his bill, he felt great regret at finding that the Government was determined to oppose its introduction. It seemed to him to be an authoritative declaration, that Ireland was not to have the benefit of the union, for that was stated at the time of forming it, to be a complete participation of privileges and franchises with Great Britain. He was standing there at present as a repealer; though it was his fixed opinion, that if his motion was refused, nothing but a repeal of the union would satisfy the expectations, and he might even say the longings, of his fellow-countrymen. It could not be but that they would think that repeal necessary, unless Ireland had the full advantage of the union. That was so obvious, that he should weary the House if he entered into any proofs of it. He would therefore proceed at once to show, that in the elective franchise, the difference between England and Ireland was absolutely enormous; that the number of electors in England was infinitely beyond that of electors in Ireland; and that in Ireland, it was positively so small as to render it a matter of surprise, that any resistance could be given to the aristocracy of that country, or that the popular voice could be heard there at all. What he insisted on was, that the people of Ireland were to have the same proportion of franchise which the people of England enjoyed; and that there should not be a limited constituency in one country, and a large one in the other. The great complaint even in England was, that its constituency was too narrow. He believed the complaint to be true. He believed that the constituency of England would have been larger, if the cause of reform had not fallen into hands who were more anxious to retard than to accelerate its progress. He believed, that the cry for an enlarged constituency would, when those persons had sufficiently shown their weakness and their wickedness, be renewed not only in England, but also in that House. He would not, however, enter into that question at present; all he wanted to show was, the difference of the two countries in respect to the elective franchise, and to prove, that though the constituency was narrow in England, it was still narrower in Ireland. He had examined a great mass of Parliamentary documents, but he had taken the amount of the number of electors in Ireland from the returns which were made to the House on the first registration after the Reform Bill. That was the most favourable view which he could take of the state of the franchise in Ireland, so far as regarded the point of numbers, for a greater number of persons had been registered at that time than had ever been registered since. It was impossible to ascertain how many persons had been added to that registry since, or how many persons ought to be deducted from it, for there were many persons on the registry now, though they were dead, or had lost their franchise, or had otherwise become disqualified to vote. He had endeavoured, as far as he could, to check these returns by the polls taken at contested elections, and he found that in every case the number of electors who were registered at first was much larger than the number ever polled at any election since. Intending, then, to confine himself to these documents, he would proceed to call the attention of the House to the various contrasts which they presented to the state of things in England, contrasts which displayed in every instance the immense superiority of the latter country in the enjoyment of the franchise. He would, in the first instance, take the principality of Wales; and from that he would show in what minority Ireland stood. Wales had 806,183 inhabitants; the number of its electors was 37,124. They were divided thus: the population of the Welsh counties, exclusive of the towns returning members, was 609,871; the number of electors was 25,815. Now, he would contrast the number of electors in the county of Cork with the number in all the different counties in Wales. The rural population of the county of Cork, not including the population of the cities and towns returning Members to Parliament, was 720,000. Wales, for 609,000 inhabitants, had 25,815 electors. The county of Cork, for 720,000 inhabitants, had only 3,835, that was less than 4,000. Was it possible, that the people of Ireland could ever deem themselves connected with England by an identity of privilege and franchise, when they found that among 700,000 inhabitants of Ireland only 3,835 were electors, whilst among 600,000 inhabitants of Wales, there were 25,815 electors? He would next take an English county, and would contrast the state of the franchise within it with the state of the franchise in several of the counties. He would take the smallest county in England, for instance, Rutlandshire. The population of Rutlandshire was 19,385; the number of its electors was 1,391. Now, this he would show, was more than the number of electors in each of seven counties in Ireland, which he would immediately mention. His object in making this contrast, was to appeal to the common sense of the people of England, in order that they might consider whether it was possible that the people of Ireland could be content with an union presenting such striking contrasts. He would now lay before the House the number of the population in the counties of Carlow, Louth, Kildare, Leitrim, Sligo Kerry, and Mayo, and the number of electors in each:—

	Population.	Electors.
Carlow	73,958	1,248
Louth	93,225	1,025
Kildare	108,424	1,244
Leitrim	141,524	1,388
Sligo	162,482	941
Kerry	255,579	1,243
Mayo	306,228	1,350

It thus appeared, that Rutland, with less than 20,000 inhabitants, had more electors than two Irish counties, ranging between 70,000 and 100,000, than two more ranging between 100,000 and 140,000, than one more with upwards of 150,000, than one more with more than 250,000, and lastly, than another with more than 300,000. But this contrast would appear still more striking, if it were formed with some other counties in England and Wales—for instance, with Radnorshire. The population of Radnorshire was 16,241; the number of electors in it was 1,857, which was greater than the number in any one of the counties which he had yet enumerated. He would, however, contrast it with some other Irish counties. The hon. and learned Member read the following table:—

	Population.	Electors.
Longford	112,558	1,465
Wicklow	121,557	1,740
Westmeath	136,872	1,395
Waterford	142,714	1,494
King's County	144,225	1,526
Fermanagh	147,364	1,640
Meath	176,012	1,850
Roscommon	249,613	1,776
Donegal	289,149	1,448

He had often heard taunts uttered in that House against the restricted nature of the franchise in France. He had now shown that a quarter of a million of inhabitants in Ireland contained among them a less number of electors than were to be found in the small county of Radnor. Could the rights, he would ask, of the people of Ireland be as well protected as those of the people of England under such a system? He would take another English county, and that, too, a small one— he meant Westmoreland. The population of that county was 42,464; the number of its electors was 4,392. That county had a greater number of electors than any county you could select in Ireland. For instance, in Londonderry county, the population was 207,848, and the electors 2,172. Let the House, then, consider the comparative population of the two:—

Londonderry	207,848
Westmoreland	42,464
Excess in Londonderry	165,384
Comparative franchise—
Westmoreland	4,392 electors.
Londonderry	2,172
Excess in Westmoreland	2,220

Again, in Downshire, the population was 337,876, and the electors 3,130.

Comparative population—
Downshire	337,876
Westmoreland	42,464—or 6 to 1.
Excess in Downshire	295,492
Comparative franchise—
Westmoreland	4,392 electors.
Downshire	3,130
Excess in Westmoreland	1,262

In Mayo, too, the population was 366,228, and the electors 1,350.

Comparative population—
Mayo	366,228
Westmoreland	42,464—or more than 8 to 1
Excess in Mayo	323,764
Comparative franchise—
Westmoreland	4,392
Mayo	1,350
Excess in Westmoreland	3,042

In Tipperary, the population was 380,435, and the electors 2,369.

Comparative population—
Tipperary	380,435
Westmoreland	42,464—about 8 to 1.
Comparative franchise—
Westmoreland	4,392
Tipperary	2,369—nearly 2 to 1.
Excess in Westmoreland	2,023

So, too, in Galway, the county population was 381,564. and the electors 3,061.

Comparative population—
Galway	381,564
Westmoreland	42,464—more than. 9 to 1
Excess in Galway	339,100

Comparative franchise—
Westmoreland	4,392
Galway	3,061—near ⅓ less in Galway.
Excess in Westmoreland	1,331

Again, in Cork county, the population was 720,000, and the electors 3,835.

Comparative population—
Cork	720,000
Westmoreland	42,464—about 14 to 1.
Excess in Cork	677,536
Comparative franchise—
Westmoreland	3,392 electors.
Cork	2,835—about ⅛ less.
Excess in Westmoreland	557

There was, in one instance, a singular coincidence—

Tyrone had a population of	301,325
The electors were	2,151
Flintshire had a population of	29,329
The electors were	2,151

Thus the population of Tyrone exceeded that of Flintshire more than ten times told; yet the number of electors was precisely the same. One Welchman was, therefore equivalent to ten men inhabiting Tyrone. He had stated these facts upon documents which he believed to be authentic—namely, Parliamentary returns: but he must now add, that if those documents were not authentic, the other documents which he had to refer to would make out for him a still stronger case. If he were to refer to the number of electors who had voted in those counties where the representation had been contested, it would be found that in every instance the numbers were less than those which he had stated. At the last election there voted in Longford, which was violently contested, and when every vote that could be brought to the poll was taken there, 1,172; the return of electors registered was 1,465; the numbers who voted were 1,172—less by 203. In Westmeath there were returned as registered, 1,395; there voted, 1,138—less by 257. In Wicklow there were registered, 1,740; there voted, 1,325—less by 415. In Dublin city there were registered, 11,706; there voted, 7,023 (though about 1,000 freemen had been added); less by 4,683. In Cork county there were registered, 3,835; there voted, 2,504—less by 1,331. He thought that be had now sufficiently demonstrated the extraordinary contrast which existed between the state of the franchise in England and in Ireland. He thought that he had sufficiently demonstrated that in Ireland it was limited to the smallest possible number, whilst in England, though it was not so large as it ought to be, it was still sufficiently extensive to manifest to every Irishman the extreme injustice which was done to his country. He asked was it possible that any man could imagine that the people of Ireland would continue to call this connexion an union? Such contrasts as those of Cork and Westmoreland were what convinced the people of Ireland that that House was not disposed to do them justice. He would not go into an historical detail of the manner in which Ireland had been treated since the union; he would confine himself to the data before him, sums of vulgar arithmetic, leading to conclusions which it was impossible to resist. Gentlemen might say there were too many electors in Ireland, and that they wished to diminish the number. He was prepared for that sentiment; he believed it might exist on both sides; he saw a Gentleman who smiled in assent; but could any rational man suppose, that the people of Ireland would endure this? Why, it was oppressive, it was unjust, it was insulting to them. The people of Ireland deserved the confidence of the constituted authorities as much as the people of England; they had the same natural rights; they bore like burdens; they shared in the same dangers against a common enemy. Why, then, should any man dare to insult them by assisting in perpetuating this contrast between them and the people of England? Government might boast that they had received the thanks of the Irish people for the manner in which they had ruled that country. It was true they had, for this was the first Government that had attempted to act impartially towards Ireland; but if they came forward to shield this enormity, they would make it their own, and would show that, whatever motives they might have for acting with administrative justice towards Ireland, they had no real or consistent regard for the spirit of justice. The franchises of which Ireland had been deprived were still enjoyed by England. There was a 40s. franchise without occupation, and a 10l. franchise without occupation. The franchise in Ireland was much higher in relative value and it was made higher still by the term of occupation that was demanded. England was the richer country, yet it had a lower franchise; Ireland was a far poorer country, and the amount of qualification was made infinitely higher. There was a maxim familiar in the higher courts, that equality was equity. Equality in this respect was the only equity. It was not in pounds, shillings, and pence, that it should be made equal, but the real value should be equalized by taking into account the different states of society in the two countries. He had pointed out the results which the present gross inequality occasioned. He did hope it was the first time the present Government had been made aware of the horrifying contrast, since they had hitherto made no attempt to redress the grievance; and, although his bill might be resisted to-night, he trusted they would apply some remedy. He knew it might be thrown out that 40s. freeholders were sacrificed by a class of the advocates of Catholic Emancipation at the time the Emancipation Bill passed. He denied it: there never was a grosser falsehood. He had documents to prove the groundlessness of the assertion. The last resolution passed by the Catholic Association, when it dissolved itself, was one calling on Parliament not to emancipate the Catholics at the expense of the 40s. freeholders. Forty-five delegates came over to watch the progress of the Emancipation Bill, and they presented an unanimous petition to the House to stay the progress of the bill rather than sacrifice the 40s. freeholders. The reading of the petition was prevented by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer: it was signed by all the popular representatives of Ireland. Even a proposal for the partial abolition of the 40s. franchise was rejected by the emancipators, and from 1825 to 1829 the 40s. freeholders vindicated their rights with the countenance and support of the Catholic delegates. Could the House suppose that Irishmen would patiently endure the inequality that now degraded them? If Englishmen were placed in the same position—if they saw a small Irish county with a larger number of electors than the great county of York, they would not endure it for a day; they would not pass a night in bed before they had set on foot measures to remedy such an abuse. If they saw a county like Carlow with a population of 73,000—and a greater constituency than Yorkshire with 800,000 inhabitants, the law would not remain unaltered a week. The rules and orders of the House would be suspended, they would not go to bed without having passed a bill to make the change, it would be in the House of Lords to-morrow, and he did not think that House would reject such a bill. He had been sneered at often for his predictions, although they sometimes turned out to be true; they might be disposed to laugh at them on this occasion, but he would tell them that if this was the first time they had heard of the question, they would hear of it often enough in future. He told them the people of Ireland would not submit to the abuse of which they complained; they were able enough to have their wrongs redressed, and they would have them redressed; they would have the union perfect, or no union at all. They might mock him here, but what he said was listened to with some attention elsewhere, and when he had such facts as he had detailed, with such arguments as inevitably arose from them, and when he told his countrymen that he had met with no sympathy here, that the mere ceremony of bringing in a bill was refused, and that he was told in limine that there was something so final in the Reform Bill, that Ireland was not to have a lower franchise, the voice of the people of Ireland would be raised in indignation, and it must be listened to by that House. Injustice had been done to them. During the struggle for reform they aided the English reformers; it was the Irish Members that gave the English their first majority on that question; they stuck by them for good and evil, but they had been punished for it. Their first boon from a reformed Parliament was the Coercion Bill, and now they would be refused the correction of the injustice he was representing. What did he care for the professions that Government made of their willingness to do his country justice, when he found their actions in direct contrast to their declarations? What an excellent disposition they professed to cherish! He would bring it to the test. Was there ever a grosser injustice than that which was created by the difference of the franchise in England and Ireland? If such a contrast existed between the southern counties of England and the northern—if the difference was as great between Westmoreland and Kent as it was between Westmoreland and Kerry, would it be tolerated for a day? Oh! but the two countries were united. Were they? He produced his calculation, he showed that the political rights of the inhabitants were not the same. When they talked of a union, there was no union at all; it was the subjugation of a province, if they would but avow it fully and manfully, and let loose their faction again upon it. But the people of Ireland were getting too strong for this; they could not be governed by a faction; seven or eight administrations had been ruined by trying to govern Ireland on this system; let them do this, and supply the only thing wanted to show their aversion to the Irish people, and their determination not to do them justice. Nothing could be more obnoxious to the Irish people than the present tenures of land; the evils of Ireland arose from agrarian misery, and resulted in agrarian outrages; yet the present system, and the abuses that sprung from it, were to be continued, and all prospect of improvement cut off. Attempts had been made also to introduce Protestant tenants in the room of Catholics, but the landlords soon got weary of religious fervour that lessened their annual income. Some of the Protestant colonies had already disappeared; but what a frightful thing was the religious animosity that resulted from expelling the one set of tenants, and bringing in the other, and giving them a beneficial interest. Why, it was the worst shape in which the fiend of religious discord could present himself in Ireland. By refusing to accede to his motion, Government would declare themselves the promoters and patrons of injustice. He might be told, that the English franchise was unjust as well as that of Ireland, and should be extended. Be it so; give the people of Ireland an extended franchise, and he would join them in regulating the English franchise. He had once thought of altering the present form of his motion, which included both the assimilation and extension of the franchise in the two countries, but he considered it better to take the sense of the House on it in the terms in which it now stood on the paper, as he should most assuredly once every fortnight or three weeks while the Session lasted take the sense of the House on a motion somewhat similar. He might be called on to declare what extension of the franchise he proposed. The 10l. franchise now existing in Ireland was equivalent to a 20l. franchise in this country, and he would be glad if the House would lower it to the level of the English; but he proposed further to diminish the qualification in both countries to 5l. He now called on the House to decide this question. He had explained the extraordinary contrast that existed between the two countries. He could say, with firmness, that he was authorized by the people of Ireland, who had placed confidence in him long and unremittingly, to declare positively to the House that they would be contented with no union but one of reality. The hon. and learned Member moved, in conclusion, for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the franchises of Parliamentary electors in England, Wales, and Ireland, and to render the same more extensive.

said, that notwithstanding the repudiation by his hon. and learned friend of all professions, and what he termed lip-service, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should have risen with far more alacrity and pleasure than he now did, had it been his task to signify to the House his compliance with the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion. In so doing, he certainly should have acted more in conformity, apparently at least, with the views which he had ever entertained, and which when an opportunity occurred, he had ever endeavoured to act upon, in reference to the mode in which it behoved the Legislature to deal generally with questions of Irish policy. The propositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman were in many instances founded in truth. With such impressions and such feelings as these, he might, reasonably enough, be asked how it was that he was not prepared to assent to the introduction of the measure. He felt that this motion, both as taken in itself, and in connection with several other correlative questions, was of a nature which rendered it the imperative duty of Government not to leave any room for misapprehension or uncertainty about it. He deemed it would be most unwise and improper to raise unfounded expectations, by assenting to the introduction of a measure, which he hereafter might find himself under the harsh necessity of refusing. Supposing that Government had quite made up its mind on the subject, it would be most undesirable to have the time of the House taken up by fruitless discussion without any practical result being attained. He was far from wishing to assert in favour of any Act of Parliament a claim which it would be utterly impossible to make in favour of anything human that he was aware of, that of being considered a finished and perfect work, an eternal and immutable contract. Still less was he prepared to contend that the day might not come when it might be permitted to the Legislature to sweep away every remaining vestige of inequality from the statute-book of both countries. He, and those who acted with him, were already engaged in that endeavour, on a field where the difficulties in their way seemed to them less invincible. These difficulties, however, would be, he feared, so greatly increased by any course of proceeding which should multiply the objects in view, as to involve them in the risk of destroying and defeating their own endeavours. As to the point of identity, he could not, consistently with a due regard to the force of figures and the truth of calculations, deny that there was a great disproportion between the, franchise in England and that in Ireland, considering the respective population, neither was there a perfect identity between England and Scotland, but at the same time the disproportion in the case of England and Ireland was not so great as the hon. and learned Gentleman imagined. While, however, he repudiated the notion of attributing what was called finality to any legislative measure, and while he professed himself ready, when a proper opportunity occurred, and not merely ready, but anxious, finally and completely to remove all the remaining inequalities between the two countries, yet he could not exclude from his consideration of this case, that the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, if assented to, would be in direct contravention both of the settlement which accompanied the Emancipation Act of 1829, and of the settlement made by the Reform Act of 1832. At the time this latter measure was in progress through the House of Commons, his hon. and learned Friend brought this identical proposition before the then House of Commons, and it was debated at great length and negatived by the Parliament which enacted the Irish Reform Bill. Was it to be said that the Irish Reform Bill had failed. This, at least, could not be said with any grace by the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he looked around on those who surrounded him, and saw the benches on all sides of him filled with such a large majority of Gentleman from Ireland, who professed the same opinions as his own. When the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward this proposition ou the occasion referred to, he stated that the Irish Reform Bill would only serve to extend and increase the power of the oligarchy in Ireland; that it would hand aver the whole representation of Ireland into the absolute possession of the absentee landlords of that country; and that if the object were to place all Ireland under the uncontrolled domination of the Tory Aristocracy, no better mode could be adopted than the bill called the Irish Reform Bill. Yet how had matters turned out? Precisely in such a way as to prove that it could not be on the credit of a fulfilled prophecy that the hon. and learned Gentleman could found his present motion. If, indeed, it were true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman at that time prophesied, that the Irish Reform Bill threw the franchise into the hands of the oligarchy of Ireland, he could only express his pride and gratification that the policy of the present Government had been so satisfactory to the oligarchy in question, that they had permitted so large a proportion of the representation of that country to fall into the hands of gentlemen who gave their support to that government. Again, with reference to what took place at the passing of the Emancipation Act. He did not pronounce that measure, more than any other, an indissoluble, inviolable compact, or that all those who supported it were parties to any such understanding, still it was well known that the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders was made an inseparable condition of the adoption of that measure, by those who brought it forward, and who at that time had alone the power of carrying it. With reference to what had happened since the passing of that measure, considering what had occurred on the tithe question and the question of the Irish Church—questions, the merits of which he should not, of course, drag into the present discussion—it could not be asserted that all that had taken place since the passing of the Emancipation Act had so far reassured and quieted the minds of those who viewed with great jealousy and distrust the tendency and consequences of that measure, as to bring it within the verge of possibility that Parliament would give its sanction to the motion of his hon. and learned Friend. He had only to add, that to any feasible and practicable proposition for confirming and extending the rights and good government of the people of Ireland, he should be most willing and anxious to accede, and in declining to give his consent to the pre- sent motion he had the consolation of reflecting that in so doing he was not meting out a different measure to the three countries which formed the empire, for while the Government was ready to accede to any judicious proposition for carrying out the intention and improving the machinery of the respective Reform Acts, they refused, in the case alike of England, Ireland, and Scotland, to change and alter the natnre and extent of the franchise which the imperial Legislature had thought it proper to adopt. For the reasons then, which he had thus briefly stated, admitting at the same time that his hon. and learned Friend had shown, that great disproportion did in many cases exist in the franchise; yet, thinking that the Legislature ought not thus lightly to disturb the arrangements which had accompanied statutes of such vast importance, and of so recent a date; and believing that encouraging any endeavour to do so would only lead to protracted and resultless debates, he must give his decided, though reluctant, negative to the motion.

would not occupy the attention of the House for many minutes. He had two observations to make, one of which applied to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, the other to the noble Lord who had just sat down. But before he proceeded to these he must express his admiration of the manner in which the former had abandoned the petition. [No, no.] He was certainly right. He understood the hon. and learned Member to say that he would not call the attention of the House to the petition, but would proceed with his motion for leave to bring in the bill. This, therefore, was giving the go-by to the petition. He congratulated the noble Lord and her Majesty's Government that in this instance there was no intention to second the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But he should have been better pleased, he should have been much warmer in his congratulations, if the noble Lord had adopted bolder and sounder grounds for opposing the motion. Those assumed by the noble Lord had no proper basis—they were fallacious and full of sophistry. For the noble Lord had conceded the propriety of the hon. and learned Member's comparison of the extent of the constituencies, in proportion to the population, as between Ireland and England. He would ask the noble Lord whether or not the provisions of the Reform Bill had not been determined by the principle, not of population, but property? Was not the very basis one of property? He was astonished at the noble Lord's admission of the principle laid down now by the hon. and learned Member; and adding to that right the consolation that the day was not Far distant in which his views might be carried out. Yes, the noble Lord had held out the hope and expectation that on a very near day the hon. and learned Member might be able to achieve his object. If the noble Lord and his learned Friend would coin pare the English with the Irish Reform Bill, they would find that the privilege of votes was in many cases more extensive in the latter than in the former. There were various franchises in Ireland unknown to an English constituency. He would tell the noble lord and the learned Gentleman what these were. But he would first say that it was not the Reform Bill that disfranchised the 40s. freeholders; it was a previous measure, that of Catholic Emancipation, and those who spoke loudest now of the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, should be asked, who called loudest then for their abolition? He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman how he came to do aught in the matter—how it was he threw the 40s. freeholders away? He perhaps might now say, as he had on some other occasion, "Oh, we were supplicants then, we were humbly petitioning to be emancipated." Or, "We made promises in our thraldom we should not be asked to redeem now we are free." But this would be no answer to the House. The hon. and learned Member must be content to be judged out of his own mouth; and this would be best done by referring to the evidence of the hon. and learned Member before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1825. What he would read to the House was an extract made from that evidence—the questions put to the hon. Member, and his replies, word for word.

"Do you think raising the qualification to 10l. would be productive of good to Ireland?—I think it would be productive of benefit. It is in my humble judgment no small benefit to get rid of any portion of perjury; and it is the commencement of what we want so much in Ireland—a substantial yeomanry. The population is too much divided between the highest and the lowest class.

"Would the qualification of 10l. be sufficient for that purpose?—I think it would for this reason—there must he a clear profit of 10l. per annum and a freehold tenure. Many would be ready to make a sacrifice of 10l. per annum who would hesitate before they would sacrifice 20l. per annum, because at the commencement of the lease it must be so, in order to satisfy the purpose as well as during its progress.

"What do you mean of sacrifice:—The sacrifice by so much income; the landed proprietor, when he makes the lease, makes it at a rack-rent in 99 cases out of 100.

"You stated that many persons would be willing to make a sacrifice; who are the persons who have the sacrifice to make?—The land proprietors. The landlord making the lease would have to make the sacrifice, if he constituted the freeholder of 10l. per annum. When he could get for his land 20l. per annum if he did not make him a voter, he would get but 10l. if he wished the man to have a vote, for the income must come out of the landlord's rent, and therefore it is a sacrifice. In creating a right to vote by a lease for life, it must be upon an interest, whatever the qualification may be by which the person acquiring the vote has a clear yearly profit to the amount. He should have a clear profit, at which he should be able to let to a third person next day after his own lease, and which profit the landlord might himself have got in the letting of it."

He would pray the House to pay attention to the last answer particularly. The hon. and learned Member was so precise in his declaration that he would have the lease so claused as to have a clear yearly profit of 10l. at which the assessor would be able to sell it to a third party—an undoubted marketable value of 10l. per annum. There was the construction of the hon. and learned Gentleman of what ought to be the proper qualification, and yet he had the front day after day to arraign the judges of the land on account of their construction of what ought to be a 10l. qualification. After such a solemn and deliberate record of his opinion on the subject, the hon. and learned Gentleman now came to the House and endeavoured by argument, or persuasion, or threats, to restore the forty shilling franchise he had done so much himself to destroy. He would now state to the House what were the peculiar elective privileges enjoyed by Ireland, the poorer country, and on the principle laid down in passing the Reform bill, the less requisite of the two for anything like an extension of franchise over England. It was true, that Ireland had not the forty shilling freehold franchise, for reasons sufficiently shown in the evidence of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but her counties possessed two de- scriptions of franchise which England did not. These were lessees for twenty years with an annual profit of 10l., and sublessees for twenty years, with a profit of 10l. per annum. And in counties of cities there were no less than six extensions of the franchise. They were lessee or assignee for a term of sixty years, with a profit of 10l.; lessee or assignee for fourteen years, with 20l. profit; sub-lessee for sixty years, with a profit of 10l.; sublessee for fourteen years, with 20l. profit; lessee of twenty years, with a profit of 10l.; and sub-lessee for twenty years, with a profit of 10l. So that, with the exception of the 40s. freesholds, abolished before 1829 as far as Ireland was concerned, and the vote of a 50l. tenant at will, Ireland had every other franchise that England had, and the eight others that he had enumerated to the House. He would, therefore, say, that the proposed additions to the franchise in Ireland were unfair, and the claims on which they were sought to be obtained were unfounded, Was the House to be thus pressed on from Session to Session with complaints of this nature, and with assertions and admissions that in the Reform Bill there was no finality? Or was the House to sanction the disposition of the hon. and learned Member to drive the noble Lord and his colleagues still deeper and deeper into agitation and disorder—and the noble Lord, almost unresisting, if not inviting, a further a nearer and final descent? If not, let the House treat the motion as the hon. and learned Member had the petition. Thanking the House for the patience with which he had been heard, he would conclude his observations by declaring that he would oppose the motion.

said, the hon. and learned Sergeant had made no reply to the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. The hon. and learned Member was wrong, said the hon. and learned Sergeant, in arguing as if population had been made the basis of the Reform Act; but how far was the hon. and learned Sergeant himself correct in his statement of the principle of the Reform Act? Why, that the basis of the Reform Act was property, But in reality, every one knew, that the basis of reform was the compound one of property and population combined; and therefore the learned Sergeant erred quite as much, when he made this statement, as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would have done, had he placed reform on the basis of population alone. Would the hon. and learned Sergeant tell the House, that the compound basis of property and population would not give to Cork a greater body of electors than she now possessed? With respect to what the hon. and learned Sergeant had said about arraigning the judges for their construction of the law respecting qualifications, the hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps have remembered who it was arraigned the judges of the land on the question of the registration of freemen in the city of Dublin, which they declared had been carried on for many years on a wrong system; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the eminent Statesmen who had acted in 1829, on the evidence of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, given in 1825, he might find perhaps, that an eminent Statesman sat near him who would be able to tell him, that there was some difference in the situation of the Members of the Cabinet in 1825 and in 1829. There was no force in the charge made against the hon. and learned Member for Dublin respecting his having b arraigned the judges; for did not the hon. and learned Member, immediately upon the decision of the judges as to beneficial interest being necessary to a qualification, come forward to say, that this was not the franchise which he had looked forward to giving the people of Ireland, not the franchise which it was intended by the Legislature to adopt. With respect to the speech of the noble Lord he had heard part of it with great pleasure, and he especially coincided with the noble Lord in his remarks with regard to the finality of legislative measures. As long as they could not pretend to be infallible in judgment, so long they could not pretend that laws were never to be altered. But the noble Lord asked how, in the present state of parties and the present circumstances of the two Houses of Parliament, this bill could possibly be expected to succeed? But the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, had adopted a more vigorous and more manly course when he had carried reform in spite of the difficulties and opposition which beset it; and he could not think, that they ought to delay bringing forward measures until they could be sure of carrying them. This was the worst argument, he thought, that could be brought forward. However, he felt assured, that justice was on the side of the Irish people, and that success must ultimately crown their efforts; and he would tell the House, that they would regret for years to come, the consequences of refusing them the satisfaction of laying on the table their case, without saying a word in refutation of the facts on which it was founded.

though pleased that the noble Lord objected to the motion, yet could not help regretting, for the sake of Ireland, that the noble Lord should have held out hopes, that the time would come when such a motion would succeed; when, in fact, the noble Lord would be content again to play second fiddle to the hon. and learned Member. As the noble Lord had not had firmness enough to resist his learned Friend, it became his duty to state the evil consequences that would arise from the timidity of the noble Lord, and his want of firmness in resisting a thing that was so fraught with evil to Ireland. He had said, over and over again in that House, and would repeat it, that of all the curses that ever was inflicted on Ireland, the 40s. franchise was the greatest. He knew no greater source of misery, of criminality and corruption, than that scourge that was inflicted on that country; and if anything could have induced him to acquiesce in Catholic emancipation, it was the doing away with that measure. Any person travelling through that country must have seen, that it was the parent of a good deal of the pauperism, the source of a great deal of the crime, and the fountain of the corruption which existed. The land was cut up into small portions to create franchises, and men swore to what they did not possess for that purpose, and the people were driven like a flock of sheep to vote for what they did not comprehend, for measures in which they had no part. He would go as far as any Member of that House with the franchise, so long as it could be extended with security to the state and independence to the individual; but beyond that point he would not consent to go. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had taken occasion to say, that landlords did not give leases in consequence of the franchises arising out of them. They did not give leases, because of the agitation which they created amongst their tenantry, and from the state of riot which was incident to them. He would say, before the British Parliament, that the hon. Member for Dublin had done more injury to Ireland, so far as withholding leases was concerned, by preventing landlords giving them, because they could not give them with good faith; he had induced a power which made the landlord stand on his own strength, and not give to his tenantry that which would be abused by the advocates of agitation. It was perfectly true, that the landlords had been driven to this measure—that they were called to act upon it to the very fullest extent, that they possibly could, to save their tenantry from the agitation—from the means of intimidation which had so grossly injured that class of people and so awfully degraded their country. He would take the liberty to trespass upon the House a little, and describe what he conceived to be the converse of the proposition; and he would state, that already in Ireland to a very great extent had the 10l. franchise acted in a way which his learned Friend below him (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) had described; and owing to it, the great body of the tenantry were a tenantry that would not be intimidated by having crossbones placed over their doors; a tenantry that were attached to and valued by their landlords. Already was the 10l. franchise doing away with the evil. He was sorry to say, that in some instances it was accompanied with painful consequences. Already, however, the 10l. franchise was very extensively calling into action a better kind of tenantry, and creating an independent body of yeomanry, which was so much wanted in Ireland. He would not trespass further on their attention, but would entreat them to cherish the franchise which had carried every moral good along with it, and which he trusted would, before long, set agitation at nought, and intimidation at defiance.

said, it was his intention to vote for the motion. He was of the same opinion as the Member who had just sat down with regard to the 40s. freeholders. He did not think it was necessary to go so low as 40s., but he deprecated that state of things which now existed, and should therefore vote for the hon. Member.

said, that reluctant as he felt to disturb our existing connection, provided it could and would be maintained with honour, justice, and reciprocity towards Ireland, he could not hesitate supporting every measure calcu- lated to attain those desirable impressions and results. The measures proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, whether they may require modification in detail or not, afforded a substantial basis for raising them upon a useful superstructure of improvement; and he therefore hoped his hon. Friend might be permitted to bring in his Bill, subject, of course, as its details would be, to distinct and separate consideration, and discussion. Every thing should be done to meet the wants, to satisfy the just expectations, and soothe the feelings, of Ireland, deprived as she was in a manner so flagitious of her rational individuality, and therefore entitled to even the leaning of the beam in everything tending to her prosperity and contentment; but to any thing short of perfect justice and reciprocity, she would not submit. On a former occasion he voted for a revision of the terms and circumstances of the Union, with a view to the removal of those complaints and anomalies, which it was the object of his hon. Friend's endeavours to accomplish, and he (Mr. Roche) considered, that in advocating measures tending to abate those disparities and inequalities, he was acting a part truly, and alone conducing to a union of hearts as well as of law. He therefore hoped, that those reluctant to disturb the subsisting connexions, if based on justice and equality, may not be compelled by the refusal of that justice, to the entertaining and acting upon different sentiments.

said, he would not detain the House long. The hon. and gallant colonel opposite seemed perfectly satisfied with himself, and he would he sorry to disturb his complacency. He would face him readily. He did think that the noble Lord had held out something like a word of promise to the ear, but he was disappointed, for he had completely broken it to the sense. He had talked against finality, and then had substituted another word for it. His hon. Friend, the member for Dundalk had well described the trivial importance of using the word settlement, instead of finality. The learned sergeant, however, was worthy of a moment's attention. He had read a passage to show his (Mr. O'Connell's) explanation of an Act of Parliament passed in 1832—the Irish Reform Bill, and had said that he had arraigned the judges for their misconstruction of that Act. In order to show the meaning which he had put upon the Act of 1832, the learned sergeant had read the evidence which he gave in 1825. The learned sergeant had given the terms of his evidence as to the standard of value, but the franchise, in reference to which that opinion was given, was created by an act which accompanied the Emancipation Act, whereas the present franchise on which so much dispute had arisen was created by the Reform Bill into which the beneficial interest clause was introduced. So much for the learned sergeant's quotations, in which there certainly seemed a strange want of candour. The hon. and learned sergeant had told them, that, in the towns in Ireland, there were an immense number of franchises which did not exist in England. That was his argument for limiting the franchises in Ireland. What would the learned sergeant think, if they would be glad to get rid of these extra advantages from the towns of Ireland? But what was the real fact as to the comparative extent of town franchises? Let theta hear a few instances. There was Chester, with a population of 21,363, in which the number of electors was 2,231; while in Belfast, one of the wealthiest and most commercial cities in Ireland, with a population of 53,000, there were only 1,926 voters. But was that all? He would take a case which must come home to the hon. and learned sergeant. In Wallingford, with a population of 2,467, the constituency was 354; while Bandon, which contained 12,000 inhabitants, had but 251 voters. And yet the representative of Bandon told them, that there were more town franchises in Ireland than in England, and he was cheered to the skies for the statement. But on whose side was the real fallacy? There were no less than three different franchises in towns in England, which did not exist in Ireland. There was the 40s. franchise, arising from a lease for a life or lives, which required occupation—there was the 40s. franchise arising from a fee-simple estate, which did not require occupation; and there was the 10l. franchise from a lease for a life or lives, not requiring occupation—all existing in England, and not in Ireland. There were, then, three franchises in England which did not exist in Ireland; and yet the hon. and learned Sergeant had come down with his statement that the town franchises were more numerous in Ireland than in England, and with his specimen of forensic eloquence, founded on extracts which did not apply, and the omission of others which would have explained them. The learned sergeant could overlook the fact, that Wallingford, with one-sixth the population of Bandon, had a constituency equal to one-third, while he was receiving the ready and practised cheers of the gentlemen around them. He did not envy the learned Sergeant these cheers, nor the mode in which he obtained them. He had proved, that Ireland was miserably defective in this respect. He did admit that he thought the Reform Bill would work worse than it had worked. One of the present judges had called it a Conservative measure; and its natural operations would have been such, and it would have worked that way, had it not become necessary to counteract this tendency by agitation. They had created that agitation by continued injustice, and they continued the agitation. What cared he for the censure of creatures whose intellect he despised, and whose political principles were to him contemptible. He received those cries with most perfect good humour. Hon. Members were greatly mistaken if they supposed he did not. To return to his proposition, he had shown them, that an English county, which contained 42,000 inhabitants, had more voters than any county in Ireland whatsoever, though there were in Ireland counties containing 700,000 inhabitants. He had shown them, that a county, which contained 16,000 inhabitants, had more voters than nine counties in Ireland. He had shown them, that even in the towns there was the same disproportion; and then, forsooth, he was asked if he had not made a settlement—an arrangement; it was a last settlement in words, but not so in reality. Settlement! when they were no parties to that settlement. They demanded their rights. A question was put to him, "What will you give me if I will give you your own?" The answer was, "Nothing." They (the Irish people) would get their own. What, because they in England had the legislative machine in their own hands, they talked of settlement! Settlement! disseverance. Settlement! disturbance. It had no principle of justice in it. For twenty-nine years after what was called the Union, they had kept the people of Ireland out of their liberties. For twenty-nine years they had refused justice to Ireland, and had then enforced another injustice, which he was told was to be a settlement by the learned Sergeant. He was told that the Reform Bill created franchises. Its business was not to create them; not to destroy them, it ought to renew them. He had divided the House then, and he should divide the House that night. He divided it in vain, to be sure he did; but that did not either terrify or annoy him. He had performed his other duties, and would perform that; and he would agitate again and again. He heard many a cheer pleasing to his ear on the other side; they might laugh the Irish people to scorn; they might despise them; there were at least 7,000,000,whom they could not seduce or intimidate, although they brought the piety of their landlords, with their practical persecution, to their aid. "Ah!" continued the learned Member, "ah, shame to your religion! I do believe ye belong to the most persecuting church on the face of the earth. But when I hear that system of landlord's persecution cheered in the House, have I not a right to meet it as I have?" He should divide the House, and give the people of Ireland this proof, that the House of Parliament was not disposed, for many a day, to give them justice. All he wanted was equality; he would never be satisfied with less, and he would obtain it through that House, and by that House.

said, the hon. and learned Member had stated the number of constituents for the old borough of Wallingford before the passing of the Reform Bill; but since then a large district had been added, and the population was now between 7,000 and 8,000. The hon. and learned Member had very correctly stated the number of constituents to be between 300 and 400, but the population was very much greater than he had stated.

said, his calculation was on the constituency of the old borough, and on the population of the old borough.

said, the case to which he was about to call the attention of the House would show the great inconvenience that had resulted from the course which a great majority of the House had determined to pursue with respect to receiving petitions. He would confine his observations to the narrowest limits consistently with the justice of the case that had been committed to his charge. He begged to call the attention of the House to the petition of Jacob Lebright, in the hope that the Government would devise some means of giving protection and encouragement to foreigners who settled in this country. The petitioner stated, that upon the ground of his being an alien, he had been struck out of the list of electors for the borough of Brighton, although he had been an inhabitant householder for twenty-three years, and had paid rates and taxes during that period; that during the late war he served under Sir Ralph Abercromby and the Duke of Wellington, and was twice severely wounded, and that, after a long and faithful service, he retired from the army, in the expectation of enjoying the rights of a British subject, but that he now found himself deprived of the elective franchise, which had been conferred upon him by the Reform Bill, on the ground of his being a foreigner. He also stated, that he felt deeply mortified, that while he acted as a special constable, and was called upon to pay all rates and taxes, that be should be prohibited from giving a vote for a Member of Parliament, and prayed the House to take into consideration the law on this subject, in order that he might no longer be excluded from enjoying the elective franchise. The hon. and gallant Member then stated, that the disqualification of foreigners rested on the common law of the country, and not on any statutory enactment, and that law principally related to the disqualification of aliens sitting in that House or in the Council. There was only one resolution, that of 1698, declaratory of such disqualification, and it stated that an alien, not being naturalized, had no right to vote for the election of Members to serve in Parliament. Very shortly after that, it was shown that a Scotch Member was not qualified to sit in the House, for Mr. Stewart was objected to as a Scotchman, and as not being a natural born subject, and his election was declared void. But since that time no enactment could be found which prevented an alien voting for a Member of Parliament; on the contrary, there were various enactments from the time of Queen Anne down to George 3rd, which showed, that every encourage- ment was given to foreign Protestants to settle in this country. The petitioner was a staunch Protestant. He had paid all rates and taxes, and by the statute of 5th Anne he ought to be considered as a natural born subject of the realm. By the 28th of George 3rd a great latitude was shown to foreigners, for it was enacted that any foreigner trading for five years in the whale fishery, was considered a natural born British subject. He thought the Government ought to give greater facility for the processes of denization or naturalization. In the present instance he stood forward on behalf of our old soldier, and a man could not obtain a Naturalization Bill without incurring great expense. The process of denization was tedious, difficult, and expensive, and a great many persons would be glad to become British subjects, if the process was more simple. In the process of denization an affidavit was required from a certain number of householders of the residence of the party; the Secretary of State took the case into consideration, and if the alien were fortunate in his application, he had to pay 140l. He understood that a number of persons might be included in one patent, and so far the expense would be diminished. If seven people applied, they would have to pay 224l., and the cost to each person would then he 32l. He found, that on one occasion, in 1795, sixteen persons, had been bundled into one patent of denization, and the expense to each of them was 22l. That was the old German band of George 3rd, and the great drum and all were bundled into one patent. But since that time, he could not find that more than seven had been introduced into one patent. He believed that when the subject was fairly brought before the Government, they would find the means of remedying the evil. He hoped that no advantage would be taken from his not having gone further into details. He had on one or two occasions been thrown overboard because he had not properly gone into the case. But this was one that would speak for itself, and therefore he hoped there would be no opposition to the motion he made, which was to facilitate the object of the Reform Bill. In conclusion, he would simply move for a return of all fees and expenses charged on letters patent of denization, and also for a return of the greatest number of persons included in one patent.

seconded the motion. He thought in doing so, he should be like a small tender following in the wake of a line of battle ship. He did so, because he hoped it would clear up a point, not generally understood in the country, with regard to the franchise under the Reform Bill; and he wished to ask the Law Officers of the Crown, how the law stood on this point. In the first place, he was not aware that there was anything in the Reform Bill which stated a foreigner should not have a vote for a borough. He believed there was nothing in that bill which said that an individual, who occupied a tenement of 10l. a-year, and paid rates and taxes, should not have a vote for Members to serve in Parliament. That was the first point he wished to have cleared up by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The next question he wished to ask was, whether in the case of an individual who was placed on the list by the Churchwarden, and who was objected to before the revising barrister, on the ground of his being a foreigner, the onus probandi did not lie on the person making the objection. He believed, that the hon. and gallant Member rested his argument on this, that by the 7th Anne, c. 5, all individuals, Protestant foreigners in this country, if they took the oaths and the sacrament, were natural born subjects. His hon. Friend had urged, that individuals who had served in the army should have the same privileges as natural born subjects; and, as he confessed he was not very well informed on the subject, he requested the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would be good enough to give him his ideas on the subject without a fee.

would feel much pleasure in giving the best answer he could to the several questions that had been put to him. In the first place, it had been asked what alteration had been made by the Reform Bill respecting the rights of aliens? He answered—none at all. The law, in their case, had always remained the same, and an alien had no right to vote any more than to have a seat in Parliament. The next question was, on whom did the onus probandi lie, supposing an objection had been made after the overseer had returned the party as duly qualified, and having paid his rates and taxes? Most clearly the objector was the person upon whom the onus rested. It was to be presumed, that a person so returned was a British born subject, until the contrary was proved. The third question administered to him was, if his being placed on the registry was conclusive, and whether the returning officer could in such a case refuse his vote? Most unquestionably not. If the objection had been taken before the revising barrister, it might have been good; but unless a petition was presented against the return, he doubted whether any authority, except that of a Committee of the House of Commons, could entertain the objection and strike him off the poll. With respect to the returns moved for by the hon. and gallant Member, he had not the slightest objection; let these returns be produced, and if the fees were found too exorbitant, let them then be reduced. With respect to Mr. Lebright, it was admitted that he was an alien, and in his case, therefore, the revising barrister had done what was right. Mr. Lebright had voted when he was not in possession of the franchise; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had his vote, it ought to have been struck off his poll. He (the Attorney-General), should rejoice to see those persons who had, for a number of years, loyally and faithfully served her Majesty, intrusted with the franchise. But he certainly, for one, would not go the length of the hon. and gallant Member, in proposing that a residence of six months after landing upon these shores, should entitle them to the franchise. Such a proceeding would be found to be highly prejudicial, and would lead to the discussions of national questions of great intricacy and inconvenience; and on these grounds he should certainly oppose it.

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would at least be willing to extend the rights of citizenship to those foreigners who, after residing a certain time in that country, had taken the oaths of allegiance.

replied. He denied that he had proposed, or wished to introduce, so sweeping a measure as had been asserted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The object he had in view, was to lessen the expense of denization; but he certainly had no intention of submitting such a proposition as the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to, to the House.

then rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to double and treble Costs, and relating to pleading the General Issue only in certain cases. The learned Gentleman was understood to say, that the present state of the law in these respects was productive of much inconvenience and injustice. No road-bill, or dock-bill, or railway-bill now passed without a clause giving double and treble costs, though he could not understand why such parties were to be so protected. He proposed, in the first place, with reference to all local and general bills, to abolish double and treble costs altogether. He proposed that, where a provision now existed that a public officer was to recover double or treble costs, he should receive a full and complete indemnity, but without having unreasonable costs. He remembered a case in which a man brought an action for an infringement of the Building Act. The question was referred to arbitration. The award was, that the defendant had intended to comply with the Act, and that, therefore, his intention should protect him from the liability of his conduct. In this case, the plaintiff suffered from the defendant in the first instance—he got no redress—and because he did not, he was called upon to pay treble costs. As for pleading the general issue, he would take away all such privilege from private speculators, and all under Government protection—such as magistrates, constables, excise-officers, and the like. He also proposed to repeal those enactments which now obliged parties to give notice of action There were not less than 700 or 800 Acts of Parliament relating to this subject. He would take away the obligation of giving notice of action, except for public officers entitled to public protection; and he did not see why the advantage of having notice of action should not be taken away from Dock and Railway Companies, and from mere private individuals. Great hardships were sometimes suffered under this provision of giving notice of action. A short time since, a man brought a case of injury against a Railroad Company, and proved his case, but he was turned out because he had not given notice of action. The several limitations of actions he would reduce from six to three years.

rose to move "that it is the opinion of the House, that during Lent no greater restrictions should be placed upon theatrical entertainments within the City of Westminster, than are placed upon the like amusements at the same period in every other part of the metropolis." In bringing forward this motion he was actuated by loyal as well as patriotic and humane and just considerations. He did not wish to see her Majesty blockaded from going to the theatre of Westminster during Lent. He would not have troubled the House with this motion if he did not feel that it was based upon principles of equal justice as well as of common sense. He felt, that the fault of bringing forward this motion did not rest with him, but with the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, when this subject was introduced the other night, would not condescend to give the House the slightest reason for refusing the motion. If there were any apologies to be made on this ground, he (Mr. Duncombe) would not occupy the time of the House in making it, but leave it to the noble Lord to apologise. Then the noble Lord was upon that occasion supported by a large majority, but many of those who then supported the noble Lord did so, thinking that the motion was irregular in point of time, and in point of form—irregular in point of time, because it was supposed inconvenient that upon a petition being presented a motion should be made without previous notice; and in point of form, because it was deemed, that as the noble Lord had advised the Lord Chamberlain, who issued the restrictive order, and who was connected with the Court of Westminster, it might seem discourteous, as making her Majesty a party in the dispute. However, these reasons were no arguments why they should not support the present motion which was brought forward in an entirely different manner. Would the noble Lord tell him why the inhabitants and players of Westminster should be placed under a severe periodical restriction, merely because it was an old custom, which said, "it shall be so." He trusted, that hon. Members would relieve a large body of respectable and meritorious individuals from those restrictions. Whatever might be the political and religious feelings out of the House, justice ought to induce them to do so here. It was really most cruel and absurd, that while in every other part of the metropolis the inhabitants were amusing themselves on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, on the north-side of Oxford-street, and the other side of the water, and while court dinners, and parties, and balls, and levees, at which her Majesty received her loyal subjects, were taking place in Westminster, it was most absurd and cruel that an interdict should be issued, forbidding the most harmless entertainments, not only to the inhabitants of Westminster at large, but taking employment, which was still worse, from that unhappy class of men, called players and operatives at the theatres. This restriction deprived those persons of one-third of their incomes. Hon. Gentlemen stated on a former occasion, that when those individuals made their engagements, they did so with a full knowlede of what awaited them. The performers did not complain of this, they only complained, that they had no engagements upon those nights. Their salaries were weekly, but they were paid only for the nights on which they played. Were they permitted the same privileges enjoyed by performers elsewhere, they would be paid for six nights instead of four, and would thus enjoy, that one-third of the income which was now stopped by this unjust prohibition. He would appeal to her Majesty's Ministers, the great performers of polital dramas of the day; he would ask them how would they like to have one-third of their weekly salary stopped, because there was no House? He did not see why, if Mr. Rice, of Downing-street, was permitted to receive his salary on the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, Mr. Rice, of the Adelphi, should be deprived of his. He would refer to the Morning Post, the organ of the fashionable world, for an account of what had taken place on a Wednesday in Lent, within the City of Westminster, in the jurisdiction of the very Lord Chamberlain who had decided, that on that day in the City of Westminster nobody had any right whatever to enjoy themselves. In the first place, he found, that on that day there had been a great dinner at the Freemasons' Tavern, of the members of the Drury-lane Theatrical Fund. He might as well state that this dinner was in general a performance of broad farce, with a mixture of musical entertainments. He found it stated in the Morning Post, that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was in the chair; that the party was a very large one, and the whole was kept up with great convivialty. That in the course of the evening a variety of songs were sung, and that afterwards Mr. Rice, it was not stated, that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Rice, the real Jim Crow, sang, "Sitch a gettin' up stairs," and "Jim Crow," with several new verses, and that after the illustrious chairman had quitted the chair, Mr. Rice was voted into it by acclamation, and kept up the conviviality of the after part of the evening. He had then looked to see if any other persons were enjoying themselves in the City of Westminster, under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain; he had looked for the purpose of discovering who had given parties during this time of penance, and he found that her Majesty had entertained a large party at the royal palace, and that the band of the Life Guards had been in attendance, and performed several pieces of music—and who, of all persons, did the House imagine stood first upon the list of the distinguished individuals who had been entertained by her Majesty upon that occasion—why, the Marquess of Conyngham, the Lord Chamberlain, the "Arbiter Elegantiarum" of the City of Westminster. Far be it from him to suppose, that the Lord Chamberlain did not represent to her Majesty, while the band of Life Guards were playing, that this was a time for penance, and that her Majesty must be, of course, aware, that it was his duty to prevent any one enjoying themselves in the City of Westminster. He then thought he would see how the Cabinet Ministers observed the Wednesdays in Lent, and he found that the Marquess of Lansdowne gave a large dinner party—he went still further, and having a great wish to see how the dignitaries of the Church occupied themselves on these occasions—he had again referred to the Morning Post, and he there found, that yesterday being a Wednesday in Lent, the Bishop of Llandaff had given an elegant dinner party—at the deanery of St. Paul's, to a large party of gentlemen connected with the diocese of London. When he found that these were the occupations of her Majesty, of the Ministry, and of the Church during this season, which the Lord Chamberlain said should be devoted exclusively to prayer, penitence, and piety, he must say he could not understand upon what ground his motion was to be opposed. The people of the City of Westminster did not grudge her Majesty the use of the band of the Life Guards, for which they paid; they only asked to be permitted to pay for their own band, and listen to it in the boxes of Drury-lane or Covent-garden. He knew not on what grounds his motion could be opposed, and yet he understood it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to oppose it. There was no law on the subject; it was dependent upon the caprice of the Lord Chamberlain. Sir James Scarlett had said, that he did not know of the existence of any law on this subject, and that this prohibition was merely an old custom. The only law that could be at all imagined to grant this authority was the 10th Geo. 2nd, which enacted, that every acting drama should, before its performance, be submitted to the Lord Chamberlain, for his approval, and that no piece should be performed without his licence, and that it should be in his power to prohibit the performance of any piece even after it had been licensed, and thus the House would see that it was impossible that any piece could be produced of a seditious, blasphemous, or objectionable nature, and many pieces, after having passed the ordeal of the Lord Chamberlain, had been hissed off by the good sense of the audience. The Lord Chamberlain made this a ground for assuming the power to prohibit these performances during Lent; but it was clear, that this prohibition was only issued to please those who like the observance of old customs. He could not see, however, why this old custom should not be abandoned, or why many other examples of old Lenten customs should not be revived, as they were customs quite as respectable as this which it had been thought proper to keep up. There was an old Lenten custom which existed up to the time of Geo. 2nd, worthy of revival if this were to be retained. Up to that period, there was an officer of the King's palace denominated the King's cockcrower. It was the duty of this officer to perambulate the palace during Lent, and crow the hours of the night, which at other times were proclaimed by the watchmen. The then Prince of Wales, afterwards George 2nd, happening to be entering his apartment for supper one evening, met the King's cock-crower, who crowed the hour to him, and as he did not understand his language, and was unable to comprehend his interpreter's interpretation, he thought the King's cock-crower intended to insult him by crowing; he accordingly seized the unfortunate crower by the throat, and nearly strangled him, in consequence of which he was so ill as to be for some time incapable of performing the duties of his office. After this occurrence the matter was submitted to the grave consideration of the court, and it was determined, that the office should be abolished. Now, if this old Lenten custom of shutting up the theatres were to be continued, he did not see why the other old Lenten custom of King's cock-crower should not be revived. In other countries the National Drama received national support. In France the national theatres were supported out of the national purse. In France the national theatres were rent free—he asked for nothing of this sort in this country. He believed, that the theatres paid 3,000l. a-year ground rent to the Duke of Bedford, who made no deduction for the nights on which the houses were shut up. He only asked, that they should be put on an equality with other parts of the metropolis, and he could not understand the ground upon which his motion could be opposed. He would therefore move his resolution.

seconded the motion. He thought it most unjust, that those in power should maintain such restrictions on the poor, which they in their own persons disregarded. And he trusted the noble Lord would see the justice of doing away with these restrictions, while the court and the nobility were constantly acting in contradiction to them.

observed, that the hon. gentleman the Member for Finsbury had found fault with him for not having addressed reasons and arguments to the House when he last brought forward this question; and it appeared that it was to that silence on his part that they owed the very amusing and facetious speech in which the hon. Gentleman had again introduced the subject to their attention. He confessed that, notwithstanding the amusement thence derived, it was rather to spare the House a discussion of the kind that he (Lord J. Russell) did not enter into arguments upon the subject when it was last before the House; because, although the subject might be made as amusing as any other, he did not think, that a question which affected the established religion of the country was a fit one to be discussed as a matter of entertainment, He found that that observa- tion did not meet with the approbation of some gentlemen, whose views he supposed coincided with those of the hon. Member for Finsbury. All he could say was, that since the last discussion he had taken the opportunity of consulting the Bishop of London upon the subject in the presence of another distinguished prelate; and that the Bishop of London stated, that he considered that out of respect to the established religion of the country, these theatrical performances should not be allowed in the city of Westminster on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, and that it would be considered a want of respect to the Established Church and Established Religion, if Government should advise her Majesty to change the custom which had hitherto been observed in this matter. For his own part, he must say, that upon a subject of this kind he thought it behoved the advisers of her Majesty—placed in the situation which she was with regard to the Church—rather to refer to what was the opinion of the heads of the Church, and to what had been the custom from time immemorial, than to go over the river to Surrey, or across Oxford-street to Marylebone, and finding the theatres open in those places, to declare, that they should also be open in Westminster. First of all let him advert to what was the law upon the subject, and the cause of the practice upon which the hon. Gentleman apparently founded the whole of his motion—that the custom of closing the theatres in Westminster was different to anything that existed in any other part of the metropolis. By the 10th Geo. 2nd, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, a power was given to the Lord Chamberlain with respect to theatrical entertainments. He would not then enter into a consideration of the nature or limits of that power. It was enough for his purpose to state, that it was a power that had been constantly exercised from the first moment that it was given; and previous to that time, he believed, that theatrical entertainments never took place in the city of Westminster on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. By another act it was provided, that the Lord Chamberlain should not have power to license any other theatre than those in Westminster within twenty miles of London. Therefore, the theatres to which the hon. Gentleman had referred as existing in Surrey and in other parts of the metropolis not comprised in the city of Westminster—although they had performances on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent—were every day liable to penalties, as not being legally established. A further illustration of the point he was now urging was to be found in the decision of Lord Denman, in an action with respect to the Victoria theatre between the manager and the lessee, in which proof being given that the theatre was not, and could not, be licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, the noble and learned judge at once stopped the case and declared that it was unnecessary to go into any further evidence. The Victoria and other minor theatres might be licensed by the magistrates for music and dancing, but there was no authority by which they could be licensed for theatrical performances. Such was the law upon the subject as laid down by Lord Denman; therefore, the only ground upon which these theatres existed at all was, that no notice was taken of their violation of the law. Under these circumstances, when the question was raised as to whether the Lord Chamberlain should enforce his power or not, it was, he thought, a little too much to say that no regard should be paid to the custom of centuries—that no decent respect should be manifested to the established religion of the country, but that seeing an illegal practice spring up in other parts of the metropolis, the same illegal practice should at once be extended to Westminster. This, then, was the law of the case—that those theatres which were acting beyond the bounds of the cities of Westminster and London were acting without any licence from the Lord Chamberlain, and without the sanction of the law. This was clearly laid down by Lord Denman in the case to which he had referred. With respect to the new minor theatres in the city of Westminster, the Lord Chamberlain, in order to make them conform with the rule laid down in reference to Drury-lane and Covent-garden, specifically required in their licence that there should be no performance on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. Therefore they could not complain of any injustice, because those were the terms upon which they took their licences. It was the same with Covent-garden and Drury-lane. They could have no ground of complaint, because the terms upon which they obtained their licences were perfectly well known to them, being, in fact, the same as they had always been in times past. With respect to the practise of closing the theatres on Wednesdays and Fridays, the hon. Member fur Kilkenny said there was great hypocrisy in it; and the hon. Member for Finsbury contended that because her Ma- jesty gave a dinner on Wednesday, therefore the theatres were to be open on Wednesday. Surely if the House were to agree to that proposition, the same argument might be applied to Sunday, because it would not be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to find from the newspapers that dinners were given by persons of distinction in various parts of the town on that day. If the hon. Gentleman's argument were good in the one case it would be equally good in the other; if theatrical performances were to be allowed on Wednesdays, because there were dinners on Wednesdays, therefore there ought to be theatrical performances on Sunday, because there were dinners on Sunday. He could only say that he thought the Lord Chamberlain, being an officer under the Crown, and having to act in the name of her Majesty upon this subject, could do nothing better than attend to what had been at all times the custom, and which the heads of the Church considered as a decent and respectful regard to the established religion of the country. For his own part he thought that the practice ought to be continued. Instead of saying, that Westminster should in this respect be made conformable to the rest of the town, he thought the House ought to say that the rest of the town should be made to conform with the practice in Westminster. He certainly objected to their entering into any resolution upon the subject. He decidedly objected to their declaring by a resolution of that House what was the manner in which the power vested in the Crown should be exercised. If the House were to entertain the question at all, it would be better that it should be in the shape of a motion similar to that proposed by the hon. Gentleman the other night, namely, an address to the Crown, desiring the Crown, on the part of the House, not to exercise a power which it deemed objectionable. But to pass a resolution of this kind giving a sanction to the irregular and illegal practice of other parts of the metropolis, and discountenancing that which from time immemorial had been observed in the city of Westminster, was to take a step the intention of which he really did not understand. If it were adopted, was it to be said, that because the House of Commons—because one branch of the legislature had passed a resolution, therefore the Lord Chamberlain was to change a practice which had existed beyond the memory of man? It might happen that some noble Lord or some right rev. Prelate might move a resolution of a directly opposite nature in the House of Lords. Between these adverse resolutions how was the Lord Chamberlain to act? He would have no alternative but to act as he did at present, upon his own discretion. Therefore he should not consider that a resolution of the kind now proposed would carry with it sufficient weight to change the established practice which had hitherto existed upon the subject. He certainly thought it would be far better to make the practice uniform throughout the whole of the metropolis. A change in the law was no doubt required. But to say that there should be theatrical entertainments in Westminster on Wednesdays and Fridays because there were dinners in Westminster on those days, might be a very palatable and very profitable proposition for all the occupiers of play-houses in Westminster—might be introduced to the House in a very amusing and entertaining speech; but at the same time he really could not see why the Lord Chamberlain should be desired by that House to change the established practice. Having offered these observations to the House, he should conclude by moving the previous question.

, did not think it necessary to trouble the House with more than one or two observations, after the very able and satisfactory speech of the noble Lord—a speech which he ventured to say was in accordance with the feelings of the majority of that House, and of all the good sense of the country. He would only ask the hon. Member for Finsbury one question—whether he would put a dinner, given by the Bishop in fulfilment of that mandate, which ordered that he should exercise the rights of hospitality [laughter]—Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he would repeat the question—whether the hon. Member would put such a duty on the part of a bishop in comparison with theatrical entertainments, which, though they might be made, under proper conduct, to contribute to the morality of the country, were, unfortunately, inseparably connected with evils which it was impossible sufficiently to condemn. However excellent the character of the performances—however pure the nature of the entertainment—it was but too well known that the theatres were thronged not alone with respectable people, but with prostitutes and persons of the worst and vilest descriptions. He had only one other remark to offer. He was sure that if the hon. Member for Finsbury had had the good fortune like himself, frequently to partake of the hospitality of the Bishop of Llandaff, he would see, that the dinners of that right rev. prelate were conducted in a way which afforded no parallel to the entertainments of a theatre.

observed, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), had treated the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, as if it related only to a matter of merriment. Much as he (Mr. Leader) had been entertained and amused by the very admirable speech of his hon. Friend, he begged the House to remember that the question they were arguing was not merely a matter of amusement, but a question which affected the livelihood and subsistence of several hundred industrious and deserving people. It was a question which did not so much affect the great actors as the mechanics and operatives attached to the theatres, whose pay depended upon the nights of performance. The great actors, "the stars," might go to other theatres, which were not shut up, or might go "starring" into the provinces where the people were not so very puritanical as to think it wicked or wrong to go to a theatre on Wednesdays or Fridays in Lent; but those who really suffered, the humble operatives belonging to the great theatres, had no opportunity of obtaining employment elsewhere on the days when the doors of these theatres were closed. He confessed he was astonished to hear the noble Lord speak of this motion as calculated to do mischief to the established church. He would not charge the noble Lord with hypocrisy, but he feared it would appear to the country very like hypocrisy to talk of the established religion being hurt by the opening of the theatres on Wednesdays and Fridays, when they know how those days were spent by persons in the very highest walks of life. When the noble Lord talked of applying the argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury to Sunday as well as to Wednesday and Friday, he begged to remind the noble Lord that there was no ground of comparison between those different clays of the week. Sunday was regarded by the Protestant church as a day of religious observance and of rest from labour—Wednesday and Friday, if regarded at all in a religious point of view, were so regarded only by the Roman Catholic church. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Teignmouth) had taken the part of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department; to be consistent, would the noble Lord bring in a bill to place the theatres of Marylebone under the same restraint as the theatres of Westminster? He trusted that the majority of the House would take what he really believed to be the common-sense view of the question—that they would not be influenced by the official authority of the noble Lord, nor biassed by the overstrained religious zeal of other persons in the House; but that they would resolutely avail themselves of the opportunity of discountenancing a practice which he thought more calculated to injure the established religion than to do it good.

had observed with satisfaction the somewhat extraordinary profession of regard made by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to the established church. He only hoped that all the acts of which the noble Lord might be the promoter during this or any ensuing Session of Parliament, might prove the truth and sincerity of his professions. The noble Lord had certainly expressed himself in strong terms that evening in favour of the Established Church, and he was not sorry to hear him speak in such a strain. Although he believed there was no one in that House who more strongly adhered to the cause of the Established Church than he (Viscount Dungannon) did, and always should do; yet he had ever been opposed to the measures that had been introduced for the better observance of the Sabbath, because he considered it unjust to have one law for the rich and another for the poor. He believed, that the people of this country were disposed by habit and education to be religious, and he would not attempt to render them more so by oppressive legislation. Therefore, although it very seldom happened, that he was found voting in the ranks of the hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, and as little as any one with the hon. Member for Finsbury, he could not but feel, that upon the present occasion it was an absolute and gross absurdity to maintain the necessity of closing the theatres in the precincts of Westminster on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent. whilst the theatres on the other side of Oxford-street. and on the opposite side of the river in Surrey, were open and free to all classes. It was obvious and clear, that if it were an evil to be put down at all, it should be put an end to in toto, and he thought with the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Leader) that if his noble Friend, the Member for Marylebone (Lord Teignmouth) perceived so much evil, so much immorality, so great an insult upon the established religion in the opening of the theatres in Marylebone on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent, he ought to introduce a bill to close them on those days. He was one of those who had always thought, and should always continue to think, that it was most absurd to say, that religion was advanced by the people being kept away from amusements of a rational nature, whilst richer and more influential persons were permitted to enjoy whatever amusement they pleased, be its nature what it might. Such a proposition was at once absurd and unjust. He should think, that the attachment of the people to the religious institutions of this country had indeed arrived at a had pass when, for the sake of keeping up observances, it should be found necessary to close the theatres on one side of a street, whilst on the other they were left open to all. If the evil were as great and extensive as was asserted by some hon. Gentlemen, let them put an end to it altogether, and say, "We will religiously observe Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent by closing all places of public entertainment on those days;" but let them not make—he would not merely say the invidious but the absurd and ridiculous distinction of saying, that the theatres in one part of the town should be closed, whilst in all other parts they should be allowed to be open. He could not be charged with any dereliction of duty, or any abandonment of previously expressed opinions, by declaring his intention to support the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He did so upon principles of common justice; and because, having ever, to the utmost of his power, upheld the cause of true and pure religion, he was naturally the more strongly opposed to that which assumed nothing more than the outward form and semblance of religion, and which in itself he considered to be absurd in the highest degree.

feared, that the time had come when any humble support which he could give to the noble Lord would rather be an impediment than an assistance to him; but still upon this occasion, when he had seen the noble Lord, in the bold and fearless discharge of his duty assume a ground which was unpopular, and manfully maintain it, he (Sir J. Graham) should be base indeed—having once taken counsel with him on this question, and having fully concurred, when he did so take counsel, in the decision which the noble Lord then adopted, and which he had this night maintained—if he shrunk from asserting now what he on a former occasion asserted, that he entirely agreed with the noble Lord, and was prepared to take the same ground which the noble Lord had taken. He did not mean to say, that it was necessary for the maintenance of the Established Church, that there should be, on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, observances of this description, but he contended, that as long as by the regulations of the Established Church and the law of the land, those days were to be set apart for sacred purposes, it was the duty of her Majesty's servants to maintain those regulations and that law. That was the single proposition for which he contended. The theatres within the city of Westminster were, as the law now stood, the only theatres which were under the control of her Majesty's Chamberlain. He might be wrong, but he always understood and was still disposed to believe, that those were the only theatres under the control of the Lord Chamberlain. If it was right that according to the observances of the Established Church, it was inexpedient that these days so set apart should be held to extend beyond a certain distance from Westminster, still, as far as the law went, it was the duty of the Lord Chamberlain to enforce these regulations. The Lord Chamberlain not exercising any control over theatres beyond that distance, could not, of course, enforce those regulations with respect to them. He would certainly contend, when the heads of the Church represented to her Majesty's Government, that it was proper, that this respect due to the established religion, so far as her Majesty's authority extended, should be observed, it was the duty of her Majesty's servants to exercise their control over the Lord Chamberlain, with a view to the enforcement of that observance. He did not wish to put the question upon any higher ground. Agree- ing as he did with the noble Lord, not only now, but when he was a servant of his late Majesty, in common with the noble Lord, and seeing the noble Lord pressed as he was on this occasion, he certainly felt bound, as an old colleague and as a gentleman, to give the noble Lord on this occasion his support.

said, the right hon. Baronet had laid down a broad principle. He stated, that it was his conviction, that the two days set apart by the ritual of the Church ought to be observed in Lent, and expressed in strong terms his approbation of the conduct of the noble Secretary for the Home Department in enforcing the observance of those days. Now would the right hon. Baronet permit him (Mr. Ward) to ask him whether he was not to-morrow going to preside at a great public dinner? On a Friday, be it observed, and that in Lent. [Sir James Graham: It is a dinner connected with charity.] A charity dinner! Why, it was a dinner where there would be as much drinking, eating, and hilarity, and of as convivial a character as ever took place at any public dinner. That was the manner in which this great moralist was to observe the sacredness of a Friday in Lent. It would, he thought, be allowed, that those who should go on that day to the theatres in the city of Westminster would enjoy quite as rational, quite as civilized, and quite as moral an entertainment as the right hon. Baronet at his charity dinner. It was useless to disguise from themselves, that from all these concurring causes—however the subject might be met in that House, they should stand convicted before the public of what a noble Lord opposite had most properly called gross hypocrisy. There was not one law in this country for Bishops and another for the people; and although the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Teignmouth) seemed to think there was a difference between the dinners of Bishops and other men given on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, yet he could assure the noble Lord there was no such difference. There was not one law for a Bishop and another for a Member of that House. There was not one law for the Queen and another for her subjects upon a question of morality. One pure and great principle should he laid down, which ought to bind every Christian man to the observance of the rites of his Church. They must act in this matter upon some one principle. Those who thought, like the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, were bound, in conviction with the heads of the Church, to bring in a bill for establishing new forms for the due and strict observance of every day in Lent, and that law ought to be supported by every one who thought that the non-observance of Wednesdays and Fridays incurred great danger to the Established Church. He would, however, entreat the House to reflect well before they came to a vote this evening. Certainly there appeared to him no feasible ground on which they could oppose the motion of his hon. Friend, unless they were prepared to carry the principle into action which had been advocated to-night, and enforce the observance of the whole season of Lent throughout the land.

, said, that after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, he was induced to trouble the House again for one moment. The hon. Gentleman had said that he (Lord John Russell) was bound to bring in a bill to make the observance of Lent more strict than it was now. He (Lord John Russell) had already stated that if it were thought advisable by Parliament to make a change in the law, he for his part, should have no objection to do so. But that while the law continued to be what it was at present, he felt bound to advise the Lord Chamberlain, who was one of the Queen's servants, he (Lord John Russell) being also one of them himself, to act in conformity with that law.

said, that as the noble Lord had said the Lord Chamberlain was bound by law to enforce the observance of these days, the noble Lord ought to show, that if the Lord Chamberlain were to issue an order to the theatres, that they might perform on Wednesdays and Fridays he would be doing an illegal act. It was not what an Archbishop or Bishop might say that constituted law. Without any statement from a Bishop or an Archbishop they knew very well that which the noble Lord had already told them, that it was an old custom. It was an old custom, they all admitted: and all that the noble Lord had said in defence of continuing this practice was, that a Bishop and Archbishop had told him that they were against a change, and in favour of the custom. That was the whole substance of what had fallen from the noble Lord; and upon that it was, that the House were advised not to act and legislate in accordance with that which was the great regulator in all free countries, public opinion. The noble Lord and the Queen's Government had set themselves up against public opinion, and he doubted not that ere long they would be defeated. He hoped there would be a majority in favour of the motion this night, and then they would see whether the Queen's Government and the Lord Chamberlain would venture to set themselves up against a majority of the House of Commons. Those who supported the present motion knew that they were supported by the public voice out of doors; because it was notorious that in every public place, except within the precincts of Westminster, Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent were observed just the same as in any other week. And whether it pleased an Archbishop or a Bishop to tell them that they ought to be observed, or not, more holily than any other day in the week, public opinion in this Protestant country had declared against it, and had said that they would observe Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent just as well as, and no better than, any other day. Therefore they would leave this old custom, together with the Bishops and Archbishops, in the keeping of the noble Lord, while his hon. Friend and those who supported him appealed to public opinion; and he doubted not that, in making that appeal, they would gain the victory.

denied altogether the applicability of the principle on which the hon. Gentleman had rested his argument. Nothing was easier in that House than for any one to say, that public opinion was to decide the question, and thus to declare, that he himself was the oracle of public opinion. He would recal to the recollection of the hon. Gentleman a matter not of very remote occurrence, to which the hon. Gentleman himself was not indifferent, and concerning which he and certain hon. Members took upon themselves to announce dogmatically that they were the expositors of public opinion. It was upon a question of much more interest to the country than whether Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent ought to he observed by the theatres or not; he alluded to the question of the transmission of letters through the city of London on the Sunday. The hon. Gentleman, and those who acted with him, took upon them, in reference to that question, to declare, that their opinions would be sanctioned by the public voice. The fact turned out otherwise, and public opinion had declared against them. If hon. Gentlemen did not like his illustration, he would not press it further; but were the Gentlemen who disliked an appeal to facts true organs of public opinion. His hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, would, he was sure, listen to his argument, and deal fairly with him. In speaking, then, on the subject of public opinion they were not to take the assertion, however bold, of Gentlemen, that they were the only true oracles of public opinion. And if there was one subject, more than any other, which he must distrust the Member for Bridport it was, that if he took upon himself to pronounce a subject which touched directly or indirectly the religious feelings of the people. He would tell the hon. Member for Bridport arbitrarily, that the public were entirely on his side, and that it was a matter of indifference how the House dealt with the question, for public opinion would go with him in this change, and would finally prevail—if the hon. Gentleman said this, he, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would say, that he should require some stronger evidence of this than his mere assertion. He was anxious, however, not to be misunderstood; if there had existed previously no usage on this subject, he could have had no doubt on the subject for he would not entertain any scruples whatever of a religious nature upon it, That was his own individual opinion, but considering what was the established practice, and considering that the hon. Member for Finsbury was calling upon the House to interpose and alter that practice by a resolution, he felt bound to oppose the proposition; and if he knew anything of the state of public opinion, on which he had a right as an individual to pronounce his conviction, as well as the hon. Member for Bridport, he would say, that any interposition on the part of that House in a matter of this description would be liable to much misconstruction, would be held to be an act in derogation if not in opposition to the religious feelings of the country, and if the House were to adopt the motion of the hon. Member they would take a course in which public opinion would pronounce against them. Believing this, he was opposed to any such measure. He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) that if any step were to be taken, the mode proposed was of all others the most inconvenient. If any measure were to be adopted at all, it ought to be in the shape of legislation. Let Parliament decide what the law ought to be, but let it not be done by resolution. His noble Friend had forcibly put the case of a supposed contradiction between the resolution of one House, and of the other, on this subject; he need not, therefore, repeat that argument. But was the House prepared to decide the question practically upon a resolution of this description? They must then be disposed to give the same power to a resolution which might be passed in the other House of Parliament? Let the House consider what the effect of this course might be. He had already alluded to the instance which had occurred with respect to the transmission of letters through London on a Sunday: Did not those Gentlemen who were eager for that change, know by experience, that with respect to the opinion of the English metropolis itself, they had been completely in error in the argument they maintained. [Mr. Warburton: That is not under discussion now.] No, it was not; but if hon. Gentlemen appealed to public opinion, in the abstract, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was entitled to refer to facts that bore out his view of what public opinion really was, as contrasted with the public opinion enunciated by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said, that he was entitled to declaim and dogmatise on public opinion, but that on the contrary, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not entitled to give an illustration of it by outward and visible signs and undeniable facts. That might be justice, and good logic, according to the hon. Gentleman's views, but he did not subscribe to such doctrine, or to such a practice.

said the right hon. Gentleman wished apparently to get rid of the question by putting it into the two-penny post office, but he would assure the right hon. Gentleman there was no similarity between it and the delivery of letters on the Sunday. He would endeavour to recal the attention of the House to the proper bearing of the question. As he had been almost the only individual on his side of the House who had supported the hon. Member for Finsbury the other night, when he proposed a motion in relation to this subject, he would justify the vote he had then given. He hoped he had as profound a respect for the established religion of this country as the bishop of London, He was not sure, indeed, that he should have agreed to that method of spoliation which the bishop of London, and some other bishop, had advised, with respect to the canons of the cathedrals, if acting on his own view only. But when they were met on a question of this nature with an expression of vague sentiments on the part of a prelate of the church—that the Protestant religion would be endangered by a profanation of this character—that a resolution of this description was not respectful to the established religion of this country, and when the noble Secretary for the Home Department appealed to time immemorial, which appeared to him to be, according to the noble Lord's quotations, the very ancient time of George 2nd.—when the noble Lord and his supporters on this occasion came forward with such a high spirit, and animated by so lofty a tone, to carry the House away with them, he thought it might become them to have made some researches on this question—to come forward with something better than vague expressions of a feeling, an attachment to the church, and some antiquarian knowledge a little more recondite than that of the times of George 2nd. He should like to know at what time during the Protestant sway in this country, Lent had been rigidly and properly respected. He was not one who was prepared to say, that he approved of any relaxation of the rigid observance of Lent so far as Wednesdays and Fridays were concerned. He was not prepared to say, that it might not be just and expedient, and prudent, and religious, and proper, to observe it even for forty days. But then they must give him forty days of Lent as they had ever been observed, when they were perfectly observed. They must give him the forty days of Lent with the "mysteries," and with the "moralities," with those mysteries and with those moralities which were acted by the monks. That was the only mode in which morality had tolerated the religious observance of Lent, and such were the amusements to which the people had recourse. There was one consideration which ought to influence them in deciding upon this question. They should not forget that the birth of Protestantism and of the drama in England was almost simultaneous. The moment Protestantism had sway in England there was a great relaxation in the observance of Lent. Great outcries were raised about the rigid observance of that season, and in the reign of James 1st. peti- tions were presented "to that strictly Protestant Prince" praying for a relaxation of Lent except on Wednesdays and Fridays, because they were sermon days. He knew not if they were sermon days at present; at least it seemed that they exercised but little influence upon the people if they were. But it was also observable, that a company of players petitioned James 1st., requesting the patronage of the king, and he one of the first Protestant kings of the country; and the answer was this—the king said, "Let them act, but they must act only on Wednesdays and Fridays, lest they interfere with our players." That was a fair specimen of the tone regarding Lent, and with respect to the drama, in the early part of the Protestant era. Lent never had been observed strictly and completely in Protestant England. The mere observance of two days in the week had been a matter rather of convenience than of law and strict religious custom, and he must say, though he did not think it was a question in point, that the observance of Lent on Wednesdays and Fridays with respect to players, without an equal observance of our morals and manners in other respects, was but a shadow of religious custom and a shade of faith. He was rather surprised that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, should have urged against this motion his fears of a collision with the House of Lords. As one who sat on the Opposition side of the House, animated as he was by Conservative feelings, he could not but congratulate his friends on the progress of Conservative opinions, because it was only a very few years back that it was said the Lords feared a collision with the Commons. See what effects a few years had produced! He was glad that this question had called forth from the noble Lord not only an expression of attachment to the Established Church, but of fear of a collision with the House of Lords. With these feelings he should vote for the motion of the hon, Member for Finsbury.

replied, and observed that a question had been put to him by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Teignmouth), which, as far as he (Mr. Duncombe) understood it, was simply this, whether he would place a bishop's dinner on the same footing as a theatre full of prostitutes. He felt it would be insulting as well to the House as to the right rev. Prelate to whom allusion was made, if he were to condescend to give any answer to what he must call an impertinent question. The noble Lord was perfectly correct in stating that he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had not enjoyed the good fortune which the noble Lord himself had in being placed at the bishop's table, and, therefore, he (Mr. Duncombe) was quite unable to say what species of company the bishop kept. But he had very often enjoyed the good fortune to go to the theatre, and he must say, that although there might be some questionable characters in certain parts of it, yet the large majority of the audience was composed of the most respectable inhabitants of the town, in which he, of course, included the middle classes, who generally constituted the greatest number, though there often mixed with them members of the aristocracy, and he might venture to say families connected with the church itself. Therefore, if the question of the noble Lord was, whether a theatre so filled was to be considered on an equal footing with a bishop's dinner-party, his reply most distinctly would be, yes. And if he wanted an illustration of what was done on a Friday in Lent—one of those days when theatres in Westminster were not allowed to be opened—he would mention what had occurred at the Queen's Theatre, in Tottenham Street, on such a day, to which place the power of the Lord Chamberlain did not extend. There was on that occasion to be seen the consort of the illustrious Duke of Cambridge. Again, therefore, he would reply to the noble Lord's question, that the company at that theatre might be put upon a footing with the dinner party of any right reverend prelate. His right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke, had said that the authority of the Lord Chamberlain was confined to the theatres within the city of Westminster. His right hon. Friend was wrong in that respect, for the theatres at Cork, Birmingham, Manchester, Brighton, and other places, were all royal Theatres, and all came under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, and were equally subject to his power, if he chose to exercise it. But to show the capriciousness with which that power was used, he could mention it as a fact, that at the Brighton theatre, which was within a stones' throw of the palace, and during the time the court was there, and the Lord Chamberlain himself also—about a year or two ago, on an Ash- Wednrsday, the following pieces were performed:—Charles the Twelfth, the Maid of Switzerland, and the Vampire. Far was it from him to impute any impropriety or immorality to these proceedings, if persons thought proper to countenance them. In Westminster he found that at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, which was equally within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, there were concerts à la Valentino, at one shilling admittance, and at which he understood there were present last evening 800 most respectable persons, who conducted themselves with a degree of propriety which was worthy of imitation even by the Members of that House. This was the kind of Entertainment which the national theatres wished to give on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent; he meant a concert of instrumental music. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had been complimented by the Right hon. Member for Pembroke on his manly speech. He could not concur in that compliment. He considered it a most unmanly speech; for he had thrown the responsibility off his own shoulders on those of the Bishop of London; and he had asked the right reverend prelate's opinion whether the performances on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent would be detrimental to the established religion of the country. That right reverend prelate had no doubt answered that such entertainments would be a "heavy blow and a great discouragement to the Protestant interests." But he had yet to learn that Popery was the established religion of this country, and as this shutting up theatres on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent was an old Popish custom, it appertained, perhaps to that property in Covent garden of which the noble Lord's family had despoiled the Romish church. The noble Lord said that if this resolution were carried he should not care for it; that he would, in fact, set the resolution of the House of Commons and public opinion at defiance. The noble Lord might do so if he pleased, but give him (Mr. Duncombe) the resolution, and the world would see whether a resolution of the House of Commons was so easily set aside. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt very unfairly with his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport. He had tried to mix the delivery of letters on Sunday with this question, in order to set public opinion against it. The hon. Member for Bridport never made any such assertion as that imputed to him; and it only proved that her Majesty's ministers did attend to public opinion, because it was in consequence of the feeling of the public against such a desecration of the sabbath, that any alteration in the delivery of letters was obtained. However, her Majesty's ministers might treat public opinion as lightly as they thought proper, but he told them that they would at last have to give way, not to public opinion alone, but to public opinion converted, perhaps, into public indignation, which would sweep them from the benches on which they were now sitting. He hoped the House would support his proposition, and that "cant and hypocrisy," as expressed by the noble Lord (Lord Dungannon), would meet with a signal defeat.

, in rising to postpone his motion till this day, wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any arrangement had been made with Mr. Bude for the fresh lighting of the House, without any consultation with the House.

replied, that no other or different arrangement had been made now than when the gallant Member's own experiments on the lighting were in progress, except that as the former experiments had given rise to great expense, he had been very cautious, and had determined that no experiment should exceed a given sum. He had been asked whether, during the recess, a new and ingenious plan might be applied, with the view of seeing whether the House could be better lighted? He replied, that personally he had no objection, though he would be ready to carry out the decision of the House. During the recess, however, he saw no harm in the experiment beyond giving the gallant Member a little mortification at the possible result of experiments upon this subject.

said, that a new expeririment could be suggested only because of the presumed failure of the plan already employed. He had heard, from persons engaged in different parts of the House, that his own plan had given satisfaction, and before it was condemned he must apply to the House to give it fair play, by restoring one-third of the number of lights which had been removed from the lustres, and by colouring the inside of the shades pale green. Before he sat down, he must warn the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the dangerous doctrine he had laid clown, that because he had allowed one change, he was necessarily to permit another. He believed that in domestic life, as well as in public affairs, it was wrong to suffer a fresh change to be made because another had been allowed.