wished to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It would be in the recollection of the House that last Session they had unanimously adopted an Address to her Majesty, with three different objects; the first was to obtain the concurrence of Portugal in such measures as might be necessary for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He would ask, therefore, whether the treaty with Portugal had been ratified, and if not, whether the noble Lord was prepared to act on the declaration which he had made on a former occasion in the event of its not being ratified.

was sorry to inform the House, in reply to the question of the hon. Baronet, that the negotiations in which this country had been engaged with Portugal, for nearly four years, for the sake of obtaining a treaty on the subject of the Slave Trade, had not been satisfactory; and that within the last week he had received a dispatch from the British Minister at Lisbon, stating that there was no chance of obtaining the consent of the Portuguese Government to that treaty. It was his intention, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to lay before the House the papers showing what had passed between the two Governments; and it was then the intention of Ministers to propose to Parliament a legislative measure, for the purpose of giving to our cruisers and commissioners the same power and authority with regard to slave-trading ships, south of the line, which they now exercised with regard to Portuguese slave-trading ships, north of the line.

expressed his regret that one moment of the time of the House should be occupied with anything in which he was personally concerned; but he trusted the House would feel that he was justified in the statement which he was about to make. On a late occasion a discussion arose in that House on a motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Greenock, relative to the administration of justice in Scotland. Some remarks which then fell from the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice, jun.) were animadverted upon, and knowing as he did that there was no individual in the House who would less willingly say anything that could be painful to the feelings of another than his hon. Friend, he rose and said so, and expressed his regret that his hon. Friend should have made use of any expression relative to a Scotch judge which could be considered objectionable. In doing so he himself alluded to the physical infirmity of one of the judges, though not the same judge as his hon. Friend referred to. He stated that about ten days before he left Edinburgh he had been in the Court of Session, and had seen with regret a venerable judge of high character and of most upright mind, but very advanced in age, sitting on the bench. He mentioned the name of Lord Glenlee, and said that he was completely deaf, so much so that a brother judge was prompting him on the right, and another on the left, while a person was supporting him at his back; and he then stated that he was of opinion, judges at the time of life of Lord Glenlee ought to retire on full salaries, and he added that if no one else did so, he should take up the subject. The House had since passed an unanimous resolution stating it as their opinion that judges at a certain time of life ought to retire on a full salary, in consequence of which a Bill had been brought in by his learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and had been read a second time. This was the sum and substance of what fell from him (Mr. Bannerman) on that occasion; he, therefore, did not imagine that words falling from him would have been animadverted upon either in that House or elsewhere. "But on Tuesday last," said the hon. Member "a friend met me in the street, and asked me how I liked the castigation that had been administered on me in the House of Peers, in consequence of what I said of Lord Glenlee, and he then furnished me with a copy of the Times newspaper containing the castigation spoken of by my friend, and which, with the permission of the House I will now proceed to read:—"Appeals, House of Lords, Monday, March 4 (before the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham and other Peers). After giving judgment Lord Brougham said—'My Lords, I consider it to be my duty, in the performance of strict justice, to make a few observations at the present moment in reference to what has occurred in another place respecting one of the learned judges from whose decision the present appeals have been brought before your Lordships. I allude, my Lords, to Lord Glenlee.' The noble and learned Lord then proceeded to make some general observations, in which I see nothing particularly to find fault with, but he concludes thus, which is that part of the report of which I complain:—'If my Lord Eldon bad been alive, I have no doubt he would have considered it his duty to adopt the same course which I have done, because it is the special and the precious privilege of your Lordships to defend, to sustain, and to protect the learned judges when you know that they have been foully, falsely, and unjustifiably assailed.'" In consequence of seeing that report I wrote a note to Lord Brougham, which, with the permission of the House, I will also read.

"5th March, 1839.

"Dear Lord Brougham—Some weeks ago having stated in the House of Commons, that I had seen with regret—

"'Lord Glenlee, a judge very far advanced in years, than whom there was not a better man or more upright judge presiding in one of the divisions in the Court of Session, totally deaf, so much so, that he was prompted by a judge on his, right anti lefts, and a person standing behind him, and that I thought judges at such an advanced age should be allowed to retire on full salaries, to which I should call the attention of the House, if no other Member did.'

"My attention was called to the morning papers of to-day, in which there is the report of a Scotch appeal case decided in the House of Lords yesterday, where your Lordship is reported to have said, in alluding to observations which had been made in another place, regarding Lord Glenlee, 'it is the special and precious privilege of your Lordships to advocate, to sustain, and to protect the learned judges when they are foully, falsely, and unjustifiably assailed'—if these expressions be correctly reported, will your Lordship be so good as inform me whether you meant to apply the terms foul, false, and unjustifiable, to any observations which fell from me in the House of Commons, and I remain, faithfully, &c.

"A. BANNERMAN.

"Lord Brougham, &c."

The noble and learned Lord, on the day following, replied in the following terms:—

"Grafton-street, March 6, 1839.

"Dear Mr. B—I beg leave to assure you, without any kind of personal disrespect, that neither you nor any man living shall ever be suffered to question me upon anything which I may have said, or been represented to say, in the discharge of my duty as a judge of the highest court of appeal in this country; and I am sure that a little reflection must convince you that I am now giving the only answer which it is possible for me to give to the letter you have without due consideration thought proper to write.—I am, dear Mr. B., yours, faithfully,

"H. BROUGHAM."

To this letter I sent the following answer:—

"House of Commons,

"Wednesday Afternoon,

"Dear Lord Brougham.—Your note of this date was sent to me here. You will not I see suffer me, or any man living, to question you upon anything which you may say, or be represented to say, in the discharge of your duty as a judge. Will you, therefore, suffer me to question you as a gentleman, and to ask, whether you believe that a certain noble and learned Lord meant to apply the terms, foul, false, and unjustifiable, to any observations which fell from me in the House of Commons regarding Lord Glenlee. It is my intention to repeat those observations on Friday evening, and I was most anxious to confine my remarks to the venerable judge. If I do not hear from your Lordship before Friday, I will do, what I am sure you would do under similar circumstances, allude to the speech said to have been spoken the other day in the highest Court of Appeal in this country. Faithfully yours, &c.

"A. BANNERMAN."

Lord Brougham's response to this was as follows:—

"Grafton-street, Thursday.

"Dear Mr. B.—Your second letter is, as you must be aware, only another form of the first, and can only be answered in the same manner.

"Whatever you may do, in the way you mention, is for your own consideration; and I hope you will reckon it no disrespect or unkindness towards you if I say, that any reflections on my judicial conduct, by whomsoever made, or in whatsoever place, are to me a matter of perfect indifference. Nay, I had far rather any attacks were made on myself, who am able to defend myself, than on those who are necessarily without the means of defence. I am, however, far from suspecting you of any such thing. Believe me, dear Mr. B., faithfully yours,

"H. BROUGHAM."

The House will see, that that noble and learned Lord will not suffer me to question him as a judge; bat the noble and learned Lord must then suffer me to say, that, having seen that report not only in the Times, butt in the Morning Herald, and the Morning Advertiser nearly in the same words, I think that there is no human being will believe but that that speech was spoken. The noble and learned Lord, in the speech, alludes to Lord Eldon, and says, that if Lord Eldon had now been living, he would have thought it proper to have adopted the same course. Perhaps he might, because with all the prudence and caution, and with all the talent of that eminent judge, nevertheless, he did, on one occasion, accuse an hon. Gentleman of this House of uttering a falsehood. Now, that hon. individual, Sir, was yourself. You did not submit, Sir, patiently to that accusation, nor is it right that I should be accused of snaking a false and calumnious attack upon a learned judge. The course pursued by you, Sir, I shall, if I am supported, follow upon the present occasion. I will, Sir, use your own expressions, and repeat the substance of what you stated when you brought the question before this House on the 1st of March, 1824, when, after stating what had fallen from Lord Eldon, you, Sir, used these expressions, and I now ask you to allow me to use what you then said, altering only the names. And "Now, Sir, let me ask what authority, what right has Lord" Brougham, "or any other judge, to undertake to comment from the judgment-seat on the debates of this House? Where does Lord" Brougham, "who is so cautious, find a precedent for this? How can he say, that he is not guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House? It is not a formal but a sub- stantial breach of privilege, a direct attack on the security and freedom of debate, which is the only legitimate object of privilege." I assure the House, that I bring the question before the House solely on public grounds, and I should well like that an end should be put to the language which too frequently passes between Members of this and of the other House, and between Members of the other House and this. For by-and-by, unless we put a stop to the practice, it will, I fear, be said, 'A plague on both your houses.'" I will, Sir, quote only one other authority. In the debate to which I have referred, no man more severely censured Lord Eldon than Henry Brougham did:—

"The only defence that has been set up is, that there was something in the proceeding on his part as hasty in itself, as it was extraordinary on the part of that learned judge, that his conduct besides being indecorous to the House, showed rashness and impatience, very unsuitable to the judgment seat, and that, therefore, it is to be excused. I greatly fear, that no one out of this House will see the strength of this plea, and that if we refuse to deal with this offence, and reserve our privileges to crush those humbler individuals from whose attacks we have no danger to apprehend, even for this ignoble purpose they will be found ineffectual. If persons connected with the press or any person in inferior station to Lord" Brougham, "should feel any right to hold us up to public scorn, or to point to our proceedings in characters however false (for it is admitted that the representation this night in question is altogether false), I cannot conceive why he should allow such a wish to remain to the uttermost degree ungratified. But if that wish should be indulged in, it will be ridiculous, or worse than ridiculous, to arm ourselves with the terrors of privilege, to guard against ridicule or invective, while we take no means to secure ourselves against a repetition of this gross and dangerous attack on the freedom of our debates, and the independence of so many of our Members."

I concur, Sir, in every word that fell from Henry Brougham upon that occasion. I cannot doubt, that the expressions in the report to which I have referred are intended to apply to me, because no individual in this House commented on the conduct of Lord Glenlee except myself. I am sorry to detain the House so long, but I will conclude by following the course which you, Sir, adopted in 1824; and I now, Sir, move, that "the printer of the Times do attend at the bar of this House on Monday next;" and I do so solely for the purpose, as you stated at that time, of justifying the expressions used by me in this House.

jun., assured the House, that on this subject of great importance, which his hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen had brought under the notice of the House, he was extremely happy to find, that a Member of more experience and of greater weight in the House, had relieved him (Mr. Ellice) from a duty which he would not have shrunk from in regard to the privileges or in vindication of his own character. His hon. Friend had fully stated hia case: but the report, which had been referred to, alluded indirectly to him for what he had stated in that House, impugning the Scotch bench. Those hon. Members who were present when the Lord Advocate introduced his bill to raise the salaries of the Scotch judges, would remember, that he took occasion to say, that considering the notorious physical infirmities of some of the learned judges, and the dissatisfaction which existed at the manner of proceeding in the Court of Session, and that the illness of others led to the belief that by a sudden accident the whole course of justice would be stopped, from the impossibility of procuring a quorum of judges, he thought it his duty, seeing also, that it was the subject of general consideration and comment on the part of the public press, to bring it under the attention of the House, and of her Majesty's Ministers. Certainly he had let fall, in the hurry of debate, an expression which was not warranted by circumstances; and he had taken the earliest opportunity of retracting the expression, which he regretted to have used; but if he had used the words "physical infirmity" instead of "mental imbecility," he would have had nothing to regret further than the regret which he always felt at being forced to use such an expression in the discharge of his public duty against judges so uniformly esteemed and respected. Except that expression, however, he did not lament the part he had taken in that discussion, and he was ready to sustain the view he then took, and he would do so when the subject was again under discussion. He assured the House, that it gave him great pain to allude to a subject of public notoriety. The facts, however, had not only been stated by himself, but in the most public way, in the newspapers, which, if they were false, might be proceeded against as libels. Unless these statements were refuted by something more than mere assertions they would remain as facts in the public mind—they would be repeated, and until they were disproved, there would be no confidence in the public mind as to the administration of justice. He merely said this because, though attacks had been made upon freedom of speech for observations made in his place as a Member of that House, and though he had let fall an expression which he regretted, that he might repeat the statement, that the person who had thought fit to calumniate him might be disarmed of all pretence for the calumny which he had thrown out, and he would only say, that the imputation was as groundless as other misrepresentations and charges against the conduct of other men which had before fallen from the same lips. What course the House would take upon the present motion it was not for him to say. Whether they would step in to uphold their privileges which had been invaded by an attempt at interference with their discussions, or whether the House would pass by the allegations, as it had often heretofore passed by similar attacks was a matter of perfect indifference to him. He could only tell the noble Lord that whatever calumnious abuse he might receive, whatever odium he might incur, he would not be deterred as an independent representative of the people of England, from the course which he deemed to be right, or from making those remarks which appeared to him to be reasonable and proper on any subject before the House. He had thought it right to say thus much in reply to the foul aspersion which the noble Lord had thought it necessary to make upon him. He had never said one word in disparagement of the learning or the integrity of any noble Lord on the bench in Scotland, and he could only say, that if it were a matter of prudence and discretion on the part of the noble judges of the supreme court of Scotland to take no notice of his remarks, he thought it would be of advantage to the country if their example were copied by noble Lords who were placed in authority above them, and who presided in the highest court of judicature in the empire.

said, that the question could not be put till the paper complained of had been read by the clerk at the Table; which having been done,

said, he would leave it to hon. Members who were more familiar with the forms of the House than he was, to discover whether that which was complained of by the hon. Member opposite, could be called a breach of privilege or not. As the hon. Gentlemen, the Members for Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, felt so sensitively the remarks which had been made in the newspapers, or in another place, with respect to their own character, they might very well understand how those who took a deep interest in the private reputation and character of the distinguished men who presided over the courts of judicature in Scotland, should, upon still higher than any mere personal grounds, for the sake of the respect that was due to the administration of justice in the country, be anxious to avail themselves of the first opportunity of giving a more complete and satisfactory answer to the charges which had been made, than could well be afforded on the spur of the instant when the matter was first brought forward in that House. He confessed he had heard, as he stated at the time, with the utmost astonishment, the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, with regard to the state of the judges of the Court of Session; and he could only attribute it to the ignorance which the hon. Gentleman—

rose to order. He apprehended the question before the House was not Lord Glenlee's state of health, with respect to which the hon. Baronet would have other opportunities of speaking. The question related to the freedom of debate. It was this—whether the observations reported to have been made in another place, were not a breach of the privileges of that House.

said, if he were considered at all out of order in the observations he was about to make, he should be perfectly ready to bow to the decision of the House; but having heard the hon. Members for Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, without interruption reiterating the same charges they had originally made as to the state of the judges of the Court of Session, he did appeal to the House, as a matter of justice, whether he should not be permitted to make a short statement—and he promised it should be very brief—by way of reply. He was proceeding to state, when he was interrupted, that he had heard, with great astonishment, the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. G. Ellice, jun.), and he could only attribute it to the ignorance under which he thought, without meaning any reflection upon him, that hon. Member might fairly be conceived to labour upon such a subject, considering that he had been employed for a considerable period in the other hemisphere, and had only lately returned to discharge his duty to his constituents in that House, or look after their interests in Scotland. He was therefore only able to state what he knew of his own knowledge, from the recent opportunities he had enjoyed of personally communicating with the distinguished individual in question, that the hon. Member was totally misinformed as to the statement he had made. After he had spoken, the hon. Member for Aberdeen addressed the House, in corroboration of what had been stated by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, adducing as evidence a particular instance, which he said had come under his own eye, and was calculated to produce a considerable impression on his mind. He knew perfectly well that the hon. Member for Aberdeen would not state, either in that House or anywhere else, what he did not believe to be perfectly true; and he concluded that the hon. Member must have laboured under some misapprehension. He (Sir G. Clerk) had therefore felt it to be his duty to write to those persons who were most certain to be accurately acquainted with all the facts of the case, in order that he might be enabled to state satisfactorily the whole circumstances when he should next have an opportunity of addressing the House on the subject. The observations which had been made by those two hon. Gentlemen, the Members for Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, had produced a great impression in Scotland, not upon the learned judges who were the subjects of those observations, they well knew the ability and energy with which they were conscious they discharged their duties, and they could safely treat, with silent and dignified contempt, the remarks which had been made. The same feeling prevailed among the gentlemen of the bar and the friends and relations of the judges in Scotland; but there were persons unconnected with the bar of Scotland, who knew that the effect of those remarks would not be confined to Edinburgh, seeing they were calculated to throw doubt where no doubt should remain as to the manner in which justice was administered in Scotland. Among those to whom he wrote on this subject, he had felt it to be his duty to address the judges who sat its the same court with Lord Glen lee, and inquire whether they had any recollection of any circumstance that could give any colour to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. He trusted the House would permit him to read those letters, however they might meet the view of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, who said he would still repeat and believe to the full extent what he, had stated with respect to the condition of the Scottish judges, until he had some better proof to the contrary than any mere assertion of a Member in his place. He entirely concurred in one observation of the hon. Member, when he said, that these observations, if susceptible of contradiction, were actionable; and so they would and ought to be actionable, if they had been uttered anywhere but in that House. When, therefore, hon. Gentlemen brought forward questions affecting their own privileges as Members of that House, they ought to take care not to abuse their privileges, by bringing forward vague assertions against persons whose character was public property as judges of the land, without taking more pains to make themselves masters of all the facts of the case than had evidently been done in the present instance. Some of the letters he had received were from the most distinguished persons in Scotland; he should not read the whole of them, lest he should give offence to some hon. Gentleman opposite, for many of the expressions were by no means complimentary to them. He would, however, with the permission of the House, read one letter from one of the judges who sat in the same court with Lord Glenlee. The hon. Baronet then read an extract to the following effect:—

"I have been extremely shocked by the observations made on Lord Glenlee during the late debate on the judges of the Court of Session, and I believe there are very few persons acquainted with the character, merits, and capacity of his Lordship in this country who do not experience similar feelings. There is, I believe, no judge on the bench whose opinions obtain higher respect, not only from his colleagues, but from practitioners and litigants, than Lord Glenlee's do; indeed, it would be strange if they did not, for no one case occurs in which he does not exhibit the most perfect acquaintance with the most minute fact, however complex or involved, as well as on points of law, upon which the judgment of the court should be required, and this without the aid of a single note to fix the different circumstances in his recollection. Having sat beside Lord Glenlee for nine years, I may say his judgments have commanded the respect of the whole profession; and I can assure you, I have never seen, during all that time, the slightest reason to assist his recollection, or, as has been alleged, to prompt him as to matters in discussion. I have always felt that he was far better entitled to guide my judgment than I should be to prompt him. I suspect, however, that the hon. Member who said that he saw two judges, one on each side, and a clerk, prompting him, must have been present at a meeting of the Court, when a few matters of mere form were gone through, which the judges were the mere instruments of enacting, matters of course, into which nothing but Lord Glenlee's anxiety would have induced him to enter. This very circumstance necessarily produced embarrassment to the clerks; and hence, very likely, there was an appearance of a want of intelligence in the judge, which ought to have been attributed to the officer. It most assuredly did not arise from any want of capacity. Lord Glenlee is no doubt deaf; but not more so than he has been during the many years he has been looked up to as one of the greatest lawyers and judges that ever sat on the bench. But he is not so deaf now as another judge who was appointed Chief Baron of Scotland, with the approbation of the whole profession."

He (Sir G. Clerk) had letters from another judge who also sat in the same court, who entered more into detail on some of the points in the case, and who suggested that the hon. Member must have gone into court only for a few minutes at an early period of the day, and that if he had remained a little longer, the whole would have been satisfactorily explained. Lord Glenlee, in addition to being one of the most acute lawyers in Scotland, was also one of the most eminent classical scholars in Great Britain. He believed he was also one of the profoundest mathematicians, having been occupied, the House would be surprised to learn, during part of the late recess, in working out a new solution of a very difficult problem in high geometry for one of the first mathematicians in Scotland. He wished the hon. Member had not so soon left the Court of Session on the day of his visit, or he would have beard Lord Glenlee deliver a most able judgment after his two juniors had expressed their opinions, when he not only took up with the greatest clearness the points they had laid down, but admirably illustrated and strengthened their decision. He could not doubt, from the concurrent testimony of all parties in Scotland, that the two hon. Members for Aberdeen and St. Andrew's were the tools of some persons who wished to make use of them for a particular purpose. They seemed to be in the hands of some hungry expectants of office, who were anxious, that as the speeches of the hon. Members might have the effect of inducing that learned judge to retire, and that the Lord-Advocate, or some other eminent lawyer, being elevated to the bench as his successor, they might come in for a share of the business which the learned Lord now monopolized. He was sure, that all who had enjoyed the opportunity of seeing the judges in the Court of Session must be satisfied with the great vigour and energy, and legal acuteness, with which they discharged the important functions of their high situations. He begged pardon for having so long detained the House. If the hon. Member for St. Andrew's was not satisfied with the refutation of the charge which he had made, he had other letters which he could read. He would, however, content himself with repeating his expression of honest indignation at the calumnies, the foul calumnies, though he believed unintentionally, on the part of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, which had been uttered in connexion with this subject. He believed the hon. Member was acting under a great misapprehension of the real facts of the case; for with his known prudence and candour, it could not be believed he would have brought forward a charge of this nature without being satisfied in his own mind, that there was sufficient ground for it. He must, however, deeply regret, that on such slight grounds so grave a charge should have been brought forward. He did not know whether it were the intention of the hon. Member to proceed any further with this motion. He presumed he had brought it forward merely to give him an opportunity of addressing the House; and he (Sir G. Clerk) was afraid he had now trespassed too long on their indulgence. He begged, in conclusion, to appeal to the Lord-Advocate, in corroboration of the statements he had made, and he would leave it to the noble Lord, who, he saw, was about to rise, to say whether the paragraph which had been read was or not a breach of the privileges of the House.

The hon. Baronet who has just sat down has not, indeed, addressed himself to the question before the House, and, which was introduced by my hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen. The first question is whether it is proper that a charge should be made against any Members of this House for doing their duty in this House? and the second question is, whether we ought to proceed upon this charge as a breach of the privileges of this House? Now, with regard to the first question, which the hon. Gentleman only touched upon incidentally, I must say, that in doing so he only confirmed my previous opinion, that with regard to the conduct of the person who is represented as having given the opinion complained of, he is without any, justification whatsoever. It appears that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, on a motion before the House, was quite competent to give, and he had a right to give his opinion. Any Member has a right to state what he thinks may assist this House in forming an opinion either upon the matter before it or that might afterwards arise out of it. The hon. Member stated, that one of the judges was afflicted with the infirmity of deafness; and what has the hon. Baronet said in answer to this? Why he has read a letter from a learned Gentleman who sits in the same court, and who says that certainly the Judge is deaf. Therefore, with respect to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, there is no blame; he believed the case which had come under his own observation, and he was justified in speaking of the learned Lord's deafness. That the learned Judge is a man of great learning, of great merit, that through a long course of years he has been an able judge, and that he is distinguished in literature, and of great classical acquirements, is what the hon. Member for Aberdeen has not denied, and what no one has thought of denying; but it was said, that the course of justice may be impeded by the natural infirmity of a judge who has passed the age of eighty. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen be wrong in entertaining this feeling, I must be also blameable; for having heard reports of the infirmities of some of the judges, I wrote to the Lord Justice Clerk, who happened to be in town, and asked whether the bench in the court was completely filled, and especially respecting Lord Glenlee. I received an answer and a very satisfactory answer it was. I was assured that the business of the court was well carried on, and from that time I thought it unnecessary to take any further step; but that infirmity should be imputed to a man more than eighty years of age is not extraordinary. Yet are we told by this newspaper that somebody, in delivering a judgement, which had nothing to do with Lord Glenlee, in which no judgment of that learned Lord was called in question, and where the parties were simply A and B, has asserted, that in what has been said by a Member of this House, that learned Judge has been "foully, falsely, and unjustifiably assailed," and that he insinuated, that these foul, false, and calumnious accusations had been made in this House, and by a Member of this House. I look upon this, Sir, as an unjust attack upon the privileges of the Members of this House; and I must say, Sir, whether I agree to the proceeding, which you recommended in the year 1824, or whether I do not, that any Member of this House, upon any question affecting the administration of justice, or on any other question before this House, has a right to state any facts or any circumstances which may assist the House to form its opinion; and I must say, also, that taking advantage of pronouncing a judgment, with the gravity which such an act ought to produce, to impugn the statements made in this House, to libel and to calumniate the Members of this House, is making an unjustifiable use of the privileges which belong to a judge. That, Sir, was also your opinion in the year 1824. In that case a learned and able judge thought that he had been unfairly attacked, and carried away by the warmth which naturally belonged to a man who, whatever were his defects in regard to delay and hesitation, was a learned and conscientious judge—carried away, Sir, by the warmth arising from those circumstances he imputed to you a falsehood, and I think you were right in making the statement which you did. But whether we ought to adopt the second proposition of my hon. Friend, whether it would be right to call to the Bar of this House the printer of the newspaper, and whether we ought to proceed further in this case, I cannot so readily give a positive answer. I dare say, Sir, that even in 1824 I entertained doubts on the policy of such a proceeding. I do not recollect, that I voted upon that occasion, or that I was convinced by the able speech of Henry Brougham. I think, Sir, that having the short-hand writer to the Bar of this House to produce his notes, to prove which he doubtless can, that he took down the words, that they are accurately given, and that he had no intention to exaggerate or to extort the meaning; in short, to proceed further in this matter would tend neither to uphold the dignity of the judges, to ascertain the truth, nor to raise the character of this House of Commons. For my own part, I always think, as I stated last year, when the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, was accused in this House of having said somewhere, at some tavern or other, I believe, "that Members of this House were guilty of foul perjury, that, with regard to these accusations of false conduct in the Members of this House, while those Members look to the propriety of their own conduct, and look to their duties to their constituents, it will not in the least tend to raise them in the opinion of the country, that they should assert their privilege by any vindictive proceeding;" and therefore, while I do not wonder at the matter which induced the hon. Member for Aberdeen to bring forward this question, seeing himself attacked in this manner for what was the simple performance of his duty as a Member of this House, I hope that he will not persist in his motion. At the same time, however, I hope that he will not be deterred from what he may conceive to be his duty, and that no aspersions of this kind will prevent him from saying what is his opinion on the various subjects coming before the House; but that undeterred by anything of this description, he will repeat any statement he may have to make respecting the Scotch judges or any other subject, on the merits of which he may be assured and whatever may be the consequence, no one will doubt, that he is only supporting his duties in this House, and that he is animated by feelings as pure and as conscientious as any which can animate any hon. Member.

I must say, that I hope the hon. Gentleman will not adopt the advice which has been offered him by the noble Lord, but that he will well consider the consequences of the exercise of the great privilege and right which, as a Member of this House, he undoubtedly possesses, before he questions the competency of those learned judges who are far distant from the place in which he brings forward his accusations. What is the case of the judge in question. The hon. Gentleman admits, that the learned judge, whose con- duct he calls in question, is a man of the highest integrity, that no reflection has ever been cast upon him, and that his impartiality and his learning are undoubted. Doubts are entertained as to the physical powers of the judge. The noble Lord heard of this, and he instituted an inquiry which was perfectly satisfactory. I have, therefore, these facts before me. I am dealing with the case of a judge of the highest eminence, of the greatest experience, of admitted integrity, of the highest character for impartiality, and who is proved to be physically competent to perform the duties of his office, after inquiry has been made. What! can the hon. Gentleman be surprised that the friends of Lord Glenlee, after this should be displeased at having his powers questioned in a public assembly? We constitute the judges independent of the Crown, and we have reserved to ourselves the power of removing them upon an address; but if we do not think fit to exercise that power, we ought most scrupulously to abstain from diminishing the importance of their position, and from paralysing their functions by calling in question the manner in which they perform their functions. What must be the effect of any proceeding which tends to diminish their consequence in the administration of justice—what uncertainty must not be introduced by an allegation of their physical disability? Another gentleman may go into court and may fancy, that he sees other judges even less competent than Lord Glenlee, and how difficult it must be to determine the fact—how improper to make it the subject of discussion. You do not call in question any specific matter, but you make allegations against which it is impossible to produce proof, and you leave him, not removed by any actual interference of ours, but with his mental and physical powers called into question, and you are throwing every difficulty in his way to prevent his retirement from the situation which he holds. Now, the question is, shall we call this printer to the bar of the House—will you, who refused to notice the attack made upon a noble Friend of mine—will you, who said, that when parties found themselves accused great latitude must be allowed, and that it must be permitted that the acts of Members of this House should be questioned, and that it is preposterous to visit those who remark upon them with punish- ment—will you, who in the beginning of this debate, in referring to matters in the other House of Parliament, thought that you evaded the breach of privilege by referring to it thus vaguely—will you, I ask, declare yourselves prepared to give up your privilege of calling this person to the bar? I deprecated the adoption of the course in the case of Lord Eldon, and Mr. Canning in that case also resisted the motion, and he thus concluded his speech to the House:—"With these feelings, and to prevent the commencement of a proceeding, the termination of which we cannot anticipate, and with the fullest admission, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has set himself entirely right with the House and the country, I shall oppose his motion." And if this motion be persevered in, to call this printer to the bar, I shall, for the purpose of preventing the House from encountering the difficulty which I see will arise, and on the same ground, as that stated by the right hon. Gentleman whose speech I have quoted, give my most strenuous resistance to the motion. Whether these words were used or not, I cannot undertake to say. I trust they were not as applied to the hon. Gentleman; but I must say, that if you exercise your extreme right to call into question the competency of the judges, you must not be too scrupulous in inquiring into the extreme right of others to defend them. Of the particular expressions that are in the newspapers, the accuracy of the report of those attributed to Lord Eldon was denied by him, and it is possible, that the newspaper report may have given them incorrectly in this instance also; but this I must say, I would claim for the judges sitting in the House of Peers the perfect right, on receiving appeals from the judgment of Lord Glenlee to say, "I affirm this judgment of Lord Glenlee; I have seen it questioned whether he is in the full possession of his faculties—whether his powers of hearing are so perfect as to render him fit to exercise his judicial functions; but from my own knowledge of him—from my confidence in his talents and his learning—and from an intimate acquaintance with those who know him, I say that these representations must be unfounded, and I have the greatest confidence in his abilities and competence." I say that it may be the duty of the judges to give vent to such feelings—it may be their duty to discoun- tenance those expensive appeals which may be made in consequence of the exercise by you of your right, for you may have induced those suitors by your representations of the in competency of the judges in Scotland to entertain a hope, that the decisions given by them may be reversed; and, if it be so—if you have the right to call into question their competency—you are not the men who are to complain of another who says, "I know, that Lord Glenlee is worthy of public confidence, and I feel it to be my duty to discountenance those suitors who have appealed from his decisions to to the House of Lords on the ground of his inability." The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the third bench (Mr. E. Ellice) did not attempt to deal unfairly with the House, and he very candidly confessed his regret at some of the terms he had used—he stated, that he was exceedingly sorry for what he had said. Why, then, extend your indulgence to this case? Permit those who are the friends of these eminent men to vindicate them from charges which are unfounded, and having this power, and the right to exercise it, let us consider what risk we incur of prejudicing the administration of justice by preferring charges which admit of very positive refutation, but which tend to impair the efficacy of the judgments of those who preside in the courts of law.

thought, that if the course proposed by the hon. Member were adopted it would be both objectionable and inconvenient, and more especially as the hon. Member had not informed the House how he would follow up the motion in the event of its being affirmed. Every thing he had heard in the debate had confirmed his opinion, but one expression which had been used would convey to the House an idea, that Lord Brougham was ready, and had taken opportunities of expressing his animosity in reference to the late Earl of Eldon. Political animosity might have existed between the noble and learned Lords, but he felt it to be due to Lord Brougham to say, that both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, and also on the judicial bench, he had taken opportunities over and over again of bearing his testimony to and of passing his high encomiums upon the judicial talents, unsullied integrity, and spotless character of the noble Earl. He repeated his regret, that the hon. Gentleman had thought proper to delay the public business, when his motion could not lead to any satisfactory conclusion.

having been particularly alluded to, felt it his duty to say a few words upon the subject under discussion. It would be in the recollection of bun. Members, that he rose immediately after the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Greenock on a former evening, and, that he went through all the cases to which he had alluded, and he trusted, that the account which he gave was a satisfactory one. In doing so he had been compelled to advert to many of the observations made by that hon. Member, and he was able, he thought, successfully to anticipate and to obviate most of the expressions afterwards made use of by the hon. Members for Aberdeen and for St. Andrew's. He regretted exceedingly, that those observations had been made, but he could not deny, that Members of that House had a right to inquire into the manner in which justice was administered, but he agreed, that the exercise of the right was to be guarded by the strictest caution, and if a case arose, on which they might require an exposition, the party making the motion should state much less than he contended for, in order that the House might inquire into the fact. He could not help thinking, that the discussion should now terminate at once, for if words were made use of in another place, in reference to what was said in that House, such a course could only be defended on the ground of the persons who defended the person first attacked having a right to use much stronger language than was commonly employed. He thought, that the character of the judges of the land ought not to be attacked upon slight grounds, and that aged gentlemen who had long devoted their services and abilities to their country, in the performance of their duties in an impartial manner, ought to receive not merely the indulgence but the protection of Parliament.

was of opinion that there was not the shadow of a pretence for maintaining that there had been any Breach of Privilege on the present occasion. He had always contended for the real privileges of the House, and he should always continue to do so; but he considered that nothing could so effectually tend to the subversion of those privileges as an attempt to push them beyond their ancient and legitimate extent. True it was, that no Member could, without a breach of privilege, be called in question, or personally reviled for anything he bad stated in his place in Parliament; but was it to be said that any allegations made in that House against the character and the conduct of an individual were not to be questioned or contradicted, and particularly that no newspaper was to venture to give currency to a contradiction of such allegations when they had been publicly circulated by its own reports? When the allegations had been made, was it not to be allowed that they should be declared to be false and unfounded? If any man, not a Member of that House, had an allegation made against him, might he not say that whenever and by whomsoever it had been made, it was false and unfounded, and was it to be said that the reporter was not to give publication to that contradiction, because it might happen that the slander originated with a Member of the House of Commons? He regretted, and he should always regret, that any Member of one House of Parliament should so use his discretion as to point to an expression used in the other House, and to comment upon it, but when allegations reflecting on an individual had been made, and they had been published from one end of the country to the other, to say that that person or his friends should not be at liberty to give the same publicity to a contradiction, seemed to involve a degree of tyranny which he trusted neither House of Parliament would ever attempt.

I am glad to see that the time has come when the right hon. Gentleman speaks against privilege.

I have not spoken against privilege, but I have spoken against that which, if it were proved, and could be proved, to be according to the privileges of the House, would be tyranny to the country.

must enter his most decided protest against the principle of commenting in one House upon the speeches made in another, which he thought was likely to be attended with the most mischievous consequences. With regard to this particular case, the noble and learned Lord might have commented upon the judgment immediately under consideration, without at all referring to the observations made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, because he could well have said, that the appeal was one in which Lord Glenlee had delivered his opinion—an opinion which he maintained was to be depended upon, because he believed his faculties to be unimpaired, and the powers of discrimination of that learned Lord to be unimpaired. The noble and learned Lord, whose friendship he had enjoyed for the last thirty years, however, so far from pursuing this course, had declaimed against the observations which had been made, contrary to the dignity of the judgment seat, and against the sobriety of his judicial character, and in using those expressions which were attributed to him (if he had used them) be must say, that he had taken a course likely to produce consequences the most mischievous, and, in his opinion, degrading to the judgment seat, in converting the highest tribunal in the country—where justice should be administered purely and distinctly, into an arena for political discussion. He should not enter into the various other cases discussed, but although he had no sort of personal acquaintance with Lord Glenlee, he knew him well through the judgments which he had delivered, and which he had been in the habit of reading, and he might say pondering upon; and he must say, that he never perceived any defect in the mode in which they were framed. What the learned Lord might be as regarded his ordinary powers he was unable to judge; but so far as the written record went, he must say, that no good reason for complaint existed. He agreed with what had been said of the character of the judges, and as to the mode in which the execution of their duties should be questioned in that house; but he begged to say, that when a case did occur which it was necessary to state to the House, however odious the task might be, it was the duty of that hon. Member who was interested in it to bring it forward. He alluded to no one, but it had been his fortune, in the course of his experience, to see instances in which men of great learning and great ability, had from old age and infirmity become incapable of performing their duties, and it was on that ground that he thought, although it was impossible to mark out the precise period at which the judges should retire, that a greater benefit could not be conferred upon the country than that of giving the judges, when they reached the age of fourscore years, whatever might be their vigour, the opportunity of spending the remainder of their lives without the necessity of their being exposed to the agitation and excitement produced by the proceedings in which, by a continuance in their situations, they would be necessarily mixed up. He could not agree that this was an improper intrusion, for any man who had placed his conduct before the public, was bound to come forward and defend it. He had only to express his deep regret, that the noble and learned Lord, if he did use these expressions, bad not afterwards said, "I was discharging my duty, to the best of my judgment, and I will at once acknowledge that I did not mean to impute conduct to the hon. Gentleman unbecoming his condition and station" There was nothing to prevent his doing so, and he appealed to both sides of the House, whether these expressions, having fallen in the warmth of argument (although he contended that there should be no warmth allowed to exist on the judgment seat), any hon. Gentleman having used them in reference to an individual not in the House, whether he were high or low, if he had said anything not strictly true, would not say "Question me you cannot, for I have a right to stand on my privilege, but as a man of honour, I am ready to express my sorrow." He begged to say, that he hoped there would be no misapprehension of what he had said this evening. It was a painful matter to him to have been obliged to have delivered his opinions, or to have discussed the conduct of his noble and learned Friend in any form. He had enjoyed his intimacy and friendship during the last thirty years, and he hoped that he had said nothing, which would offend him, but that his noble Friend would rather prize his friendship the more for having declared the opinion which he entertained.

in reply, said, he did not think he had been very fairly dealt with in the course which the debate had taken, and he begged now to repeat what he had before said, that the learned Lord to whom he had referred was prompted on the bench, for he had witnessed the circumstance himself, and therefore knew it of his own knowledge. He had never intended to say anything in reference to the learned Lord otherwise than speaking of him in the highest terms so far as his personal character went, but his observations had been directed to his physical infirmities. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) would recollect, that in 1826 a subject of a similar character had been discussed, when a petition was presented by the present Lord Abinger, then Sir J. Scarlett, in reference to Lord Norbury, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland. The petitioner alleged "that the noble Lord was eighty-five years of age, and was incapacitated from the adequate performance of his judicial duties by the infirmity and debility consequent upon old age. In particular, the learned Lord was so subject to lethargic stupor, that he would frequently fall asleep in the middle of the trial at which he was presiding." Mr. North subsequently "admitted that that part of the allegations of the petition against the learned Lord was undoubtedly true, in which it was stated that he was eighty-five years of age, and he had ascertained, having taken pains to make the inquiry, that there was no judge so old either in Ireland or this country. He agreed, too, that the learned Lord would have consulted his ease, his dignity, the wishes of his best friends, and the interests of the administration of justice, if he had retired from the bench some time since." As there seemed to be a feeling in the House against the motion, and as he had been enabled to make his statement in that House, he would not further press his motion. The noble and learned Lord however, in one part of the report of which he complained, had said, that he ought to have moved an address to the Crown for an inquiry into the physical infirmity of the judges in the Court of Session; and he, therefore, begged now to give notice, that in consequence of what had fallen from hon. Members tonight, he should, on a future day, move such an address. He rested perfectly satisfied that, should such an inquiry be instituted, every allegation he had made would be substantiated by the evidence.

doubted, whether it were competent to the hon. Member thus to withdraw his motion without the consent of the House. Still less did he think it consistent with the dignity of the House to suffer the motion to be withdrawn, pending such a threat as was conveyed by the notice of motion just given by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, with respect to the physical infirmity of the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland. Unless the hon. Member gave a better reason for the withdrawal of the motion, he should oppose it.

would meet the hon. Baronet by asking one question of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Stamford. Did the hon. Baronet ever hear of one of these Scotch judges having, when about to deliver a judgment, folding his hands after the manner of one about to say grace at a dinner, and uttered aloud the words, "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful?"

had heard the absurd story in question. He heard it from the hon. Member himself one day in the street, and he then told the hon. Member that he did not believe it, and that he thought it was a joke. With regard to the question of the physical infirmity of the judges in question, he was comparatively indifferent, while he had the high legal testimony of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets to their unimpaired mental energies, as exhibited in the judgments which in the course of his professional career he had been in the habit of reading and considering.

if the hon. Baronet forced the House to a division, would oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen; but he would do so solely on the ground taken by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire—that no case of breach of the privileges of that House had been made out.

in rising to address the House on the question that this Bill be read a second time, expressed his regret, that not having anticipated during this Session any more opposition to the second reading of this measure than was offered last Session in the same stage, he was not present on a former occasion when some debate arose on the question of the second reading. The opposition then offered to the second reading was, he believed, mainly founded on the lateness of the hour at which it was brought forward; but, on the present occasion, he apprehended there was reason to fear, from the intimation conveyed by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that an opposition would be offered to the second reading. He could readily conceive that the friends of the Protestant Establishment of that country, might look with considerable suspicion on this Bill, both on account of the power which they might imagine it would give, and the spirit in which they might conceive from the actions of the Government that the powers so conferred would be exercised, and he could easily conceive that the suspicions so excited in their minds, and still more strongly impressed on them by their constituents, might have derived increased force and power from some recent appointments that had taken place, which they might not think generally conducive to the interests of that Protestant Establishment. But while he repeated the motives and made allowance for the conduct of those Gentlemen, he could not imitate their conduct in opposing the second reading of the Bill, and he would shortly state to the House on what ground he conceived himself pledged and obliged in honour not to oppose it. He entertained considerable doubts whether the Bill would effect the purpose at which it professed to aim—namely, that of providing for the good, the quiet, and the efficient local Government of the cities and boroughs of Ireland. He entertained, as he had formerly entertained, a very strong opinion that for the peace and good Government of Ireland it would be infinitely better that these corporations should be altogether extinguished, than that there should be left a certain number of local parliaments in the towns of Ireland, tending, he feared, to the promotion rather of religious and political animosity than of concord and harmony. But it was too late to raise that question now. The House of Commons had decided, and that by a large majority, against the proposal made to carry this view into effect. He and his Friends had in a former Session of Parliament assented to and acquiesced in that decision, and pledged themselves, both in that and the other House, that when two measures should be completed which they deemed essential to the safe working of the proposed corporation system, and the security of the Protestant Church, they would then address themselves to provide a plan of Municipal Reform for Ireland on the principal of popular election. These measures had been now passed into law; a Poor-law Bill had been passed which would be, or might be, made an effectual check on the bonâ fide character of the franchise, under which the municipal elections would be carried on. A Bill had been also passed for the settlement of the Irish tithe question, which he trusted would give additional stability to the Pro- testant Church, and which was stripped of that noxious provision declared by Government to be essential and indispensable, but to which they (the Opposition) had declared, that no consideration would ever induce them to consent. Having, then, obtained two measures, one of which would be a material assistance in fixing the franchise, and the other would, he trusted and believed, disappoint the hopes expressed by the noble Lord who was now Viceroy of Ireland, he asked whether in honour and consistency they were not pledged to fulfil their part of the contract, and enter frankly and fairly on the business of granting corporations to Ireland. He knew not how this might strike other Gentlemen, but as a gentleman, and a man of honour, he held himself bound by the pledge formerly given, and from that pledge nothing should induce him to swerve. He knew it might he said that the recent appointment had caused great alarm and consternation among the Members of the Protestant Church of Ireland. He did not deny that there were reasonable grounds of apprehension from this cause, but he would rather hope that the noble Lord sent to that country would adhere to his late declaration, that, whatever might be his private opinion, he would go thither not to change the law, but to administer the law as it stood, and to administer it fearlessly and impartially for the protection of those whom he was to govern. But, whatever might be the course which the noble Lord was about to pursue, when they agreed to the passage of those two measures, the Irish Tithe Commutation Act, and the Irish Poor Relief Act, they consented to a Municipal Bill for Ireland, and what they had now to do with the noble Lord or his measures he did not understand. Did they stipulate with hon. Gentlemen opposite what should be the future tone of the Irish Government? Did they name who should be Viceroy of Ireland? It was true they did not expect Lord Ebrington to be sent thither, but were they perfectly satisfied with Lord Normanby? With Lord Normanby and his noble Friend opposite, as Chief Secretary, who conducted the Government with great ability certainly, but on principles not, by any means, the same as those which were the principles of the civil government under the administration of Earl Grey—with Lord Normanby and his noble Friend in office, he said, they gave a pledge that when the two measures to which he referred were passed, they would entertain the measure for Municipal Corporation Reform in Ireland, with the intent of giving it a full and fair deliberation, and, if possible, carrying it into effect. That pledge, as he had said, he could not break. On the contrary, he was bound to say he should vote in support of the second reading of the Bill, and while he pledged himself to give Municipal Corporations to Ireland on the principle of popular election, he adhered, as firmly as he said he should last year, to the conditions of the pledge he had mentioned. But in saying this be begged to declare that he would not be turned or drawn to agree to a lower franchise or to a different one from that to which he had assented last year: and in assenting to the second reading of the Bill, he also wished to guard against the possibility of being supposed to assent to the new principle which had been introduced by the noble Lord, whereby a different constituency was prospectively established: that was, it was to come into operation at the end of two years. With reference to his own share in the steps taken last Session on this Bill, he stated the ground of his objection to the measure to be that its operation was impossible. This was the ground of objection he alleged. But when a man states at one time that he objects to a measure because he knows and has found it to be physically impossible, it did not follow that he was bound, when that measure was found to be possible, to give his assent to it in the gross. Queen Elizabeth was perfectly satisfied with the apology of the mayor who explained that he could not fire the guns of his town in honour of her arrival for twelve reasons; she was quite satisfied with the first of them, in which the mayor told her he had no gunpowder; she was perfectly satisfied, because the thing was impossible; but if next year, when that impossibility was removed, the Queen had refused to listen to any of the remaining eleven reasons, she would have acted unjustly. As he no longer felt the measure to be impossible, he was now prepared to vote for the second reading; but he was not prepared to intrust with political power a constituency that was untried and inexperienced, of which he knew neither the number nor the aptitude for political business. Still, he had no hesitation in saying, that if, after experience, it was found that the proposed constituency were more independent in the exercise of the franchise than the 10l. householders—if they were found to be less under the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy—if it were shown that they were as likely to choose a man well, considering only his political fitness, and without reference to his religious creed—then, and then only, would his noble Friend opposite be entitled to call upon him to substitute that constituency which he now proposed for that of the 10l. householder. But when he heard of the way in which these constituencies had exercised the first functions which they had been called upon to exercise, he felt very great doubts as to the propriety of intrusting them with this additional power. It was with very great regret that he had heard accounts from various places throughout almost, he might say, the whole of the south of Ireland, of the way in which the late measure of poor relief had been carried into effect. The result of the measures adopted in the places to which he referred, was not what it ought to have been; for the measure was one which required the utmost caution and care in carrying it into execution. He had heard of no place almost in the south of Ireland, but the influence of the Roman Catholic priest was predominant in those constituencies, who appointed officers whose qualification was not aptitude for business, but the profession of the Roman Catholic faith. At the same time, he begged to state, that he was fully prepared to enter into the discussion of the bill with the settled purpose, that it should pass into a law, that so the only yet remaining of the three texts of Irish agitation might be got rid of. But he hoped, that he might not be misunderstood with respect to the 10l. franchise: when he spoke of a constituency of 10l. householders he meant, that it should be tested, not by the payment of rent to that nominal amount, but by liability to assessment which shall prove, that the amount is really 10l. He had thought it necessary to state, at that early stage of the bill, the course which he, as an individual, meant to pursue. It was not his intention to question the motives of the conduct of any hon. Member whatever; he knew little or nothing of the nature of the opposition which it was intended to offer to the bill; and if the House, following the bad example of last Session, went to a division, as he hoped they would not, he should feel it his duty to give his vote for the second reading.

said, his noble Friend, in saying, that as a man of fairness and honour, he felt bound to support the second reading of this bill, had said what, in his opinion, almost amounted to an imputation that those were not men of fairness and honour, who voted against it. But he would tell his noble Friend, that he, for one, was no party to any such compact as his noble Friend had referred to; his noble Friend could not quote one vote of his on the Irish Tithe Bill, or on the Poor-Relief Bill, which bore that interpretation. He had never assented to those measures as grounds in any degree justifying the passing of the Irish Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. The value and importance of those institutions to Ireland, to the Union, and to Great Britain, were deeply impressed on his mind. Municipal corporations were originally established in many parts of Ireland for loftier, and holier, objects than mere municipal business; they were, then, as they yet remained, to a great degree, the connecting links between the Protestantism of England and Ireland. This at least, was the definite and distinct object of the foundation of those of the north of Ireland; he was aware there were other corporations, of a prior date, which were not so specifically designed for the purpose which he had mentioned. But the one class was swept away by the bill with as little remorse as the other; and what was it meant to raise up in their stead? He never had consented to the bill of last Session; be had offered it every opposition up to the second reading; but when that stage was passed, then be had endeavoured to render it as little objectionable as possible. However, be would have been better content to have left the corporations of Ireland as they were, subject to the law of the land. He was aware of the difference between the present bill and that of last Session; but no one could deny, that up to the second reading of a bill, he was entitled to consider all differences as merged, and to look upon the measure, in general, as a bill for the annihilation of the present municipal corporations in Ireland, and the erection of Roman Catholic corporations in their stead. Still, if he were defeated on the motion which he was about to propose, he should possibly find himself enabled to follow his noble Friend in all the amendments which he might suggest; but till then he would not quit the vantage ground of principle which he possessed in the course he was pursuing. In his apprehensions of the evil to be anticipated from the measure, he could not be deceived; he took its character from its friends, nor from its enemies. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had both sufficiently declared what was its real scope and tendency when last the bill was before the House. Both those hon. Members had said enough to show, that the true character of the bill was hostility to the Established Church; and several other hon. Members might be quoted all concurring in giving the same view of it. This was held to be its tendency by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, of whom, whatever else might be said of him, it would not be denied, that he was a man who showed extraordinary sagacity in discovering the best means of accomplishing his ends. Even last night he had heard the hon. and learned Member, when speaking on the subject of ejectment of tenants, in one of those audible whispers which he (Sir R. Inglis) believed it was the hon. and learned Member's intention, should be heard throughout the House, speaking of the conduct of certain Irish landlords, in the ejectment of tenants, introduce one word, "Saxons"; and this, he might remark, was a term which he had often heard the hon. and learned Member apply in his speeches, or, perhaps, he should rather say, had often read in his speeches, as applicable to the English. [Mr. O'Connell: I did not say any such thing.] In that case he had been deceived, and he withdrew the statement on the denial of the hon. and learned Member; but the hon. and learned Member would not deny that be often used the term "Saxons" so applied. The hon. and learned Member would not deny, that an hon. Member not then present was sitting near him on the occasion he referred to last night, whom, when in the chair, of a meeting in the south of Ireland, the hon. and learned Member had lately addressed with peculiar unction in the words—"You, at least, are no intruder, you are no Saxon, you are of the ancient race." That the hon. and learned Member was in the habit of holding such language was notorious to the country; and the hon. and learned Member would not deny, that the tendency of this measure was to transfer property and its accompanying influence in the corporate towns into the hands of others than those who now possessed that influence. As he had said, not being a party to any compact whereby the other two other measures were given for this, he was not prepared to assent to the second reading of the bill, The present proposal was one for destroying the supports of Protestantism in Ireland. He talked not of the date of the corporation of Dublin or of the decided stand which that corporation made; but when he recollected what the corporation of Dublin and other corporations had done, he for one would not lend his hand to the destruction of any one of them. Not believing this measure to be necessary, and seeing the evils in itself and in its consequences, no consideration of personal respect and regard towards those with whom he usually acted should induce him to desert what he felt to be his duty. It was that feeling, and on that feeling of a deep sense of duty, that he hoped at least the second reading of this bill would be deferred to that day six months.

begged to assure the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman, that the course he had pursued on that day se'nnight, in reference to this bill, introduced at a very late hour, twelve o'clock, had not been done with any factious motives. But he had never had an opportunity of giving a vote against this bill, and therefore wished that the bill should be discussed at an early stage, that he might have an opportunity of giving his vote distinctly against it. He denied that he was a party to any compromise on this question. He must confess, that if the noble Lord had introduced the bill sent down from the House of Lords last year, it might have been an object to him to have given his assent to the bill; but not only had a bill been introduced with a lower franchise, but it was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the franchise sent down from the Lords would be an insult to the people of Ireland. He was one who looked on the measure of sending the noble Viceroy recently appointed to that country with dismay; and before he voted for this measure, he should wish to know what his intentions and motives were. He mentioned this solely with the impression that the church was exposed to considerable danger. He would not vote for a measure which he was of opinion was fraught with danger to the Protestant interests. But the noble Member for North Lancashire had stated, that he considered he was bound in honour to enter into this measure, He could assure the House, that he, for one, never entered into any such contract. He confessed, that he did not see that they had any valuable return for what had been given. What had they got for the appropriation clause? Had that clause ever passed by a majority of more than thirty, very often down nearly to twenty? And since the election had the noble Lord ever ventured to introduce the appropriation clause into the House? Because he knew that there had been a great change in the feeling of the public. The appropriation clause could never have been passed by that House. Was he to be told that they were to sacrifice the Protestant institutions, because they gave the Poor-law Bill? He could assure the House, that the Protestant landlords did not take the Poor-law Bill as any boon. It might be a very good criterion to fix the qualifications by, but he held it perfectly valueless as a boon to the Protestant institutions. He was one of those who saw very little analogy between corporations in England and Ireland. He held that the corporations in England were elected for a very different purpose. The English corporations had been given rather with a view of supporting the party in power. The corporations had been tyrannically wrested from the people in the time of Charles II., and he called it a restoration to give them back to the people. But there was no analogy to this with the Irish corporations; they had never been given but for Protestant purposes and for Protestant support. If this bill were granted, it would transfer the power of these corporations from the Protestants to the Roman Catholics. He would ask hon. Members whether they conceived, if a 10l. franchise were granted, it would prevent the transfer of the power of the corporations to the Roman Catholics? If that very transfer would be made of the power in corporations from the Protestant to the Roman Catholic, he asked them why they should not oppose the second reading, and give their decided objection to this measure? Let them fight the battle nobly, even if they must be beaten—but let them not give up the Protestant institutions they were bound to respect for the sake of political expediency. He did oppose any further grant to Ireland against the Church, for no sooner would this question be settled, than a question for the subversion of the Church Establishment would be propounded to them. He was one for making a stand against any further encroachments on the Protestant religion; he felt that he was doing his duty towards his country in so acting, and therefore he cordially seconded the motion of the hon. Gentleman.

hoped the House would allow him to state, in a few words, his feelings with regard to the measure then before them, and the course which he meant to take respecting it. His individual opinion on the general question of Irish corporations had been from the first, and remained unaltered, that it would be, under the existing circumstances of Ireland, more conducive to the general advantage of the community, and the good management of the cities and towns in that country, that the existing corporations should be simply abolished. With respect to the present bill, he had many objections to its details; he would, in Committee, endeavour to amend it—and if it appeared in its present form, or not very materially altered on the third reading, he should vote against it. But he felt bound, by personal honour and good faith, to give an opportunity to the Government of submitting a bill based on the principle of popular election, for the consideration and amendment of a committee. For two years he and the party with whom he had the honour to act had used their utmost efforts to carry a measure for the abolition of corporations; but from the construction of the great political parties into which the House was divided, and the dissent of many of their own party from that proposition, it became impossible to maintain it. In the end, then, of the Session of 1837, the Duke of Wellington announced, that if the appropriation clause was abandoned, and a standard of value for the franchise provided by the Poor-law Bill—that he would consent to the passing of a corporation bill, on the principle of the present. Considering the source from whence that declaration proceeded—the known influence the illustrious Duke possessed, and the entire confidence reposed in him by the great party of which he was the head, seeing moreover that the conditions he had required had been granted, he thought, that the party were under an undoubted obligation to perform their portion of the contract. It was a subject on which he (Mr. Shaw) could not take a neutral part. He had, therefore, during the last Session been a party, a reluctant one it was true—but, nevertheless a party to the proceedings taken on that ground; and be could not with consistency or honour now recede from them. He had already incurred some odium on that account, and his vote that night would pro- bably draw down more upon him. The corporation of Dublin, by the hands of their Lord Mayor, had, in the course of the evening, presented a petition against the bill. He was officially connected with, he was bound by various ties to, that ancient body, and very sorry to differ from them; but all these considerations could not weigh with him when put in comparison with personal honour and good faith; to these all other motives must give place. He meant to cast no imputation upon others; his hon. Friends who might oppose the second reading of the bill, were, he was persuaded, as sensitively alive to their honour and character as it was possible for him to be to his; they were in general also differently circumstanced from him. He regretted, that a division should for the first time since the commencement of their discussions be taken on the stage of the second reading of the bill; but as it was—under the circumstances, and constrained by the obligations of personal honour and good faith to which he had adverted—he had no option left but to vote against the amendment.

rose to set himself right with respect to the bill before the House. They would allow him to observe, that this opposition was all idle on the part of the hon. Member; the question had been decided over and over again; it had been decided in that House and in another place. Now, he would suggest to the kind and ardent disposition of the hon. Baronet opposite, whether it were wise or politic to exasperate the public mind by entering on this fruitless course. The hon. Baronet considered this as a battle against the Church, and had introduced the word "Saxon." The people of Ireland had no battle against the Church, but if the Church or the Saxons battled against them, they must battle against the Saxons and the Church. ["Hear, hear!"] He would answer the "Hear, hear." The battle had been commenced in a place near that House. They had heard the most virulent abuse of his own country, of his own countrymen, and of the religion of the majority. He might say "terrorum et fraudis abunde est." He admitted, that there might be questions on both sides; but if the people of this country and those who opposed the measure embittered their opposition with religious animosity, there would be war interminable. He might say, that Ireland was becoming Catholic. They were making it so. It would not satisfy them (the people of England) to make it Protestant, but they must make it Orange, and drive out the Catholics. The people of Ireland had answered them in plain intelligible language—"You are settlers, and if you make war with us, we will drive you out and your race." That was plain speaking, and they might depend upon it, as sure as he was of his own existence, if they persevered in the course they were adopting, they would not only make Ireland Catholic, but they would make her, what he hoped she would never be, anti-English. If the hon. Member read Irish history, he would find, that many of the towns had Corporations, not bestowed, as had been stated, for Protestant purposes. Such were Galway, Waterford, and Wexford. The charter of the corporation of the city of Dublin was given to it by Henry 2nd, not by English Protestants, but by English Catholics. They talked of this act as if it were an anti-Christian act, and not a Protestant one. That was an error. When Lord Donoughmore wanted to permit a certain number of the most respectable Roman Catholics to be admitted into the corporation of Dublin in the time of Lord Wellesley, the most violent opposition was made to it by the Protestant corporation; and the Roman Catholics would certainly oppose the admission of Protestants into the corporations, unless on both sides they downed their arms and put aside opposition. Such would be the state of the case. He might make an angry speech at what had been said, and if hon. Members chose, he should do it. He was sure, that any individual who had heard what had passed in another place would be so disposed. He thought, that the measure which had been passed in another place was unjust to the people of Ireland. He thought it was wrong to give to the minority that which ought to belong to the majority, whose right it was by nature and by providence. In conclusion, the hon. Member said, that on a former occasion a statement of his had been denied in the most unqualified manner by the hon. Member for Coleraine. His statement was, that the corporation of Dublin had been decreed to repay the citizens of Dublin 75,000l., of which they had robbed them—and to this hour they continued to evade the decree of the House of Lords. Since the last debate he had written to Dublin to ascertain how the facts really stood, and he now held in his hand a letter from Mr. Peter Brophy, sustaining in every particular his statements. He thought it, therefore, unwise in the hon. Member for Coleraine to contradict that which now turned out to be perfectly true.

said, that he would trespass on the attention of the House for only a very short time. In the outset of his remarks, he begged to disclaim those feelings of religious bigotry and factious spirit which had been imputed to hon. Members at his side of the House for the part they had taken on this subject on a former evening. He was not influenced by any such feeling. Whether the people of Ireland were idolaters or iconoclasts, were circumstances on which he should not dwell in considering any measure relating to the welfare of that country. He had always thought that the question with respect to Ireland was, what was the character of its Government, whether it should be local or central. In England, where society was strong, they tolerated a weak Government; but in Ireland, where society was weak, the policy should be to have the Government strong. Had that policy been acted upon? It was a much-mooted dogma of the present day—for which he believed they had to thank the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—that the people of the two countries should have equal rights. The object which that hon. and learned Gentleman sought was, that the people of Ireland should enjoy the fullest share of civil and religious rights and privileges. ["Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.] He hailed that cheer, for on it he would build his argument. The constitution of the country embraced Church and State. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept the whole, or would he reject one moiety—the Church? No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman would not accept that moiety. He would call it a foreign innovation which he would oppose. If the hon. and learned Member sought for identity of institutions, he must accept the constitution in Church as well as in State. If he did not, what then became of his call for identity of institutions? The learned Gentleman was a great political casuist; he was eminently skilled in construing the meaning of an Act of Parliament and interpreting the obligation of an oath. He would, therefore, wish him to accept of the dilemma which he now offered to him. The Government of Ireland—he spoke not of that of the resent day in particular—had always acted on the central principle, on the principle opposed to that of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. It acted on the principle that there should be different institutions for the two countries. How else could the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department defend the system of an armed police through Ireland—how else could he justify the extensive employment of stipendiary magistrates through that country—so different from the system in this kingdom? The only system on which any reliance seemed to be placed with respect to Ireland was that of centralized Government? What had been the result of any attempt to act on any other principle? What had been the principle of the Irish Government for the last forty years; he cared not whether the Government was Whig or Tory, Conservative or Destructive, Orange or Green? What was that system? It was one which was not known to classic history, not to be found in the annals of feudal christendom. In looking to those periods they might find secret treason, or bold and blustering sedition, but they could not find agitation. They could not discover that refined product of modern invention, by which a man might violate the law by means of the law. That discovery was reserved for modern times, and was now carried out to its full extent; and while it existed he did not think that such a measure as this should be passed for Ireland. For this reason he would oppose the second reading of this Bill. He would not do anything to check the ambition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. They had the Cabinet of the Sovereign, and the two Houses of the Legislature open to them, and under these circumstances he thought they should let their country be still for a time. The more they sought power the more they should try to secure order and peace as the basis of national greatness. With these feelings he should feel it his duty to oppose the second reading of this Bill.

said, that on the night alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath, (Mr. Grattan), that hon. Member had made a statement highly injurious to the Corporation of Dublin. It was to the effect that while they were indebted upwards of 70,000l. to the citizens of Dublin, they were, in place of paying their just debts, distributing the revenues of the Corporation amongst themselves. He warned the hon. Member for Meath not to make such an averment against the body, or against any of the individuals composing it; and he would now re-assert, that the hon. Member made the statement without one tittle of foundation for it. When he arrived in Dublin, shortly after the discussion alluded to, he sent for the solicitors of the Corporation, and they convinced him that his (Mr. Litton's) statement was fully borne out by the facts. There was five years ago a decree of the Court of Chancery obtained against the Corporation for 75,000l., which it may be said, in one sense, was money they had misapplied. The Corporation defended the suit on the ground that they had a perfect right to act as they had done. The House of Lords, however, held a contrary opinion. Now, 69,000l. of the sum decreed against the Corporation had been paid in cash, and six thousand had been raised on the property of the Corporation. In order to raise that 69,000l. the corporation issued debentures, and a second information was filed against them by Mr. Brophy. The decree was to the effect that the Corporation must redeem the debentures and cancel them, but at the same time it was declared they had a right to raise the money on their surplus funds, just as much right in fact as he (Mr. Litton) had to mortgage his estates. He had in his possession the certificate of the Master in Chancery, which stated that the debentures had been brought into his office and cancelled. Now with respect to the question more immediately before the House, he regretted that he felt obliged to vote on this occasion in a different manner from those under whose political banners he had been proud to enlist himself, and with whom he generally agreed, but upon this subject he had not considered himself bound by any compact. He was not in Parliament when any such compact had been entered into. Although he was present when the Bill was last before the House he did not call for a division on the second reading—but he contended that the idea of being bound by any contract because he did not divide, never for a moment entered his mind. But suppose he had entered into such a contract, he would ask, as a man of honour, whether such a contract could be binding, when the Government had failed to perform their part of it? It had been said that the Tithe Bill was understood to have been a condition on which this measure should be conceded; but even that Bill the Ministers had done all they could to render as bad as possible; for although the appropriation clause had been abandoned, yet that had not been done in aid of the Church, but because the government could not carry it, and it was by a small majority only that that protection for the Church had been obtained. Ministers, he asserted, had not kept faith with respect to that Bill. On the contrary, they did all in their power to diminish the revenues of the clergy. Now, as to the Corporation Bill, the Ministers brought in a Bill with a most objectionable qualification. This was opposed by the conservatives, who proposed one of a higher standard, and thought Ministers should have met them halfway; but Ministers did not think fit to do so. On the contrary, the franchise they proposed would have the effect of swamping the respectable inhabitants, and must necessarily transfer all corporate power to men who, from education and character, were unfitted for such purposes. When that Bill was carried, with certain modifications, in the House of Lords, and sent back here, was it the conservatives who rejected it? No; it was rejected by Ministers. It had been said that the conservatives had broken their compact, because they opposed the second reading of the Bill, which contained altogether a different qualification from that introduced last Session. He agreed that there ought to be a reform in the Irish corporations. The present measure, however, was not a Bill containing the proper principles of reform, and therefore, he felt himself at liberty to oppose the second reading.

said, that the prominent part, that he had taken in the preceding discussion on the question of the municipal corporations, made him very unwilling to give a silent vote upon the subject now. The question he had to decide to night was, whether by his vote he should imply, that he was ready to reconstruct the Irish municipal corporations upon the principle of popular election, or whether he should propose to depart from the course which was pursued in the last and preceding Sessions, and withhold his assent from the re-constitution of the Irish corporations on the elective principle. He would shortly refer to the history of the discussions on this question. In 1834 they had reformed the corporations of England, They destroyed the self-elective principle, and introduced in lieu of it the principle of popular election. In 1836, having a report on the Irish corporations, they had to determine whether they would apply the same principles to the Irish corporations; and if so, what course they should pursue. Was it possible to maintain in Ireland the self-elective principle after they had destroyed it in England? was it possible, after having removed the civil disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured, and after finding, that those Roman Catholics were not practically admitted into the municipal corporations of Ireland, to maintain this principle, that all corporations should remain precisely on the basis on which they were before, namely, that the existing corporators should be allowed to fill up vacancies by election, when these vacancies continued, generally speaking, to be filled by the persons of Protestants? They found, that course to be impossible. They did propose, after consideration, a plan which would have introduced a diversity of institution between England and Ireland, but which would have maintained civil equality in Ireland. That course, in his opinion under the circumstances of Ireland, would have been the wisest course. That was his opinion. When it was proposed to consider what provision could be made for local government in Ireland, it was found, in fact, that the chief corporation—the corporation of Dublin—had, in consequence of the establishment of other constitutions of local government, really few functions to perform connected with such government. Considering, then, that these were the circumstances of Ireland, a bill might have been introduced which entitled every town to provide for the purposes of local government, without municipal corporations. The wisest course to pursue in the convulsed state of the country by political and religious parties, would have been, in his opinion, to abolish corporations altogether, and to provide otherwise for the management of local affairs. He felt, therefore, when the Government proposed their Corporation Bill in 1836, that it was the wisest course to assent to the second reading of that bill. He must remark, they never yet had offered any opposition to the second reading of a municipal bill for Ireland—they had never maintained the principle, that the Irish corporations should remain intact on their own basis. When they refused their assent to the principle of remodelling the Irish corporations, they admitted, he might say generally, if not universally, the necessity of reform, and they did not contest the principle involved in the bill. They took no division upon it. In 1836 and 1837 they maintained the principle that the Irish corporations should be abolished. But it was impossible to disguise from themselves now this fact—that their minorities on this, comparatively with other questions, were small. On the first occasion the majority against them was not less than eighty. On the second occasion it was about the same. It was necessary, then, to determine what practical course to pursue. He wished it was in his power to take the course which some of his hon. Friends might take, namely, to act with what was called exactly consistent principles, and give their individual votes against any change whatever. That certainly was a course exceedingly convenient, and exceedingly acceptable to those who could follow it. But those who were honoured—and he felt it the greatest honour, that could be conferred upon him in public life, infinitely greater than the most distinguished rank or office—those who were honoured with the confidence of the leading gentlemen of England, in the most powerful party, that ever yet acted in opposition to a government, could not take that convenient course. In proportion to the importance of that powerful party, and to the greatness of the influence which the confidence of that party gave, was the obligation to consider comprehensively the whole state of the country, and the difficulties which environed the settlement of a question that called for their decision. However desirable it might be to adhere systematically to an opinion, to express no sentiments at variance with those formerly entertained, and however convenient it might be for individuals to think, that they had always pursued the same course, it was impossible for a great party to risk the loss of public confidence by refusing any modification of their opinion which difficulties in public affairs might render advisable. Upon this subject they found a difference between the two Houses of Parliament, a difference which promised to be eternal if neither receded in the slightest degree from its opinions. He and those who acted with him, therefore, determined to consider, under the existing difficulties, and upon the whole, what was the wisest course for the great interest which they wished to protect—he meant the interest of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland; whether it were better, that the two Houses should remain in eternal conflict on the subject, or whether they should apply their minds to an amicable arrangement. But he must be allowed to say, for his own justification, if any justification were necessary, and without calling in question the motives by which his hon. Friends were determined in their differences on this question that these differences should not, in the slightest degree, affect their cordial and united advocacy and support of the great principles in which they concurred. Differences there were; but if, from these differences, the Gentlemen opposite hoped to see any permanent dissension in the party, they would be miserably disappointed. He gave his unhesitating and most cordial support to the second reading of the present bill. He would try to effect a settlement on safe principles, but those would be disappointed who expected that differences on this subject among his hon. Friends behind him would sow the seeds of permanent dissension for the advantage of their enemies. Sensible as he was of the caution which ought to be used by one in his situation, and knowing the difficulties which presented themselves in 1837, he had given no new pledge, entered into no new engagements; this his hon. Friends must do him the justice to admit—without consulting every man willing to express a difference of opinion, and without feeling himself fortified, he would not say by the universal assent of the party, but by such a general assent as he could hardly have calculated upon, and which was a perfect warrant for the declarations of 1837. What was the declaration by which, without calling in question the motives of other men, he, as the representative of a great party, felt himself bound in full faith to abide? It was this: They thought the Irish Poor-law Bill and the Irish Tithe Bill were inseparably connected with the question of municipal reform. Their opponents denied it. They said there was no such connection. He and those who acted with him, said this—"Give us an Irish Poor-law Bill, with the test of value which that Bill will furnish—give us an Irish Tithe Bill to our satisfaction, and then we will frankly consider the policy of remoddelling the Irish corporations." As his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had said, they had got both. Now, upon this subject, he must deny any idea of a contract. There was no secret understanding. He was as free as air as to any private understanding in which the ministry was concerned. It had been, and should be, his uniform care in public life to avoid all private understandings and agreements with those to whom in public he was decidedly opposed. Nothing involving an obligation in any way to her Majesty's Ministers had ever passed his lips on the subject. His course had been taken in the face of Parliament and the people, and that course was not to refuse his assent to remodelling corporations on the principle of popular election. What did they require? They required the passing of an Irish Tithe Bill on their own principles; in other words, with the exclusion of the appropriation clause. They gained it. Circumstances must be strong, indeed, which, after they had got the Irish Tithe Bill, and declared they were free to consider a Corporation Bill, should induce them to withhold, not from the Ministry, but from the people interested in this question, the equivalent which they had been ready to pay on the equivalent being granted. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley), in his short, but very able speech, which had, indeed, exhausted the subject, stated, that they had professed no confidence in the Government at the time that declaration was made. At the time that declaration was made, they found the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pigot) belonging to an association which was admitted to be injurious, selected for an important office. They found Lord Normanby at the head of affairs, and they made no reservation that when his functions should cease, that the Government should appoint a Lord-lieutenant acceptable to their opponents. They made no such reservation. Lord Ebrington was appointed to the office. He could not say, that that appointment entitled him to depart from an engagement made, or having got an Irish Poor-law Bill, and an Irish Tithe Bill, to refuse his assent to the principle of Irish corporations. He did not think the appointment, however strongly he might disapprove of it, a justification of a refusal of corpora- tions. It would be hypocrisy to say, that he thought that a fit appointment. He had heard the speech delivered by the noble Lord (Ebrington) in that House, and he had heard his subsequent explanations. He admitted all the private virtues that were claimed for him. He had no doubt, from his declaration, that he had the intention to administer the law impartially. But he still must regret that any man should be selected for the administration of the law who had told them, that it was his hope that the war against the Irish Church Establishment should be transferred from the poor to the rich. Giving him all credit for private virtues—giving him all credit for good intentions in his administration—he firmly believed that his hands would be paralyzed by the proclamation he had made of his hope that the war against the Established Church should become more formidable. It was not uttered as a prediction; it was not a warning. It was not as if the noble Lord had said, "If you pass this bill, I warn you, it will not insure a settlement of the Church in Ireland. I predict that the hostility will still continue, but that it will be transferred from the poor to the rich." The words were—they were not denied—nothing like a prediction of consequence, but these—"My hope is, that the war will become more formidable." How could he hope, that the power of the law against tithe agitation, against the refusal of the rights of the clergy, would be rigorously enforced, whatever the intention of the noble administrator might be, when that individual had declared his hope to see this formidable hostility continued. He called on them to recollect with what scrutinizing acuteness they watched the appointments he made. From every act of his they had inferred hostility to a certain party in Ireland. When his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Lefroy), and his right hon. Friend, the Recorder, were made privy councillors, did they not fasten on the circumstance? Did they not infer hostility from the Roman Catholics, because the nominal office of privy councillor was given to men not holding violent, but strong opinions. Did they not look at the toasts given at a public meeting as a qualification for dismissing men from places of authority? Did they not vindicate such an act on the ground that men could not act impartially after the expression of strong opinions? Did they not attach weight to sentiments so delivered at such public meetings, on the principle that even conviviality was no excuse? After he had selected for the chief administration of affairs in Ireland, his noble Friend, Lord Haddington, and his right hon. Friend who sat near him (Sir H. Hardinge), for the purpose of having individuals who had voted for the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, did they not do all in their power to prejudice the appointments; and because an Orange flag was exhibited over the head of the Lord-lieutenant without his knowledge, and against his desire, accuse him of the most violent partizanship? Was it not inferred, that he was unfit for the office, because this exhibition was calculated to offend the feelings of one class of the people, though he disapproved of the exhibition, and of the presence of party insignia, but was, in that instance, unable to prevent it? Was it not inferred, that he acted with an intention to insult and offend, and therefore was unfit to remain in the administration? Was that impartial justice? After all the Church had gone through, after all the trials to which she had been exposed, after having submitted last Session in a final settlement to the deduction of nearly one-third from her income, was it quite fair—using the test which had been applied to his own administration—was it fair to the minority, or the Protestant population, interested in maintaining the Church with the reduced establishment to which all parties admitted she had a right—was it impartial justice to select for the chief administration of affairs him who declared—not that he prophesied the continuance of agitation—not that the contest of which he, with a prudent sagacity foresaw the consequences would go on, but who publicly declared his hope that the war would continue, and grow more formidable, by being transferred from the poor to the rich; and who founded his support of the bill less on the necessity for a compromise than on the expectation and hope that it would defeat the purposes for which it was enacted. It was their own principle, that the declaration of strong opinions in a country where heated feelings prevailed, was a disqualification for high office; and let them not suppose, that he (Sir R. Peel) could look upon the appointment of Lord Fortescue with satisfaction, or contemplate it without apprehension. He did not. But he had no confidence in the Government before. He had made no reservation on former occasions as to the appointment of a Lord-lieutenant free from objection, and he did not think that, on the ground of Lord Fortescue's appointment, he was entitled to object to or throw any impediment in the way of the attempt to reconstitute the Irish corporations. His engagement had been made, an engagement, he must repeat, he did not make individually, but in every step of the proceeding he conferred with every man who would do him the honour of conferring with him. Nor did he find, at any of those meetings, any one refusing to assent to, or declining to adopt the course that was taken. If there were any who said, that the altered circumstances of the times afforded a sufficient justification, he quarrelled not with their motives, but not considering himself that there was such a justification, he would not in the slightest degree depart this Session from the course pursued in the last. At the same time, he did not deny that it would be most painful to him, if he had given any pledge in the last Session which, although obligatory on him to perform, he now felt to be inconsistent with public policy. This would be painful, but he should still have no doubt that it was the best policy scrupulously to adhere to the obligations of good faith. But he had no doubt upon the matter. It would greatly diminish his satisfaction in maintaining his faith inviolate, if he thought the course he was pursuing contrary to sound policy. But he did not think so. In the present position of the Irish municipal corporations, and after the course which he and others he acted with pursued, he could see no course preferable to forming corporations on principles which they thought safe—principles which they thought calculated to ensure a due influence in these corporations for the Protestant inhabitants. He saw no course but that, and he thought that those who now disapproved of it were bound to tell what they would propose. What would they do in the present state of Irish politics? How would they meet the practical difficulties? Would they propose the extinction of corporations? That course had been condemned repeatedly by large majorities. Would they retain the corporations on their present footing? He thought the question ought to be met and answered. An individual might shrink from it, but a great party, exercising great influence in the country, could not shrink from giving an answer. For his own part, he thought, that no position could be worse than passing it by and shrinking away from that House. What, then, would they do, with Irish corporations? The revenues of those bodies had been taken away. Parliament had done that. Could they repeal the bill, and prevent the alienation of corporate revenues? Were they strong enough to repeal it, and restore the corporations their property? If they could not, how impaired in power would the corporations be without their property? Were they sure that the most respectable inhabitants of cities and towns would take office under such arrangements? Would it not appear, that they had destroyed the efficiency and vitality of the corporations by this course? Should they, then, attempt to annihilate them again, what was the prospect of success? He saw no solution of the difficulty, but in reverting to the first course, and attempting in another form to maintain the principles for which they had contended. It might be said, that agitation would continue. But upon this subject he had been struck by something that had fallen in the course of last night's debate. An hon. Friend, in the course of his speech observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was completely mistaken if he fancied, that he included the whole Catholic population of Ireland. His hon. and learned Friend observed, that so far from having a million of Precursors the hon. and learned Member admitted, that he had not one-twentieth part of the number. His hon. and learned Friend had also observed, that the whole province of Connaught had subscribed only 55l. to the Precursor's Society. Now might not this unwillingness to join the agitating society, in a great measure, arise from the hope, that they would redeem their pledge and give the establishment of corporations in Ireland? Might not the hon. and learned Member for Dublin have failed on account of the expectation that the declaration which had been made would be fulfilled. But supposing that they should refuse the measure to which they formerly assented, and be guilty of a violation of good faith in refusing the price which they had been willing to pay for those that were passed, was it not possible that the agitation which his hon. and learned Friend admitted to be unsuccessful might revive with redoubled force, so that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should find no difficulty in raising larger funds for the Precursors than 55l. from the whole province of Connaught? On these considerations and mainly on account of the engagement entered into, as also from a belief, that there was less difficulty attending the attempt at a settlement, than the endeavour to continue them on their present basis, and present alienation, his vote should be given decidedly in favour of the second reading of the bill.

would detain the House for a very short time. An hon. Friend near him had expressed a hope, that the hon. Baronet opposite would not press his motion. Now, he confessed, he should rather be glad if the motion were pressed to a division; for the result would show, the correctness of the statements in which the organs of the party opposite indulged, and the admirable union and harmony which prevailed in their ranks. He should like them to show not only how well they agreed among themselves, but, to use an Irish expression, how well they agreed with themselves. The hon. Member for Maid stone had favoured them with a disquisition on centralized government, which he thought the great remedy for the evils of Ireland. Now it was somewhat strange, that one of the measures, which was peculiarly honoured with the approbation of the hon. Gentleman opposite, was one formed on the very opposite principle to that of centralisation—he meant the Irish Poor Law Bill. Instead of abolishing corporations upon the hon. Member's system, they ought in consistency to apply the principle of local management adopted in the poor-law to the municipal government of the cities and towns. He might remark, that amongst the hon. Gentlemen who were opposite there could not be found one, whatever might be his opinions, or however strong the feelings he entertained, who could declare his disposition to speak in terms of praise of the existing corporations. Sentence had been passed upon them by the right hon. and learned Recorder of Dublin, and no one pleaded for a mitigation of punishment. All appeared to have abandoned them, and not one, save the hon. and learned Member for Coleraine, could put in a plea in justification of them. How, then, he asked, could these Gentlemen who declared their willingness to give up the corporations, and who had agreed to abandon them—with what consistency, he asked, and with what view to a practical result, could they now oppose the second reading of this bill. Was there, he asked those Gentlemen, a chance of their succeeding in their opposition, or did they suppose, that everything they could do, could aid in having the corporations left in their present state. Then, as to the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and who had given his reasons for the vote he intended to record that night—that right hon. Gentleman had boasted of his having the honour to be the head of a party—to be in fact the head of the gentry of England. Did the right hon. Gentleman recollect, that there happened to be gentry in Ireland also. And of those gentlemen there was not one, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Coleraine, who had declared his opposition to the measure now proposed to the House. With that exception had there been any one other Member from Ireland who expressed his concurrence in the views of the hon. and learned Member for Coleraine. Oh the hon. Member also concurred in these views—he forgot—the hon. Member was indeed an exception. The hon. Member for Maid stone said, that he was not disposed to take this discussion contemporaneously with the debate of last night; and yet even that hon. Member's own observations manifested his willingness to do that to which he himself had declared himself disinclined, for a great deal of his speech turned upon the unfortunate state of society in Ireland. The hon. Baronet, too, was disposed to adhere to the same course, for he also touched upon the subject of appointments made in Ireland, which had been made the great subject for debate on the preceding night. One hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the mischiefs of agitation, and the formidable appearance which it had assumed. Now, he asked the hon. Gentleman—who had they to thank for agitation? Those hon. Gentlemen had to thank themselves for agitation, for they had resisted constantly and pertinaciously resisted, the just claims of the Irish people to religious equality; they had done so as long as the people confined themselves to appeal to that House, and confided their cause to the advocacy of eloquent men in that House— as long as that, and that alone, was done, these claims were resisted by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and religious liberty was granted, not because it was aided by eloquence; but because it was upheld by agitation, and that it was known, that agitation was organized and prevailed throughout Ireland. They had, then, to thank themselves, for that strong agitation, without which a just measure never would have been conceded.

said, considering how lately he had come into that House, nothing but a paramount sense of duty could induce him to intrude himself upon it; and he must be a much older Member, and have much more experience, before he could feel justified, under any circumstances, in trespassing at any length on the attention of hon. Members. He would not have risen on the present occasion had not the taunt of the hon. Member for Kerry made it necessary that he should offer a few remarks. It was quite true, as the hon. Member had stated, that no Irish Member on his (Mr. Maxwell's) side of the House, except his hon. Friend, the Member for Coleraine, had as yet expressed his dissent from the course which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, intended to pursue with reference to the bill before the House. The hon. Member for Kerry had alluded to disunion in the Conservative party. In the few words he had spoken on that day week, he had placed himself before the House the free and unfettered representative of a large independent constituency, unattached to any party, unpledged to any leader. He, therefore, for one, had no party to abandon—no leader to desert. [Cheers.] He knew the import of those cheers—he knew the pleasure with which hon. Gentlemen opposite would hail any dissention among hon. Gentlemen on the bench on which he stood—among those with whom he felt it an honour and a privilege to act. He was the last man needlessly to differ from those around him; he respected the talents of the right hon. Baronet who was acknowledged to be the worthy leader of the Conservative party in that House; and he confidently expected with him, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be disappointed in their wishes—that the vote which he and others gave that night would lead to permanent disunion among hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House. It was with grief and sorrow he had observed, that many of those who sat with him had bound their consciences by a pledge, it seemed, given to the opposite side of the House. He, too, had given a pledge freely and voluntarily on the hustings of Cavan, that he never would consent to the principle of the bill. He confessed he was bigot enough, in the vocabulary of hon. Gentlemen opposite, not his own,—he was bigot enough never to acquiesce in the transfer of political power from Protestant to Roman Catholic hands. He would oppose the bill, as calculated to effect three evils—giving an impulse to the democratic principle, increasing the malign and pernicious influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and depressing the hopes of the persecuted and oppressed Protestants of Ireland

thought the House would agree with him, that he was entitled to assign a reason for the vote he was about to give. He had heard the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord and the able and eloquent speech of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and he did not hesitate to say, that his mind was in the same position as theirs. But, while he felt bound to vote for the second reading of this bill, he should feel it to be his duty to see details introduced into the bill to prevent the evil (which was probably in the mind of the facetious Member who did him the honour to laugh at him) of transferring all power from the hands of Protestants, exclusively to the hands of Catholics. The House would permit him to make one observation on a remark which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed, that the course which some hon. Gentlemen felt it their duty to pursue on this question indicated anything like division in the ranks of the numerous and respectable party to which he had the honour to belong. The hon. Gentleman would find, if he indulged is such a hope, that he was utterly mistaken. In the great party to which he belonged there was no division, and it would be found, that they were united as one man in their determination to uphold the Protestant institutions of the country. On the measure before the House there might be some difference of opinion as regarded its details, but they were firmly resolved to resist every inroad upon the constitution, and to prevent the Protestants of Ireland from being oppressed by their determined opponents. He would vote for the second reading of the bill, but although he sanctioned that stage of the measure, he should feel himself bound to insist on a bonâ fide 10l. qualification, tested by rating. He still adhered to the opinion he had formerly expressed, that it would be better to put an end to corporations in Ireland altogether, as there could now be no legitimate occupation for such bodies, and he much feared, that they could be productive of nothing but mischief.

said, that as it was his intention, if a division took place, to vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, he wished to claim the indulgence of the House whilst he as briefly as possible explained the grounds upon which he meant to found his vote. But he first of all desired to inform the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin who last addressed them from the opposite benches, that if he supposed, that because a difference of opinion existed on the Conservative side of the House, as to whether or not the second reading of the bill ought to be allowed to pass, that therefore there would hereafter be produced a variance of opinion amongst the powerful and united body of the Opposition relative to any of the essential points of Conservatism, he (Mr. M. O'Connell) would, indeed, as the learned Sergeant (Mr. Jackson) had just stated, find his disappointment to be as great and bitter as his expectation was unreasonable. He (Mr. Ellis) had not the good fortune to hear the opening portion of the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who though he felt himself bound, from the previous declarations he had made, as a public and eminent leader, upon the subject under consideration, to sanction the second reading, would nevertheless be the first, as he felt sure, to respect the independent exercise of individual judgment upon that or any other question. The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, who spoke early in the debate, said, that he considered himself bound through his pledge as a man of honour and a gentleman to vote for allowing the bill to go into committee, but at the same time the noble Lord distinctly expressed his doubts that the bill, if passed into law, would tend to the peace, order, and good government of the municipal towns of Ireland. He, however, was wholly un- pledged upon the subject, for he had carefully abstained from supporting the third reading of either the Irish Tithe or Poor-Law Bill, believing most firmly, that the first would turn out to be a fruitless concession of a large portion of the revenues of the Irish Church, and that the latter would not work satisfactorily, by reason of its details, for the counties of Ireland. But if there had been any pledge by hon. Members surrounding him, it implied a contract whereby the Government were in the first instance, and previous to the remodelling of corporations in Ireland, to pass a tithe bill to render the Church safe as well as a good Poor law bill. Had the Government kept their part of the contract? True it was, they had expunged the appropriation clause, but he very much questioned whether that would ever have been done if they had not found that after the general election their majority in that House was so small, that it was hopeless for them to expect to carry the principle of appropriation in that Parliament. The Tithe Bill had been no sooner passed than the learned Member for Dublin organized the Precursor Association, its principal object being to abolish tithes in substance, as well as in name. The chief Secretary for Ireland, now a Cabinet Minister of a Government who over and over again asserted during the passing of the Irish Tithe Bill, that it was to be considered as a final compromise of long conflicting opinions, and a measure of peace and conciliation—the chief Secretary immediately afterwards entertained at dinner within the castle of Dublin, the leaders of the Precursor Society. Another noble Lord (the Secretary at War), having declared, that the Irish Church could not long stand, the Secretary for the Home Department, too, having reiterated his former opinion, that the revenues of that Church were more than commensurate with its wants, and, above all, the recent appointment of a Lord-lieutenant whose public speeches against the Established Church in Ireland, were far more hostile than those of any one else—all these things reasonably contributed, in his opinion, to fill with alarm the breasts of the Protestants. The Government themselves, therefore, had not acted with good faith. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had put a fair practical question, which he thought was justly entitled to be answered. It was this; what did those who inclined to oppose the second reading propose to do with the existing corporations? He was favourable in the abstract to the principle of creating municipal bodies; but he freely submitted, that that was not the time to undertake the consideration of establishing them, because the Executive had failed in their public capacity, to discountenance the renewed agitation against the most sacred of all the fundamental institutions of the land, which they ought to have done after Parliament had settled the tithe question; but when he saw, that there was a strong Government instead of a weak one, disposed to keep good faith towards them, then he would readily entertain the proposition for constructing anew Irish corporations. But until he witnessed the existence of both an honest and a strong administration, he could not conscientiously consent to take any step calculated to endanger the dearest rights and interests of the Protestant subjects of these kingdoms. The House divided.—Ayes 300; Noes 39: Majority 261.

moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply.

moved, that the House do adjourn.

could not but express his disappointment, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had not now brought forward the motion, with a view to dispense with the office of Viceroy of Ireland, of which the hon. Member had given notice, and upon which he (Colonel Sibthorp) had an important amendment, for the reduction of the salary of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, to propose. It was with great pain, that he had felt himself called upon to vote in the division which had just taken place against the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, of whose honour such was his belief, that he would willingly commit to him the whole superintendence of the whole of the affairs of the country. Thinking, that there was some political manœuvre, or that there had been some misunderstanding on that head, he cordially seconded the motion for the adjournment of the House.

said, that as he had been alluded to, he begged to state, that he had not brought forward his motion on going into Committee of Supply, because he had promised several hon. Members, who had spoken to him on the subject, that he would not do so if the debate on the Irish Corporation Bill went beyond half-past ten o'clock. That hour was passed, and it would be unfair to those Gentlemen, now to press the matter forward.

Then it is a hoax.

observed, that the course proposed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, seemed an exaggeration of the hon. Member for Salford: he hoped, at this hour (a quarter past 11 o'clock) the hon. Member would not press his amendment.

rose to address the House upon a subject which, he said, was not one of great dignity, but which was, nevertheless, of the utmost importance to the convenience and comfort of hon. Members. It was, moreover, a question of justice and fair play. He would ask of hon. Gentlemen who occasionally sat in the gallery, whether they were content with the present system of lighting the House?—whether the light from the lustres did not fall with inconvenient strength upon their eyes? He would ask the same question even of the Speaker himself. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the old system of lighting the House of Commons was not satisfactory to the Members who sat in the body of the House, and was 'extremely distressing' to those who sat in the galleries. That, if Gentlemen sitting in the gallery suffered inconvenience, it was fitting that that inconvenience should be immediately remedied." That a Member of this House did undertake to apply a remedy; and that, after much trouble, and many experiments, the existing plan was adopted, and appeared to give general satisfaction up to the close of the last Session. That, before the meeting of Parliament in the present Session, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hume, and Lord Duncannon, did inspect the "Philosophical Oxygen Bude Light," with a view to its applicability to the lighting the House of Commons; that the making this experiment necessarily implies that the existing system is defective and unsatisfactory, and Members will be called upon to make a comparison between the present system and that system of philosophical light which is contemplated as its substitute. That the lustres now suspended in this House have, in this Session, been deprived of nearly one-third of their intended, light, and of all their intended softness. That with a view to justice and a fair trial upon a point so important to the convenience and comfort of the Members of this House, it is "fitting" that the lustres should be presented to their criticism in the manner proposed by the individual to whom was confided the dangerous honour of attempting to make arrangements that might meet with general satisfaction. That, therefore it is the opinion of this House, that the proper officer be directed to replace the branches and candles that have been removed, and to colour the inside of the shades pale green. The expense per night being, for candles, 1l. 6s. 3d.; and for colouring, &c., 7s.; total, 1l 13s. 3d. But the mere machinery for the new plan will cost 2,000l., and the experiment will probably cost 200l.

suggested to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing his motion. It rested as matter of fact, in the instance of Lord Duncannon, upon what had never happened. The wording of the motion was very objectionable, inasmuch as it referred to expressions which had been used by hon. Members of that House during former debates, which was contrary to the rules of the House.

said, that he would wait for a few days, when, if he should find that no arrangement had been made in this matter, he would again submit it to the House. He would put the last section of his motion on the votes for another occasion, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the House would make the experiment or not. He would, therefore, for the present withdraw the motion.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the further Relief of Insolvent Debtors in England. The object of the bill was to be attained by the application of a portion of the fund created under the 53rd George 3rd for the maintenance of prisoners. He brought for ward the measure at the request of Lord Denman, who conceived it necessary in consequence of the operation of the new Insolvent Act, many persons being unable to procure their discharge from inability to pay the fees.

wished to know what the nature of the fund was which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to allocate to that purpose.

said, that the 53rd George 3rd required the treasurer of every county in England to pay a certain sum for the maintenance of prisoners confined for debt in the King's Bench and Marshal sea prisons. Such was the source and present application of that fund; but, as it would shortly be unappropriated, he proposed to apply a portion of it to the object of this bill.

thought it quite clear, that this was an appropriation of a tax. From the account given of it by the right hon. Gentleman, it was a tax levied upon the ratepayers, inasmuch as the treasurers of counties, from whom the fund was collected, had no command over any but the county rate. This bill, therefore, involved the appropriation of a fund levied and contributed by the treasurers of counties under a general Act of Parliament. It was clear, that it would be nothing less than a new appropriation of a tax which must he made by a resolution of a Committee of the whole House.

said, that the Act already quoted, provided, that any surplus which might arise, should be applied to Bethlehem Hospital. Now, there never was a surplus; but a surplus would now arise in consequence of the diminution in the number of prisoners confined for debt, and the question was, how that surplus was to be appropriated. If a previous resolution of the House were considered to be necessary, he would, of course, bow to such decision.

said, the case, as he understood it, stood thus. A fund was to be applied, first, for the benefit of a certain class of prisoners, and next, in case of surplus, to Bethlehem Hospital. What created the surplus now and for the first time? The failure of that class of prisoners. The question to be considered, then, was, whether, in point of fact, that failure having arisen, it was not to be considered as a new appropriation. If there were any doubts upon it, he would suggest the withdrawal of the bill until Monday, that the fact might, in the mean time, be investigated.

thought, they had no right to make a new application of that fund.

observed, that the objection of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was not the only one which could be acted on. In the first instance, the fund was now levied by Act of Parliament, for a specific purpose, and, secondly, according to that Act, there was a further application of that fund. Now, whether were they to cease levying the tax altogether, and then to make a new appropriation for another purpose, or to admit that the original purpose having ceased, Bethlehem Hospital had a direct claim upon it for its support? He apprehended that die Parliamentary and legitimate course would be to consider the matter in a Committee of the whole House, first, in order to protect the public interest, and secondly, in order to take the precaution, that no party, no individual, no body of men, public or private, should be injured by the bill, it being a bill for the levying of money. Bethlehem Hospital, for instance, had a direct interest in the contingent surplus. If the surplus was to be discontinued altogether, then would they be appropriating and levying a new tax; and if they were to make a new appropriation, then would they be depriving a body of what they considered themselves justly entitled to. He really thought the bill ought to be treated as a private bill. It was a case requiring at least the utmost notice which the forms of the House permitted.

said, that Bethlehem Hospital had no vested right in the fund, a surplus having never yet arisen.