rose to call the attention of the House to the petition of the East India Company, presented on the 11th inst., praying for further alteration of the duties on articles of East India produce; and to propose a series of resolutions, of which he had given notice. The territories which had been committed to the government of the petitioners by an act of the British Legislature, formed a very large and important portion of the British empire. The expense of carrying on the government of those possessions in India was defrayed by the petitioners themselves, and not only did they support their own military forces, and the establishments necessary for the preservation of order, but they contributed to the maintenance of the troops which were sent out by the Government at home. Our East India possessions were entitled, he submitted, to the fair and equitable consideration of the Legislature. It was the duty of the British Parliament to pro- mote their interests in trade and commerce. If those dominions were dependent on this country for maintenance, the interests of the mother country might very properly be preferred to theirs; but they were a source of great wealth and power, and he would add, of glory too, to this country. Annually remittances were made to England, amounting to upwards of 3,000,000l. sterling, for which no return was made, and therefore it might be considered as tribute; not to mention the large fortunes which individuals were constantly acquiring there, and returning to their native land to spend. The House, then, would surely agree with him, that in return for all these benefits, arising from our connexion with India, the trade and commerce of those living under our authority there ought to be encouraged by every means consistent with justice, and a due regard to the interests of the mother country. Surely the products of British India ought to be admitted into the ports of Great Britain on the same terms of advantage as were granted to our other dependencies. The first article to which the petition of the East India Company alluded was sugar. By the 6th and 7th of William 4. cap. 26, the duties on East and West India sugar were equalized, but the conditions which were appended to that law confined its operation to Bengal. By the 1st and 2d of Victoria, cap. 33, means were prescribed for extending to other parts of the British territories in India the same advantages which were conceded to Bengal; but those means were found to be unsatisfactory and inefficient, and calculated rather to interrupt than to promote trade. The importation of sugar grown in the British possessions in India at a low duty was to be permitted, but at the same time the importation of foreign sugar into the East Indies was prohibited, and the provision was imposed that her Majesty in council should be satisfied that the importation of foreign sugar was prohibited duty in the presidencies. Now, it was of the necessity for that reference to the council that the company complained. They saw not the need, and they felt the hardship of interposing such delay in their trade. In order to encourage the people of India to embark their capital in commerce, it was necessary to hold out to their expectations something like a certainty of success. It was difficult to deal with conflicting interests at all times and under all circumstances, but this was more acutely felt with regard to India, she not being able to contend with conflicting interests, which were more powerfully advocated at home. The Company wished to have the provisions of the 6th and 7th William 4th, giving certain exemptions from this troublesome proceeding to the Presidency of Bengal, extended to the whole of India. All that the petitioners desired was, that that confidence which had been placed in some of the dependencies of British India should be made general. Two of the subjects to which the petition alluded were tobacco and spirits. The tobacco which came from America to this country only paid a duty of 1s. 6d. per pound, while that which was imported from British India paid 3s. The petitioners therefore prayed that tobacco coming from India might be placed on the same fooling as that which came from America. Then with respect to spirits—he alluded principally to rum—whilst the imports from the West India colonies paid 9s. a gallon, those from India paid 15s. a gallon. Now, he did not see why rum should not be admitted from India on the same terms as it was from the West India colonies. The petition also stated, that whilst the cotton goods of this country were exported to India at from 3½ to 7 per cent., as they might happen to be imported in English or foreign bottoms, similar goods manufactured in India were only admitted to this country on the payment of a duty of from 10 to 20 per cent. The effect of these arrangements was, that a great decrease had taken place in the importation of Indian goods into England. In 1813 and 1814 the importations of white calico, muslin, &c, amounted to nearly 1,000,000l. sterling in value each year. In 1833 and 1834 that amount had sunk to 50,000l. and 75,000l. But the importation of British goods into India had increased. In 1814 it amounted in value to 109,487l. In 1837 it had increased to 2,160,936l., and in 1838 to 2,445,000l. The silk goods of Great Britain paid in India the same duty as cotton goods—viz. from 3½ to 7 per cent.; whereas silk goods from India paid 20 per cent, in this country. This was unjust towards India, and he was quite satisfied that this injury might be done away with, without prejudice to either the manufacturers or the revenue of England. There was another article alluded to in the peti- tion, which at the present moment was a subject of peculiar interest in this country—he meant the lately established culture of tea in Assam. He thought that it would be good policy, and most advantageous to this country, if protection and encouragement were given to that produce. In time, no doubt, the tea grown in Assam would be as good as that imported from China, and he trusted yet to see that a very considerable proportion of the tea consumed in this country would be the growth of India. There was another point, also, of very great interest. A difficulty arose two or three years ago respecting the importation of coffee from the territory of Mysore. The petition prayed for an equalization of the duties on coffee, upon the same principle as upon the article of sugar. At the time he alluded to, the question was, whether Mysore was a British possession? An inquiry having been made, it was ascertained, that Mysore was nominally the dominion of an Indian prince, and the coffee from that district was only admitted as foreign coffee. But Mysore was under British authority; its revenues and territories were under British control, and as much British influence was exercised there as in Bengal. The principle for which he was contending, however, had been recognized to the fullest extent in a case which came under the notice of the Government during the last Session. A question having arisen as to whether coffee imported from a country contiguous to the British settlement at Sierra Leone was admissible at a low rate, the Lords of the Treasury and the Board of Trade called upon the importers to establish their claim by proving that the coffee was grown in the neighbourhood of a dependency of Sierra Leone, and that the people were in habitual and friendly communication with the British residents of that settlement. That was the condition upon which it was proposed to give the advantage to those people which the petitioner now asked for the people of India, who were not merely friendly to the British residents, but were under the same Government with them, and formed part and parcel of the British empire. He did not then feel himself called upon to pronounce any opinion on the policy of that portion of our navigation laws, which went to exclude certain of those who were not natives of Great Britain from employment in the naval service of this country; but he might be permitted to observe that the Navigation Act, which excluded the natives of India, admitted to the rank of British seamen negroes belonging to British possessions Surely the natives of India ought to enjoy advantages shared by parties standing in no nearer relation to this country than did the negroes of the West Indies. In India we possessed an empire which had proved to us of unparalleled value. The inhabitants of that empire looked up to England for assistance, and support, and protection, and when the House reflected upon the vast benefits which India conferred on this country, hon. Members must feel, that we were bound to give free scope to the commerce and the industry of a land to which we owed so much. In reference to India, we were the holders of a great and important trust, and he must say, that that trust would never be fully or satisfactorily discharged otherwise than by doing justice to the commerce of India. Our duties towards that part of our possessions would never be fulfilled until every Act of Parliament which pressed unfairly upon the struggling industry of India was obliterated from the statute-book. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the following resolutions:—

"1. That, with a view to carry out the intention of the Legislature, that sugar from the East Indian possessions should be admitted on equal terms with sugar from other settlements, it is the opinion of this House, that, on the prohibition of the importation of sugar into ports in India by the local Government, the importation of sugar into this country from the ports of India, at an equal rate of duty, ought to be permitted.

"2. That spirits being the produce of British possessions, are in no case, except that of India, subject to a higher rate of duty than 9s. per gallon, the duty on spirits from India being 15s. per gallon. That it is the opinion of this House that the duties on spirits from all British possessions should be equalized.

"3. That tobacco, the produce of British possessions in America, being subjected to a duty of only 2s. 9d. per pound, while that of India pays 3s., it is the opinion of this House that the duty should be equalized.

"4. That while cotton and silk piece goods from the United Kingdom are admitted at the principal ports of India at an ad valorem duty of 3½ to 7 per cent., similar goods from India are subjected to duties at 10 and 20 per cent. It is therefore the opinion of this House, that the duties on cotton and silk goods imported from India, should be subject only to such duties as are payable on the same description of goods shipped from this country to India.

"5. That, with a view to the encouragement of the cultivation of the tea plant in British India, it is the opinion of this House, that the duty levied on tea, the produce of British India, should be lower than that on tea imported from China.

"6. That it is the opinion of this House, that all inequalities existing in any of the colonial possessions of her Majesty in the amount of duty levied on goods, the produce of the United Kingdom, and those the produce of India, ought to be removed.

"7. That, under the construction of the term 'British possessions,' the produce of many parts of India subject to the authority of the British Government, is charged with rates of duties applicable to the produce of foreign countries. That it is the opinion of this House, that the whole of the territories of British India should receive the benefit of the term for commercial purposes.

"8. That those provisions of the existing laws of England which exclude seamen, natives of the territories of India, subject to the British Government, from the privilege of being considered British seamen, while that privilege is extended to natives of other British possessions, operate prejudicially to a class of persons entitled to the protection of Parliament; and that it is the opinion of this House, that the law, in this respect, ought to be amended."

He should further move, that this House will, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the duties payable on articles, the produce of British India, imported into the United Kingdom.

seconded the motion. He felt a deep consciousness of the importance of the present question, and he also felt prompted to discharge his duty by his strong feelings of gratitude and attachment towards that country, where he had passed the best days of his life. He knew well how little disposed hon. Members were to submit to the infliction of an Indian debate. There was none of that party feeling involved in it, which commanded the attention of the House, or afforded an expectation that the great leaders would take any share in the discussion—there were no watchful constituents to note those who were absent, or canvass the votes of those who were present. It was a mere detail of grievances long existing and patiently endured, urged perhaps by the feeblest portion of the House, on behalf of millions who exercised no influence in their councils. The day had passed by when India might be regarded as wholly separate and distinct in its political and commercial relations from the rest of the empire. No man seeking to take a part in public life, could now look upon India as a country fitted only for the sphere of civil and military operations, and unworthy of the attention of the British Legislature. The countries which intervened between the North-west frontier of India and the European States were no longer unknown. His hon. Friend, in selecting the present time for the discussion, had chosen that which was most opportune and most fitting. They could not have forgotten that many days had not elapsed since they voted the thanks of that House to the Indian army for its achievements in the West of India. It was unnecessary for him to remind the House of the unparalleled length of their march—the difficulties of the country they had travelled when they saw the natives of India vying with the British troops in their endurance of toil, their bravery in the breach, and their moderation in victory. Whence came the resources necessary for that stupendous campaign? They came from those on whose behalf he now solicited justice at their hands. He prayed them not to confine themselves to barren votes of thanks, let them do substantial justice to the countless inhabitants of that mighty empire, which had furnished them the means of overcoming those difficulties. Let them not refuse to India, the use of the power which Providence had afforded her of recruiting her strength. He hoped the House would express an opinion upon this subject, that would be strong enough to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if wavering, and to coerce him, if reluctant. He believed that every one admitted the injustice and impolicy of discriminating duties with reference to different parts of the same empire, but, with respect to India, the impolicy was peculiarly striking. Look at the relative situation of India and England. It so happened that each could supply what the other required, and he could see no limit to the extent to which they might mutually benefit each other without collision and interference. He believed, that if there was a desire to legislate selfishly and solely with reference to the advantage of England, that object could not be accomplished otherwise than by doing full, entire, and ample justice to India. England required an outlet for her manufac- tures; India offered a market almost without limit, with reference to the extent of her territory and the extent of her population. The natives of India were not indisposed to buy our manufactures, but they wanted the means, not the will. If the condition of the natives of India were improved by the encouragement of their commerce and agriculture, British capital would be induced to find its way into the interior, and they would enhance thereby the interests of England, and perform a sacred duty to India. There had not been that rush of capital towards India, which had been predicted in the discussions upon the Charter. It was as well perhaps, that there had not been an improvident rush of speculation and capital towards India, because, instead of benefitting that country, it might have been attended with utter ruin to the individuals, as was strongly the case in South America; but he believed that British capital would speedily be forthcoming in the interior of India, if that House manifested a wish to encourage by every means in their power, and he hoped that would be the result of this night's debate. If they looked to the general trade of India, and compared recent years with years long antecedent to the Charter, it would be found that the result was melancholy, because there bad been an absolute deficiency. In 1836, the amount of trade in Opium and Indigo, from Calcutta, was 32,900,000 rupees; in 1806, 11,940,000 rupees; but looking to the general trade, putting these articles apart, in 1836, the raw products amounted to 18,000,000 rupees; the manufactures to 4,000,000 rupees; the sundries to 1,000,000 (and odd) rupees; aggregate 24,000,000 rupees. In 1806, the raw products were to the amount of 15,400,000 rupees; the manufactures to 13,800,000; the sundries to 1,000,000 rupees; aggregate 29,000,000 rupees. The result was, that the House would see (taking the general trade, excluding Opium and Indigo) in 1806, the trade amounted to more than in 1836. This was a melancholy fact, and enough to justify any Member in calling the attention of the House to it. Let not the petition then be met by the statement, that though in special articles the petitioners might be right, the result of the general trade was against them. The first article in the petition was sugar. Now, let the House recollect that they did not ask a new contract. They only wished the House to supply the means for carrying into effect regulations admitted to be just and equitable. The Government bad a right to require that before the importation of sugar was allowed from the East Indies at West India duty, it should be proved that there had been no foreign sugar imported, so as to create an artificial surplus. What the petitioners asked was, that whenever the Governor of any Presidency found a surplus production of sugar, he might prohibit the importation of foreign sugar, and, at the same time, allow the exportation of the sugar from that Presidency on the equalized duties. He asked for the introduction of no new principle; all he wished for was, that the old one should be brought into action, and he would leave it to the hon. Gentleman opposite to adopt the course which he thought would have that effect. It would be satisfactory to the House to be informed of the benefits which had taken place from the equalization of the duties on sugar. In 1835, the last year before the equalization, there was imported into this country 98,722 hogsheads while, in 1838, two years after the equalization, there were imported 418,727 hogsheads. Then, with respect to coffee, the produce of the British possessions in India; in 1834, the year before the equalization took place, there were imported 1,558,604lbs., while in 1838 10,285,347lbs. were imported. The House would therefore see the enormous increase that had taken place in four years in the importation of coffee alone. Indigo had also been imported at a low rate of duty, and a similar result had taken place. Sugar had been imported from the East Indies, at the low rate of duty. Pepper was also imported in the same way. Coffee, however from the Mysore could not be admitted into a British Possession without a duty. Mysore was, in fact, treated as a foreign country, while its internal administration was placed under a British Commissioner. The entire administration of that country was now left to that Commissioner—the Rajah merely received from him a tribute; and yet coffee could not be imported from British Possessions into that country but by being made subject to a duty. He had also to complain that the duty on West India rum was now but 9s., while the duty on East India rum was 15s. The duties, however, on both should be equalized; and it would otherwise be useless to equalize the duties on sugar. With all these disadvantages, however, the production of rum in the East Indies had doubled every year. The next article was tobacco—of which article upwards of fifty millions of pounds were imported into Great Britain, and of that quantity India afforded little more than 40,000lbs., with a country and climate peculiarly fitted for the cultivation of tobacco. The reason was, that tobacco imported from India paid a duty of 3s. per lb., while it could be imported from the British settlements in America for 2s. 9d. In point of fact the existing usage was, to admit the produce of their own Colonies at a lower rate than that brought from foreign countries. If that were so, why not admit the produce of India at a lower rate than that of America? The fact was, that tobacco could be imported from Canada at 2s. 9d. per lb., while the duty on Indian tobacco was 3s. The next article was cotton, and to cotton he would beg the particular attention of the House, because its importance was the greatest, and the hardship to India in connection with it was the greatest. For centuries cotton had formed the great staple of India, and he believed that her fertile plains could furnish, almost without limit, that raw material so eminently required for the manufacturing industry of England. Cotton produced in India could be imported into England, and through the wondrous agency of steam could be manufactured into cloth, returned to India and there sold cheaper than the cloth made in India. The inevitable consequence was, that the manufacturers there had been utterly ruined, and whole districts thrown out of employ. In Dacca, where those curious and beautiful fabrics, the Dacca muslins, were made, a great number of persons had been thrown out of employ, and the misery and suffering of the wretched inhabitants exceeded anything that could be imagined. With these calamitous circumstances pressing upon India cotton piece goods introduced into this country were subjected to an ad valorem duty of ten per cent., while English cotton piece goods could be introduced into Calcutta at a duty of three and a-half per cent. Such a proceeding was a gross injustice. To estimate the full extent of the suffering inflicted on Indian manu- factures, owing to the competition of English manufactured goods, it should be borne in mind that cotton was the staple article of consumption in India. From the nature of the climate every inhabitant was clothed in it, and what increased the hardship was, that the inhabitants of that country had not the same facilities for turning their attention to other occupations as in England. Particular trades in India were so mixed up with the peculiarities of caste, that when a man gave up the trade followed by his forefathers, his helplessness and destitution were complete. He would, by a very brief statement of some of the particular articles in detail, prove not the decrease, but the total extinction of the cotton export trade of India. In 1814, the exports from England to India amounted to the sum of 1,874,694l. only; and, in 1836, to 4,285,829l. These were the general exports. He would now beg attention to the particular articles. The exports of cotton from England to India, amounted in 1814, to 109,407l., and in 1838, to within a few pounds of 2,500,000l. sterling. The cotton trade of India was thus completely destroyed. In 1806, the exports of cotton from India to Great Britain, amounted to 1,460,000l., and in 1838, to only 108,000l. While England thus inundated India with her cottons, she deprived her of the means of employing her population to any advantage. He would cite one more instance of the rapid progress of this inundation. In 1814, England exported only 8lbs of cloth yarn; in 1815 she exported none; and in 1838, 10,710,136lbs. Calamitous as these circumstances were, and deeply as he regretted them, he did not ask the House to protect the cotton manufactures of India, by the imposition of prohibitory duties on India cotton manufactures. He asked for no artificial protection for India; all he asked for was equal duties, fair competition, and fair play. He believed that if the House were to equalize the duties to-morrow, India, with respect to the minor articles, could not compete with England; indeed as England was, by machinery, almost unlimited in its powers of production. India could not compete with England; and, in the language of the petition, he would not urge as a grievance, anything that might be considered as the natural consequence of the ordinary course of trade, and not as the consequence of unequal duties. Then as to silks; silk piece goods imported from India into British ports, were subject to an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent., but silk piece goods imported from England into India, were subject to an ad valorem duty of 2½ per cent. He would not dwell on the great importance of encouraging by every means the culture of tea in India; it was at present in its infancy; he would not say anything about a protecting duty, but he thought, considering the uncertain condition of the relations between this country and China, some protection should be given to its culture. He had a long list of articles, the produce of the East Indies, which were subject to a duty of from 15 to 200 per cent., but he would not encumber the discussion at the present moment with it. He would, however, mention one other circumstance which was a cause of considerable vexation and expense. The shipowners of Bombay complained, that Lascar seamen did not come under the navigation laws, the consequence of which was, that after having navigated ships home, they could not be employed as seamen to navigate them back, and must be sent home as passengers. He was happy his Friend had not moved for a Select Committee, as that would have had the effect of producing delay, but added to that there was nothing to inquire about, and no necessity for a committee of inquiry? All admitted the inequality of the duty. The petitioners came to that House for the redress to which they were entitled, and he maintained that the present time was the fitting one for affording that redress. He trusted, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon every one of the resolutions which had been read by his Friend, would give a clear and explicit explanation to the House. He knew not what course the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade might think it expedient to pursue on the present occasion. He believed, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was resolved on doing ample justice to India. But he must, in concert with others, attend to divers suggestions from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were other parties, too, and contending interests, which, if they could not influence, would at least embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. Though his Parliamentary experience was not great, he knew that when a Minister was thus circumstanced—when he could not summon resolution enough to accede to the motion, and when he did not wish to defeat it, he generally sought for refuge in a Committee of Inquiry. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend would not accede to any proposal for a Select Committee, and that he would, if necessary, call for a division on the subject. He would rely with entire confidence on the justice of that House, and that confidence was increased when he made his appeal, not on behalf of any party, or of any particular interest, but on behalf of the in habitants of a mighty empire, whose destinies had been committed to their care. He believed that the House of Commons would show itself regardless of distance, or climate, or colour, and would ever be ready to uphold the just claims of all the subjects of the Crown, no matter whether in the West or in the East.

did not rise to express any difference of opinion from the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject, either as to its importance, or the weight which it derived from the character of the Gentlemen who had signed the petition—the representatives of that great company which had so long managed our vast East Indian empire, and he might add, that the subject came further recommended by the circumstance of its being brought forward by a Gentleman who united in himself so many claims to attention as the hon. Baronet. He could assure the hon. Baronet and the House, that he approached the subject in anything but a hostile spirit. He might be permitted to say, that the hon. Baronet had no reason to apprehend that the question would be considered by Government with any desire to come to an unfavourable conclusion, when it was remembered that it was the good fortune of that Government, only a few years ago, in 1836, to carry the first great step towards placing the interests of our East Indian fellow subjects on the same footing as those of their fellow colonists in other parts of the world; that it was the present Government which in 1836 placed those two staple articles of East Indian produce, coffee and sugar, on the same footing with the same articles grown in the West Indies. He trusted, therefore, that if he felt it his duty on the present occasion to urge on the House the strong objections which he felt to its pledging itself to the resolutions now proposed, it would not be imputed to him that he was actuated by any hostile or unfavourable spirit toward the interests of our East Indian fellow subjects. He could not look at the many all-important questions involved in these resolutions, having reference as they had to important interests in commerce, finance, and manufactures, without feeling that the House would not be acting with the deliberation it ought to exercise on such a subject, that it would not be acting with the care and caution which the importance of the case demanded, if they were now to affirm the principles embodied in the hon. Baronet's resolutions. With respect to these resolutions in themselves, he might in the outset observe, that many of the points advanced in them seemed, at first sight, to exhibit a comparison of unfair treatment, as between our East Indian possessions and the other portions of our colonial empire. Yet when they looked more closely into the matter, it would appear that the difference did not in many cases exist at all, and was in many other cases more theoretical than practical. He was very glad to find that the hon. Gentleman opposite was satisfied with the measure of 1836. That measure had been most beneficial in its effects, both as regarded sugar, and as regarded coffee. The following was a statement of the quantities of raw sugar, the produce of the British West India colonies, and of the British possessions in India, imported and entered for consumption in the United Kingdom in each year, from 1832 to 1839:—

Years.	West Indies, Exclusive of the Mauritius.		India.
	Imported.	Entered for Consumption.	Imported	Entered for Consumption.
	Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.
1832	3,773,456	3,824,264	88,238	79,595
1833	3,646,204	3,469,642	120,625	98,282
1834	3,843,976	3,748,934	77,230	121,481
1835	3,524,209	3,774,821	107,100	98,722
1836	3,601,791	3,296,641	155,950	110,257
1837	3,306,408	3,562,778	297,923	270,078
1838	3,520,675	3,369,084	443,353	418,726
1839	2,822,872	2,790,294	460,344	478,010

He was happy to say, that the House, in passing these measures, had not been disappointed. They had effected increased production in India, and furnished an increased supply at home. He would also add—although he could not, perhaps, very regularly allude to it—that the Government, in acceding to a motion in another place for a select committee to inquire into the subject of the resolutions, had at least evinced a disposition to allow the whole question to be thoroughly investigated. Notwithstanding that, the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, seemed to think, that they ought at once to jump to his conclusions, as self-evident and plain. The question was one which required the most grave and serious inquiry, but whenever it could be shown, that with security to the revenue, and with justice to other interests, any further progress could be made in removing the anomalies that might exist between the trade and commerce of our East Indian possessions, and those of the other parts of our colonial empire, then there would be no indisposition on the part of the Government to follow up the principles which had guided them in the reductions already made in the duties on coffee and sugar. He now came to the statement made in connexion with the first resolution, that although nominally they had admitted sugar from India on the same terms as from the West Indies, yet they had not, in fact, done so; that sugar from India still laboured under a practical disadvantage. The House must consider in questions of this kind, that when they were desirous to deal out equal justice to two parties, if the circumstances of the parties were different, they must employ different means of attaining the object. What was the case with regard to our West Indian possessions? By an act of the Imperial Legislature, our West Indian possessions were absolutely prohibited from importing a single pound of foreign sugar. There were many parts of India to which that law could not be applied, because they depended on foreign countries for their own supply of sugar. It would not be a boon, but an injury, to extend to all parts of the continent of India permission to export sugar, accompanied with a prohibition to import any for their own consumption. The Government took another course. They allowed any district of India that chose to renounce the privilege of importing sugar., A prohibition might then be issued, of the importation of foreign sugar to that particular part of India, and then the district would have the privilege of exporting sugar to this country. It was true, that they did reserve to the Queen in council the right of judging whether the proofs laid before them of the non-importation were satisfactory. They did not allow the local government of India to be judge in that matter, which appeared to him to be a proper subject for Imperial Legislation, and not fit to be determined by any power, however respectable, in any other part of the world. They should be departing from the principles of the connexion between colony and mother country by allowing so important a question to be decided in any other way. Nor was the present arrangement of any practical inconvenience to India, because it could only cause a delay of a few months. And let him observe, that as the importation of any commodity from India to this country concerned the officers of the revenue, and the executive department, it would be hardly right that they should receive their instructions with regard to an alteration in the duties on any commodity from India, instead of from the Government at home. With regard to the question of coffee, the hon. Gentleman had allowed, that the importation of coffee from India was working well, but he complained, that they did admit coffee grown in tributary and allied states on the same low duty as from the British possessions. That was a very important and not a very easy question, and he would entreat the House not to commit themselves rashly by any expression of opinion upon it at present. In the first place, the West India colonies, which were truly British, had a right to expect, that care should be taken, when admitting the produce of any other country on an equal footing with theirs, that that country should be completely and bona fide British. In the next place, he exceedingly doubted whether, if they were to admit the produce of countries not Strictly speaking British possessions at a low rate of duty, they would not lay themselves open to claims on the part of other powers with whom reciprocity treaties existed, binding them to admit their productions on the most favourable terms which were afforded to any foreign nations. It must be obvious, therefore, that this question required the greatest consideration before any decision could be come to upon it. The hon. Gentleman complained, that with regard to tobacco, the trade of the East and West Indies was not on the same footing. It was undoubtedly true, that the duty on tobacco from India was three shillings, and from the West Indies and the British posses- sions in North America two shillings and ninepence. Some years ago the reduction had been made in favour of the latter countries, but it had remained a dead letter. The whole amount imported from these countries was so inconsiderable, that the law which made the reduction might be considered inoperative. He would read to the House the amount of the manufactured tobacco from the British plantions in America within the last few years:—

	lbs. manufactured.	Unmanufactured.
In 1832	15	25,156
1833	41	11,001
1834	47	7,926
1835	1,523	8,928
1836	1,316	13,866

In 1837 the whole quantity of manufactured tobacco imported was 214lbs., in 1338, 25lbs., and in 1839, not one single pound of tobacco, manufactured or unmanufactured. He mentioned these facts, for the sake of showing, that while there appeared to be favour shown in this matter to other colonies over India, there was practically none. On the other hand, it was the case—and he was glad that it was so—that they were importing a continually increasing quantity of tobacco from India. When he was asked, whether the Government should at once pledge itself to allow all tobacco from the East Indian empire into England at the reduced duty of 2s. 9d., he must beg leave to point out the importance of the financial questions involved in such an arrangement. Tobacco was an article from which we obtained an enormous revenue, in proportion to the prime cost of the article, which was not more than 2d. or 3d. a pound. Upon that they were enabled to levy a duty of 3s. a pound, and to derive an enormous revenue from it. Now, whatever might be said as to the justice of reducing the duty on tobacco from the East Indies, still the House must consider the importance of the financial question upon, which they were called upon to pledge themselves. The next question which the hon. Gentleman brought forward, and on which he addressed the House with great eloquence and effect, was the conduct of this country with regard to the cotton and silk manufactures of India. The hon. Gentleman pointed out the high duty which was laid on these articles when brought from India, and the low duty which was paid on the same articles exported from England. Whether this difference was just or unjust, no Gentleman who had paid attention to the history of the cotton manufacture could think that it had any serious effect in the extinction of the cotton export trade of India, and the substitution of the immense cotton trade of this country. It was owing to machinery, to capital, and to other causes, that the trade of this country had been raised to such a pitch of magnitude and importance, and neither the imposition nor the repeal of the duties in question could materially affect them. In any case, however, he must confess that with regard to these duties, they would be bound to consult the interests of the revenue as well as those of trade. Certainly it would neither be wise nor judicious for the House, without seeing what existing interests were affected by it, and without looking narrowly into the complicated considerations which were involved in the question, to pledge themselves at once to a great and sweeping alteration. It was better to trust in the spirit which actuated the country and the House of Commons, and he might say the Government, for the removal of the anomalies which existed, when, with justice to the finances, to the interests of our colonial empire, and the manufacturing and mercantile classes whom a change would affect, that removal could be accomplished. The question of the admission of rum from India was one which the hon. Gentleman seemed to treat as perfectly simple. To him, however, it appeared to be a very complicated one. If rum could be admitted under regulations which would prevent other spirits coming in along with it, the question might be easily settled. The boon having been granted to India of admitting her sugar on the same terms with West Indian sugar it would follow, as a natural consequence, that rum made from the refuse of sugar should be admitted also. That principle seemed to be fair and just, but he believed that practically it would be found difficult to carry it into effect. There was a very large manufacture of spirit from rice in India, and it would be extremely difficult if the door was opened for the admission of rum, to prevent arrack from getting in also. It would be scarcely possible to preserve the distinction: By a little mixture of molasses with the rice, spirits might be obtained which would easily find admission. Upon this point, also, he wished the House to observe the importance and extent of the question they were called on to decide. He did not mean to say, that the question was not well worth the consideration of the Government; but, assuredly, nothing could be more injudicious than a precipitate pledge upon the subject by the House of Commons. With respect to the question of tea, he believed that the quantity imported from Assam was a mere trifle. Whether they should make a distinction between such tea coming from our own possessions and any other, he was not prepared to offer an opinion. If he had an opinion, which he must confess he had not, he should not think it right to declare it, because it was the duty of a minister not to announce his intentions of altering a duty until he was prepared to bring forward a measure to effect the alteration, and to take the opinion of the House without loss of time. In making such a reduction, it would be necessary to take effectual steps for preventing Chinese tea finding its way into the ports of India, and being imported as coming from Calcutta, or they might find a great deal of Assam tea, which had never grown on British territory. The next resolution, the 6th, proposed, that inequalities of duty in any of the colonies on British and Indian produce should be removed. He thought it it was wrong, by an act of the Imperial Legislature, to create such inequalities, but he believed that the hardships suffered from them by India were not very great. In the British possessions of North America the whole produce of India was admitted duty free. The last resolution complained that the Lascars, or Indian seamen, were not treated on the same footing with what are commonly called British seamen. A ship, manned by Lascars, was not entitled to the privileges of a British vessel. This distinction was an ancient and important part of the naval policy of the country, and it was a principle which, he believed, had been recognized in all the acts of the East India Company. It was not a question of commerce, but one of national defence; and he certainly doubted whether there were any circumstances that could justify them in departing from a principle, the great object of which was to encourage our commerce, as a nursery of British seamen, who might afterwards be em- ployed in the defence of the country in ships of war. He did not know that it was necessary to trouble the House further. He understood that the hon. Gentleman meant to move that the House resolve itself into a committee, to take into consideration the resolutions on Wednesday next. Not being prepared to adopt these resolutions, he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. Many points in the resolutions were deserving the attention of the Government, and the Government would have been bound to consider them, even if the resolutions had not been brought forward; but if the House came to a decision at present, it would be taking a leap in the dark; it was the duty of the Government and the Legislature to take care, in giving effect to any principle, however just and sound, that they did not unduly disturb existing interests, or hazard the revenue of the country; in a word in doing good, to accompany it with as little harm as possible.

was much pleased that a question so important, not only to India, but also to this country, had at length been brought under the consideration of the House, He agreed with every one of the resolutions except that which referred to the establishment of a differential duty on tea. He thought that by establishing such a duty they would be encouraging the investment of capital in a branch of commerce which they would eventually be obliged to check. With the resolution respecting East India spirits, he perfectly concurred; but he did not understand or approve of the distinction made by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade between spirits distilled from sugar and that made from rice. By excluding the latter we should be putting a check on the productions of the great island of Ceylon, in which arrack was made in large quantities. Why should they not develope the resources of that great island? With respect to tobacco, he thought that the produce of India could be admitted to this country with great benefit both to the colony and the mother country. Any person acquainted with India knew that tobacco was sold in the bazaars of that country at a penny a pound; and if a duty of 1s. 6d. a pound only, was levied, it would be imported in great quantities into this country, to the great advantage of the revenue. The same argument ap- plied to sugar and coffee. For these reasons he should support the resolutions, and he trusted that, even if the right hon. Gentleman below him thought fit to oppose them on the present occasion, he would take the subject into his early and serious consideration.

hoped that the question would receive the serious consideration of the House. They should recollect that ever since the passing of the West India Emancipation Act, there had been a gradual decrease in West India produce, and a consequently increasing necessity for the encouragement of the cultivation of similar articles in India. The resolutions now before the House, formed, in fact, a commercial bill of rights, and, as such, he trusted, would receive the most serious attention of the House.

said, that the question before the House resolved itself into two points—justice and self-interest. Justice towards India, and self-interest as regarded this country. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did not seem rightly to understand the resolutions proposed by the chairman of the India Company. The motion of that hon. Member did not seek to pledge the House to the whole of those resolutions, but merely to inquiry, and that, too at no fixed or early date. He did not think that the arguments by which his right hon. Friend justified his opposition to those resolutions were at all tenable. For instance, he did not see what distinction could be made between our territory in India, and the countries which formed our dependencies. He thought that Mysore was as much entitled to encouragement in commercial matters as Bengal, with which it was connected. The President of the Board of Trade had attempted to justify the course pursued with respect to coffee. He could not agree with him in that, for he could not see why the same rule should not be applied with respect to India as to African coffee and then more might be imported from India and less from the Brazils. Tobacco was now imported even at the high duty; a fortiori, more would be imported if the duty were lowered, and low duties were good because they prevented the demoralizing effects of smuggling. It would be useless for them to equalize the duties upon sugar without, at the same time, equalizing those upon rum. With respect to the question of the tea duties, he would be most sorry to see any difference made even in favour of our Indian possessions: it would be giving her a false protection, which would rapidly desert her, and he must oppose it, as it would be retrograding from the pure principles of free trade. He rejoiced to see the increasing importation of cotton from India. The cotton of India also, only required fair play to enable it completely to supply the manufacturers of this country. India was capable of producing every variety of cotten known. It produced in abundance the Sea Island, the Georgian, the New Orleans, and the Egyptian, as well as the indigenous cotton plant, in great quantities, and if permanency were given to the possessions of the Ryots, as in the case of the indigo planters, that country would be enabled to supply the increasing demand of this country. In considering that question, it was most important also to consider the question of transit. He understood that landing duties were still exacted at Madras. It would be almost useless to lower the duties unless they facilitated at the same time the transit of goods, by removing all landing duties, and greatly improving the roads in India. He also thought that a revision of the laws was necessary so as to establish the rights of the people on a plain and firm basis. Care ought also to be taken for the permanent settlement of British subjects in India, so that British skill and enterprise might assist and regulate the natural productions of the country. They would also have a rising English population ready at any time to check aggression, come from what quarter it might. In Van Diemen's Land we supplied the inhabitants to the amount of 20l. each per annum. In Sydney they took of our manufactures to the amount of 12l. each. None of our colonies took less than to the amount of 1l. 10s. per head. But our supplies to India did not average 1d. per head. Let them develope the resources of India, and she would make a large outlet for our manufactures. He could not withhold his consent to the House going into Committee, not pledged to the resolutions of the hon. Gentleman, but with the intention of examining and passing those that were approved of.

said, his hon. Friend, the chairman of the Court of Directors, and the hon. Gentleman who followed him, did him no more than justice in at- tributing to him since his connection with the Government of India, the utmost desire, to the best of his abilities, to promote the interests of the inhabitants of India. With reference to the present subject, the Court of Directors had done him the honour to request him to support the petition that had been presented, and to give his best services to carry the prayer of the petition into effect. He thought he should best fulfil his intentions—not pledge, for he had made none—when he gave his answer to that application by asking an hon. Friend opposite and the House to adopt the course which he should propose to them. It was very true, as the hon. seconder of the motion had said, that he felt himself in the situation in which almost every President of the Board of Control must necessarily be placed, willing and anxious on the one hand to do all that could tend to the advantage of India, but on the other hand, from his position and connection with the general Government, obliged also to pay due attention to all interests contradictory or even in collision with the interests of that empire. Still, notwithstanding the difficulty of such a position, he was happy to say that her Majesty's Government, without sacrificing any general interest, were prepared to do that which would be an essential, an unmixed good to India, and which he hoped his hon. Friends opposite would agree with him to be the best and safest course that could be adopted. He need scarcely say how anxious the Government was to do every thing it properly could to promote the object of the petition, in proof of which he might refer to the fact that the petition in the other House was presented by a nobleman holding a high situation in her Majesty's Government—his noble Friend the President of the Council. It was evident, therefore, that Government had no intention to discourage this petition, or to put on one side the great and just claims of the subjects of our Indian empire. He must say, he thought the arrangements before alluded to for a committee of the other House of Parliament had been much undervalued by hon. Gentlemen who had spoken to-night, more especially when it was remembered that this committee was to be presided over by the noble Lord whom he had immediately succeeded, and whose interest and acquaintance with the affairs of India were familiar to all. With respect to the proposal made by his hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, that the House of Commons would be called, on Wednesday next, to affirm or deny in Committee of the whole House, all the important resolutions which he had submitted—resolutions altering the duty on so many articles, and actually changing the whole fiscal system of the country—it would be to call upon a Committee of the whole House to do that which had never before been done. No such Committee was ever called upon to give at once a decided opinion on such great and extensive changes upon a series of resolutions. He trusted his hon. Friends would see that such an attempt would be futile, and that they would not be enabled by such a mode to arrive at a wise and deliberate decision such as the great and important points in question demanded, and that a decision so made, so far from being satisfactory to the country, would appear like taking a leap in the dark, the consequences of which, in the case of failure, would never be retrieved. Nay, he thought his hon. Friend would frustrate his own views, for he would find many hon. Gentlemen friendly to his general object, who would be by no means at once prepared to affirm these various resolutions. For himself, with the exception of that on tea, he should not like to give any one of them at present a decided negative, but, he was sure, if they were submitted to a Committee of the whole House there was a great chance that many of them would meet with a negative which they might not deserve. He, therefore, thought the appointment of a select committee by far the best mode of dealing with the subject. Some observations had been made with reference to Mysore, and it was true that we had civil and military possession of that country, and that the Rajah at present was but a pensioner. But still he was compelled to come to the decision he did, and he took good care to have the best legal opinions in consequence of a fact which was not very generally known, and which hon. Gentlemen opposite, had not taken into their consideration and which compelled him to decide against the claim, viz., that we held the territory of Mysore, only in trust for the Rajah—administered it for him—that books were regularly kept, and balance sheets regularly made; and whenever the time should arrive for relinquishing that trust into the hands of the Rajah, every shilling of the revenue received by us, would be accounted for to him. His hon. Friend said, that time would never come. That he could not say. For the existing state of things, he was not responsible; and he simply mentioned the fact as it stood, and on which he was compelled to decide that Mysore was not a British possession. He did not, therefore, mean to say, that a Committee of the House of Commons, or of the House of Lords, would be prepared to say that the produce of Mysore should not be treated as coming from a British possession; but he did say it ought to be decided by reference to the state of the territory of Mysore, its juxtaposition, its resources, and many other circumstances which could not be taken into deliberate consideration in a Committee of the whole House. There were many other questions, such as taxation, &c, which could not be considered in Committee of the whole House. The course which he was prepared to propose, would, he hoped, be satisfactory to his hon. Friends, and would be considered by them as a redemption of his promise by showing that the Government were as clearly alive as themselves to the great interests at stake. He was willing that the same course of proceeding should be adopted in this as in the other House, that a select committee should be appointed to proceed pari passu, with the select committee appointed elsewhere, and he was willing to leave the selection of that Committee to his hon. Friend, the Chairman of the East India Board—that Committee to inquire into all the allegations contained in the petition, and all the propositions involved in the resolutions. He thought this was but just, and that it ought to meet all the reasonable wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course, the inquiries of this committee would be confined to the petition and resolutions, and would not embrace many of those extraneous subjects which had been alluded to by his hon. Friends behind him, such, for instance, as domestic slavery in India. Still, on behalf of the Government of India, he must say, that it had not neglected those matters which had been thus alluded to. In the Bengal Government, the transit duties had been altogether abolished. In the Bombay Government, they had been entirely abolished, and with the most beneficial results; and in the Madras Government they had been partially abolished, and the Government was preparing to abolish them altogether. With regard to the cultivation of cotton in India, Lord Auckland had paid the utmost attention to this important subject, and in consequence of the information received from several deputations, and in coincidence with the enlightened views of the Court of Directors, Government had at this moment, not in operation, but in preparation, an experiment which would be of the utmost value to the cultivation of cotton there. Every information had been obtained from America. A most admirable minute had been drawn up by the Governor-general of India, which had already been in partial circulation, having been sent to several chambers of commerce in this country, and which he felt to be so important that he should shortly lay it on the table of the House. The question of a permanent land settlement had been alluded to, and this would not be embraced in the proposed inquiry; but he took the opportunity of stating that the Governor-general had not neglected his duty in that respect. In the north-western provinces a very important, and, considering the trying circumstances of the dearth of 1837, a very successful experiment had been made—the land assessment had been moderated, and the experiment bade fair to produce the best fruits. A great improvement had also been made in the collection and amount of the salt revenue. He might also enlarge on the hopes and expectations formed from the cultivation of the tea plant; and he should also at some future day take the opportunity of observing what bad been done by the Government and the Court of Directors in the improvement of steam navigation in India, a subject to which Lord Auckland had devoted the most scrupulous attention, and which opened to the view of India a future of prosperity equal to the anticipations of the most ardent imagination. He mentioned these circumstances to show that the government of India had not been neglectful of the important duties imposed upon it. As he hoped his hon. Friend opposite would accept the fair proposition he had made, he did not think it necessary to enter into any debateable subject. Indeed, between his hon. Friends of the Board of Directors and himself, there were very few debateable topics, and he saw very many propositions in that paper, the truth of which he desired to see established by Parliament in the most forcible manner. With these views, he asked his hon. Friends to consent to his proposition, as he felt assured by so doing they would best discharge their duty, not only to those whom they immediately represented, but to that far more numerous body, the one hundred millions of India whose interests were practically intrusted to their care.

was anxious to follow the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control, for a few moments, to impress upon those Gentlemen who represented the Court of Directors, the propriety of following the course he proposed. He had witnessed nothing in the House more pleasing than the Court of Directors coming forward in that House with an application for a full and free trade for those they were called to rule over, but he must confess he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the form in which the Court of Directors proposed it, was one imposing on the House too precipitate a discussion on a subject of such importance, for till this petition was presented to the House, neither the House nor the country had any notice of the course the Court of Directors were prepared to take; they were prepared to expect from them what could be expected from an enlarged policy, but not for the particular step adopted. What they called for was a Committee of the whole House to inquire into what was rightly denominated an entire change in the fiscal system of the country. He should have great difficulty in bringing himself to vote either way on the proposal before the House. He concurred, as he had before said, in the principal of free trade, and that they should not distinguish between East and West Indian produce. But he had heard no argument against the principal of the great demand made by his hon. Friend on his side of the House—nothing against the equalization of the duties on sugar and cotton. He must advert to the argument of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and begged the House to recollect the important consideration he had mentioned, that they were applying the principal of free trade to India, and had brought capital and English manufactures, into the market, and had driven the native out of it, and bad imported manufactured calicoes into India, and refused to apply the principle of free trade to goods imported from India. This was a monstrous injustice, and when he thought of the hardships which every measure of free trade must have inflicted upon those whom it deprived of bread by the competition with British artists, he thought we should give the natives all the protection free trade would confer. Then he had heard no valid objection to an equalization of the duty on goods imported from British India, but all these were matters of detail, and they did not object to the principle of admitting rum from India on the same principle as from the West Indies, but urged that they should admit other spirits, which would have an important effect on the distillers of the country. Now he thought the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet was the right one, to appoint a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case. Then take the resolution respecting tobacco, the taxation on tobacco was not protection or restriction, but one for the sake of revenue. He understood that tobacco from the West Indies, being little in quantity, we had been able to allow a smaller duty on that than on foreign tobacco. Now the Board of Directors required not that the duty should be equalised on all tobacco, but on that of the East and West Indies—the effect of which would be, that East India tobacco would displace Virginian. This was not a mere question of finance, and he could not consent to give up a twelfth of the duty. He thought the subject of the Lascars navigating British vessels should be referred to the committee; and then as to the British possessions—how could we say in the fiscal system they were British possessions, and in diplomacy that they were not? All these were difficult matters of detail, and if called upon to vote for such propositions as these, he must vote against them; but if the motion were to go into a committee, he should certainly vote for it, in the hope of carrying into effect the laudable object of the Court of Directors.

concurred in the advice given by the Board of Directors, but he thought, on the present debate, they were rather discussing principles than matters of detail, and he asked the House whether or not it was not lamentable that they should be discussing questions, whether or not they should carry on the greatest trade possible with our greatest colonies. The question was not whether they should use the tobacco of Virginia or the East Indies, but whether, having made a vast outlay to obtain colonial empire, we should refuse to receive a return for that capital. If we succeeded in establishing a colony—there was a great boasting of the magnitude of this event—of the great armament and the extensive amount of exports necessary for a first settlement—but when we came to the question, whether or not the mother country should receive a return for this great outlay, nothing but discouragements were heard of, and they were advised not to admit the produce of this country, because it might interfere with the produce of some other colony, or that of the mother country. Was it not monstrous that they should be discussing such matters of principle when they had been so long glorifying themselves as being a great commercial country? It was a disgrace to the House of Commons that they should be debating not matters of detail, but of principle, such as, whether Mysore could be considered a British possession or not. His right hon. Friend acknowledged that he had complete civil and military possession of the country, but did not acknowledge that we could promote the growth of coffee there, and treat it as a British possession, because we were only trustees of that country. What, he asked, were the duties of trustees but to put the estate entrusted to their care in the most flourishing state they could? Now, as to matters of interpretation; did they not hold that Madras was situated in the county of Middlesex; and if so, was not Madras a British possession? He remembered reading a conversation between a British officer and Runjeet Sing, in which the officer boasted we had 20,000 men who could march from one end of India to the other. Then were we not bound to give the greatest facility to the produce of that country? What provinces in India were the worst governed? The tributary states; because they were deprived of the power of rising against their Government. Were we not bound, therefore, to relieve them by giving them an opportunity of sending their produce to this country? If, there- fore, we owed a debt to that part of India, which was immediately subject to our rule, were we not bound in a greater debt to those tributary states which had suffered more than other countries in consequence of our interference? With regard to those parts of India which were subject to our rule. A great part of their commerce consisted in the remittances made by officers, residents there, to this country. These remittances were the accumulations of these officers out of the salaries which were paid them by the natives of that country. It was the duty of this country, therefore, to give the inhabitants of India every facility of making these remittances by the means of commerce. With regard to the question of allowing Lascars to be considered as British seamen, he would beg leave to refer his hon. Friend, who seemed inclined to dissent from that proposition, to the late act, by which they had been deprived of the privilege which they before possessed. It was only as lately as July 1825, that the act was passed, by which it was enacted, that natives of places within the limits of the East India Company's Charter, should not be considered as British seamen—therefore by granting the prayer of the petition, they would be only reverting to the former practice: [Sir J. Hobhouse: No, no:] at all events they would be returning to what had been formerly the law on that subject. He was happy to find that his hon. Friend, the Member for Whitby, who was generally in favour of the strictest measures for the protection of British navigation, did not object to that proposal. Such a measure would be for the encouragement of the interests of British navigation. The number of ships trading to India would be increased, and the British ship-owner would receive the benefit of the provision. It might cause some diminution in the wages of the seamen, but the ship-owner would benefit by it, the trading interest would benefit by it, and the whole empire would benefit by it. He agreed with his hon. Friend in objecting to that part of the resolution in which the directors sought for the benefit of a differential duty between tea, the produce of Assam, and tea the produce of China, and between tobacco the produce of India, and that the produce of the United States. He thought the petitioning for such a protection was directly contrary to all the principles by which it was sought to recommend the present case, and he was sorry to see such questionable principles mixed up with principles which were so worthy of support. With regard to the duty on spirits, he thought it would be wise in the Directors to make common cause with the West India interest, and claim a just reduction of those duties as compared with the duties levied on British spirits. This was not the first time that the subject of a free trade with India had been made a subject of debate in that House. Hardly a year had passed, of late, in which many hon. Members had not contended that the time had arrived when these differential duties ought to be abandoned; therefore the right hon. President of the Board of Control ought not to contend that the House had been taken by surprise. [Sir J. C. Hobhouse: Not so.] He had understood the right hon. Gentleman so to say; but if that were not the case, one of his arguments against the Court of Directors had been cut from under his feet. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that the House was taken by surprise by this proposition of the Court of Directors. The case might be new as to some of the details, but, as far as the principle of the question went, namely, that of putting the commerce with the East Indies on the same footing as the commerce with the West Indies, the matter had been debated again and again in that House, and therefore it could not be said that they had been taken by surprise. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would accede to the proposition of the right hon. President of the Board of Control, that the committee would go into the investigation as speedily as possible, and that they would not be too long in bringing it to a conclusion, but make a report, so that the House might, during the present Session, be made acquainted with the result of their inquiries, so as to lead to the adoption of some practical measure before the close of the Session.

, after the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, could not refuse to accede to his proposition. He hoped, with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that the committee would come to a quick decision, and he would say the only ground why he had proposed to bring this question before a Committee of the whole House was, because he feared, if he had moved for a Select Committee, it would have appeared like a desire for deferring redress.

said, that the House would recollect that during the last Session there had been laid on the Table a copy of a treaty of commerce with the Sultan. No one could be more anxious than he was for the increase of our commercial connection—every new market that was opened improved the prosperity of the country—but this treaty, he understood, when applied to the provinces which had formerly constituted part of the Ottoman empire, was more likely to impede commerce than to forward it. Before that treaty, British goods exported to, or imported from Turkey, were liable to a duty of three per cent. In Turkey Proper there were various abuses and monopolies, and certain internal duties were, in consequence, imposed, amounting in some instances to 30 per cent, These were, by this treaty, done away with, and a fixed duty of nine per cent, imposed, making 12 percent., the outside charge that could be levied on British merchandise. This, which was a benefit on Turkey Proper, was otherwise in Syria, Egypt, and other parts where these abuses did not previously exist, inasmuch as England by acceding to the treaty, was liable to a duty of 12 per cent, while Russia which had refused to accede to it, was subject only to a duty of 3 per cent. His object in bringing forward this motion was to ascertain from the noble Lord what was the actual state of the case. France, Austria, and Sweden, had agreed to this Convention, but Russia bad not; and England could not be considered upon the same footing as the most favoured nations, while Russian subjects paid a duty of three per cent., and British subjects paid one of 12 per cent. He would conclude by moving for copies of any correspondence with the Foreign Office, or the British authority in the Levant, as to the continuance of monopolies agreed to be abolished by the Treaty of Commerce with the Porte; and of any representations made as to the increased duties levied by the said Treaty of Commerce in the provinces of the Danube, or in Egypt and Syria. A comparative statement or return of the rate of duties levied in the Turkish empire, on articles exported and imported by British and Russian subjects, under the new treaty, and under the old one. Return of the rate of duties levied on imports from, and of exports to, Great Britain in Turkey Proper, and in the Turkish provinces of the Danube, and in Syria and Egypt, previously to, and since the late Treaty of Commerce with the Porte.

said, that it was not his intention to object to the production of the papers that had been called for. At the same time he begged to say in explanation, that there might be some difficulty in furnishing all the information that had been required. The treaty had led to great changes in the commerce of Turkey, and it might be difficult to furnish the amount of the duties levied under it as compared to former times. There had been different degrees of advantages produced by it to the different provinces of Turkey, and some doubts might arise as to whether it would be for the benefit of Turkey or of British commerce that the treaty should apply to the provinces of the Danube. It was quite clear, however, that if it should not be found advantageous to either, there could be no difficulty on either side in not applying it in those parts. The treaty would effect a great change in the trade of Turkey, and some time must elapse before it could be brought fully into operation. That time had not yet come, but as soon as it should arrive he would give the House all the information he should possess on the subject.—Motion agreed to.

Sir, the motion I have to make is to enable the House to proceed with the bills before it after the 1st of June next, so as to obviate the reproach cast upon us that we send measures up to the other House of Parliament when there are no Members in town to consider them sufficiently. Many bills to which this House paid a great deal of attention have been postponed from session to session on that ground. Mondays and Fridays would be occupied in supply by the government, and Tuesday would be, therefore, necessary to be added for the purposes of furthering the bills before the House. Under these circumstances I move, "That after the 1st day of June next, orders of the day take precedence of notices of motions on Thursdays."

—Sir, I am not at all disposed to throw any difficulty in the way of the noble Lord if on any occasion he shows a special cause to call for the motion he now proposes; but to make such a motion at the present period of the session, without such cause shown, is, I think, to begin rather too early. I can easily see what it will end in. If this motion be agreed to now it will form a precedent to regulate the business of the House in all future sessions, and thus hon. Members will be deprived of an opportunity of bringing forward measures which may be necessary in their estimation for the good of the country. As I have said, on special circumstances being shown, nothing whatever should prevent my acceding to the motion; but they have not; and the noble Lord, in a speech of less than three minutes, calls on us to relinquish a portion of our rights without reason assigned for so doing. At this early period, the 25th of February, I think the House can hardly decide what may come before it, and therefore I think it should not be asked to agree to such a proposition. There will, in my opinion, be a great advantage derived to the House if the noble Lord postpones his motion to a later period of the Session, when we shall be in a position to form a better judgment on the subject it involves. But, as I have said, to adopt it now would be to establish a precedent for future times, and that which is proposed for June this year, may be proposed for May next year, and so on for every year after in a decreasing ratio. Under these circumstances, I think the noble Lord should at least wait a little longer, until he sees what course the business of the House will take, before he brings on this motion.

said, the motion of last year had taken him by surprise, and he hoped that the noble Lord would be satisfied with putting the present as a notice. If he did so it would serve all the purposes of Members and the Government, giving the former the opportunity of bringing on their motions in due time, and enabling the latter to go on with the business of the country.

as it occurred to me that no hon. Member would bring forward any motion after the 1st of June, I did not consider that it would at all interfere with their rights. The right hon. Baronet had said, that no special circumstances were shown, and that I should wait till such arose; but the right hon. Baronet knows as well as I that they may arise and do arise every day. It is quite a common thing on going into the business of the country for hon. Members to bring forward motions which last two or three hours, and then to deprive the Government practically of the power to proceed with it by occupying so much time. For six weeks an hour and a-half a-day has been the average which the Government have had for the business of the country. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that if this motion be adopted, it will form a precedent for future years; nor do I think that the encroachments which he suggests will ever take place. I must say, however, that something to remedy the present state of things is much needed; and I think, that the objections of the other House, though I regret the loss of measures which have passed this House, are reasonable, on the ground of sitting for months without getting any bills from this. It is for that reason I proposed this resolution. But if it be considered better that I should postpone it until before the rising of the House at Easter, I can have no objection to bring it forward then in preference to pressing it now.

—This is a question entirely affecting the independence of the House of Commons, and we should not under any circumstances agree to it on light grounds. A Member may have a motion calling in question the conduct of the Government, yet by the motion he will have the chance of bringing it forward greatly diminished, while the Government will derive in the same degree additional impunity. I can, as I have stated, conceive that special circumstances may make it advisable to allow only one day a-week for motions, but those circumstances have not been shown in the present case; and in any case the House should be extremely cautious how it adopted such a resolution as that proposed by the noble Lord. I am, however, glad that the noble Lord has adopted my suggestion with respect to postponement, and I would advise the noble Lord further, not to bring it forward at any time when, by possibility, any hon. Member may have it in his power to say that it would intercept his motion. The chief ground of my my objection to it, however, is, as I have stated, the fear lest it should be drawn into a precedent, and the House of Commons deprived of a right on the ground of a temporary convenience.

having been called on by the Speaker, rose to bring forward his motion for leave to introduce "a bill to amend the laws relating to the registration of voters in Ireland." He said, although he had no reason to apprehend that any opposition would be made to the proposition which he was about to submit to the House, and which had already been conceded by Gentleman on that side of the House, of a plan for the removal of great and acknowledged abuses in the system of the registration of Parliamentary electors in Ireland, yet the subject was one of such great importance, that he considered it due to the subject itself, and more respectful to the House, if he ventured to beg for their indulgence while, as shortly as he could, consistently with the object he had in view, he stated the main objects which he proposed to accomplish, and the objects to which alone his motion was intended to be confined. And in the first place, they would allow him to assure the House that his first grand object was, if it were possible, that this question should be discussed in the House without any reference whatever to party feeling. It had been his fate to be so much mixed up with political discussions, and discussions connected with Ireland, that if he had followed the dictates of his own judgment he had much rather that the question had been brought forward by any other Member than himself, lest the circumstance of his bringing it forward might tend to controversy or excited feeling, which he was most sincerely anxious to avoid. But in bringing the question forward he was merely fulfilling a pledge which he might be supposed to have given when, as the organ of Lord Grey's administration, he stated the grounds on which at that time they did not contemplate any alteration in the system of Irish registration. He begged the House to believe, that he had not entered on this question of details with reference to any party interests in the country at large. He was perfectly aware that a motion brought forward by any hon. Member on that side of the House, on such a question, must rest its only chance of being carried by being capable of supporting the test of fair criticism, and by proof of the fairness with which the principle could be carried out. The English and Irish Reform Bills were, in many respects, very different from one another. In the English Reform Bill there was a total abolition of the franchise in many of the towns; that part of the question which related to Ireland had been dealt with at the period of the union, and in the Irish Reform Bill there was no disfranchising clause. The English Reform Bill diminished the total number of English representatives thirteen. Again, with regard to the freehold tenure, the English Reform Bill was partly occupied in restricting the freehold tenure of the 40s. freeholders. A bill, which passed the House a few years before the Irish Reform Bill, abolished the 40s. freeholders in Ireland, and there had been no alteration with regard to the freeholders in the Irish Reform Bill. The English and Irish Reform Bills proceeded in both countries on the same principle; but with regard to leasehold tenure in counties, the Irish Reform Bill gave the qualification for a shorter term and for a less interest than the corresponding provision in the English bill. Again, a great portion of the English bill was occupied with alterations which no doubt in England worked very beneficially—he meant the provisions for shortening the duration of elections, and for taking the poll at many places instead of at one place, in counties. But on both sides of the House great doubts prevailed at that time, and very great doubts at this time, as to how far it would or not be prudent to adopt the same principle with regard to Ireland. Then, lastly, with regard to the registration in England, there had existed previous to the English Reform Bill, no system of registration whatever; it was, therefore, quite free for the English Legislature to take what course they pleased, unfettered by any precedent, and to make a great, and he believed, he might say, a successful experiment, in introducing a wholly new system of registration. But in Ireland it was different; a law of registration as regarded freehold tenures, had existed in Ireland for many years, resting on a statute dating so far back as the 35th of George 3rd., and on statutes subsequently passed. Under these circumstances, he need not remind the House, that it was thought better to watch the progress of these registrations, and not in the country in which they had a registration—to introduce a wholly new system till they saw how that system worked in England. But, at the same time, it was announced by Lord Grey's Government, that they would watch that great experiment, and if it was found to work advantageously in England, then that it was their wish to apply so much of it as was found practicable to Ireland. He hoped he should not unnecessarily trouble the House if he ventured to submit to it as shortly as he could, the main differences between the law as it stood in England and in Ireland with regard to the system of registration; and he would, in the first place, say, that the measure which he proposed to introduce to the House, he proposed to confine to registration, and to registration only. He did not propose to deal in any manner with the elective franchise; he did not propose to call for any opinion on the subject of those disputed points of law, the attempt to settle which in that House, would only tend to one result—namely, to prevent the passing of a bill to correct the abuses which existed. He did not intend to introduce any provision with regard to taking the poll at elections; his bill would be confined to registration for elections solely, leaving the other points to the consideration of the House on other future occasions. Now, he need hardly tell the House, that in England the registration, or revision of voters, occurred annually, before barristers selected by the judges of assize, making the circuit where they were appointed to register; these fixed the places and the times of holding their sessions, and called on the parties wishing to enfranchise to appear before them at certain times and places, and in certain districts where they purposed to hold their sessions. He need not say, that in counties it was necessary for a person wishing to appear for the first time in the register of voters, to send a notice of his claim to the overseer of the parish, and with this exception, the registration in counties and boroughs differed so little, that he might deal with both together. The period, then, at which the overseers of the towns, from their knowledge of the quail- fications of the rate-payers within the towns, and the clerks of the peace, of the lists sent in of claims, through the overseer of the parish to the clerk of the peace of the County, were required to publish a list, was by the 31st of July; and that published list was required to be posted on the church door of the parish in which the voter sought to register; and the list so posted remained to public exhibition from the 31st of July to the 25th of August, and the overseer had the duty imposed on him, not of striking out any name, or inserting any name given to him, but of setting against any name, the simple words, "objected to," those simple words, obliging the party to substantiate his right to vote before the revising barrister. The list of objections, again, was appointed to be furnished to the overseer; and the list of objections and persons claiming to vote wrongfully left out, were required to be separately published two Sundays before the 15th of September, and the Session could not commence at an earlier period than the 15th of September, nor later than the 25th of October. He knew that all this would be very familiar to Englishmen, but he wished the difference to be seen between this law and the registration law of Ireland. The registry of voters in Ireland, he need hardly say, was not annual, but it was quarterly. The session for the registration of voters was not held before a barrister, appointed, by a judge to go a circuit through the country, but before assistant barristers of the country permanent officers, as a part of the quarter session duty in each quarter session town, and nowhere else. The claims must be sent in, not as in England, in a period of twelve weeks, but in twenty days previous to the period of registry, that period of registry occurring four times a year. The clerk of the peace was called on to make out a list, which he did, not circulating it in the parish where the claim appeared, but making the list out for a whole county or a whole town, which he was required to post in some conspicuous place in the county or town. Thus, while in England a voter had twenty-five days, from the 31st of July to the 25th of August, to examine the list of voters and claimants in his own immediate neighbourhood and object or not to their right to vote, to the objector in Ireland a period was given of ten days to wade through the whole county list, and to ex- amine if in that list there might be any one person in any part of the county against whom he wished to press an objection. He (Lord Stanley) wished to State the two systems without observation on one or the other. In England the Voter who had no objection made against his claim was not required to appear in any way before the revising barrister, but in the absence of objection against him, his vote was allowed to be good, and for one year he remained on the list of voters but if objected to, he was required to prove his title. In Ireland the law was more stringent on electors, because, whether objected to or not, with the single exception of 50l. freeholders, to which he would presently allude, an elector seeking for the first time to qualify, was obliged to produce the lease by which he held, and the words of the act were, "by his oath or otherwise to prove the title by which he claims to vote." It was right to say, that as in England the notices were served in the parish to which the voter belonged, so the revising barrister fixed the place at which each voter should appear to make good his claim; and consequently all parties could have no difficulty in knowing at what place and at what time the objections that were to be urged must be urged, and where the vote, if it was to be admitted, must be admitted. But, in Ireland, the voter had not only the opportunity of registering at alt Quarter Sessions, but in any part of the county, without reference to where he might be situate. Let them take the case of a rich person, conscious of some flaw in his title, or of a person supported by rich friends; they gave notice twenty days before he intended to register his vote; the claimant made his appearance at a part of the county fifty or sixty miles from the place at which he himself resided; and to a certain extent he might drag the objector after him from quarter session to quarter session, and having failed in one, two, three, four sessions in the course of the year, be may get on the list by wearying at his objector. And what was the result if he got on the register? In England, if a person got on the register and was objected to, in the following year he was called on to come forward and substantiate his claim; not placing the onus of proof on the objector; but if he teas objected to, that voter had to come up to revising barrister's court to prove his title, that he had a right to be placed on the list of voters. He did not say that that was not a subject of vexation; he thought it was. But, if a person got on the register in England improperly, he might, upon objection, be struck off the following year. But, in Ireland, if a person got on the list, he proved his title by affidavit, which affidavit was registered by the clerk of the peace on the records of the county. The claimant then received a certificate from the clerk of the peace, which allowed him to tender his vote at every election for eight years, without examination. These certificates, if some of the decisions of the assistant-barristers were correct, extended not only to a period of eight years, for he understood that it was held in Ireland, that the production of a certificate granted in the year 1832, not by the party himself, but by some persons whom he deputed to bring it into court, was primâ facie evidence of his title to another certificate to vote till the year 1848. The certificates, therefore, were almost in the nature of Exchequerbills; they were renewable and transferable, and there was nothing to prevent the person who renewed from handing over the old certificates to others for the purpose of using them to procure fictitious votes; or in the event of the death of the voter, nothing more was necessary than to obtain the possession of the certificate, and making oath of identity, for that was the only question put on the occasion, except when the validity of the vote was tried by the Upper House, and on certain proceedings, on a petition before a Parliamentary committee. By a multitude of those fraudulent votes returns might be made to that House, and whether the party in whose name the certificate was first taken oat was alive or not, his name was still available, as having been entered on the register. It was a question of great doubt, and he believed various opinions obtained upon it, whether the House had the power to alter the registering, once being made; and when, in case of a petition, numbers of such votes should be stricken off on either side, and the election declared void, these said voters might again present themselves at the ensuing election, without the possibility of their votes being objected to by the returning officer. He had heard it said, that an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had expressed regret, that be should propose to bring this measure before the House for argument or discussion; but of all the hon. Members in that House, he most wondered that regret on the subject should be expressed by that hon. and learned Gentleman, for reasons which he (Lord Stanley) would show as he proceeded. But to go on with the observations with which he was about to preface the measure which he intended to lay before the House, As the registration at present stood in Ireland, those who registered in 1832 were entitled to receive new certificates for the five succeeding years. Now, this renewal did not cancel the first certificate, nor in making it was there any affidavit required, but the party could go on for five successive years obtaining certificates as if for five distinct persons, each of which might be tendered at the poll, there being no possibility of investigating their validity except by a Committee of the House of Commons. A single individual having possession of the qualification with but six months occupation, might, in the course of seven years and a half procure from that single property no less than fifteen certificates. He did not mean to say that such cases were of common occurrence. [Mr. O'Connell—show one.] That would be exceedingly difficult. How could he show the existence of abuses, to the probability of which he was then calling the attention of the House? He was showing that the present system was liable to gross abuses, and he challenged hon. Members to show to the contrary. For his own part, he had no doubt that in many cases the property which furnished the qualification had furnished two or three individuals with certificates of registration. No provision was made for cancelling old certificates, and the consequence was, that county registries in particular were mere masses of absurdities and confusion, from which it would be almost impossible to ascertain who were, or who were not, the bonâ fide electors. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had himself, some little time ago, moved for returns, stating the number of electors for Dublin, with a view, no doubt, to show the smallness of their amount. He was of opinion, that these returns would prove even to a greater extent than the hon. Gentleman wished, the confusion which existed in the registries in consequence of the want of a power to expunge the names of those persons whose right had ceased, but who still claimed to be upon them. He had said in the outset, that he would avoid all irritating and unpleasant topics, and this, he conceived, he had fully done, while he had shown the liability to abuse in the existing law. He would not go into the evidence taken before the committee on fictitious votes in Ireland to make out his case—he would not impugn the decisions made by the barristers, nor would he say that an extensive system of fraud had been carried on; but he would say, that the present law held out a temptation for the commission of perjury, without any dread of detection, or without a possibility of asserting who were, or who were not, the bonâ fide electors either in towns, cities, or counties. The abuses had been acknowledged over and over again. There was no doubt as to the facilities of fraud which had been afforded, nor as to the fact that those facilities had been taken advantage of. The first person who noticed this state of the law was the hon. and learned Member, who now expressed his surprise that he (Lord Stanley) should bring the subject under the consideration of the House. In April, 1835, the hon. and learned Gentleman gave notice of a bill to consolidate and amend the law of election in Ireland, and to assimilate the system of taking the poll to that which existed in this country. Though this notice appeared on the books for some time, no steps were taken to carry it into effect. Another bill having the same object was introduced into the House by Messrs. O'Loghlin and Perrin, on August 11th of the same year. That bill went through all the stages, and having passed through a committee on the 19th of the same month, it was sent up on the 29th to the other House. In that discussion the hon. and learned Member for Dublin admitted that the introduction of some measure would not only be beneficial but necessary. Now, it was strange that hon. and learned Gentlemen should deem a measure of this sort not only beneficial, but essential, in 1835, and yet in 1840 that he should express any surprise that it was actually taken up by another Member for the purpose of legislation. In 1836 his noble Friend opposite, Lord J. Russell, and the then Attorney-general, Mr. O'Loghlin, brought in a measure of the same nature; that measure was read a second time without any debate; yet, notwithstanding this, it was postponed from day to day to the close of the Session. In 1833 the hon. Member for Limerick announced his intention of bringing in a similar measure, but Mr. Woulfe, the then Attorney-general for Ireland, having expressed his intention of taking up the subject, the hon. Gentleman expressed his pleasure that it should be in such hands. The bill was brought in, it was printed, it was read successfully a second time; yet this measure was also postponed, and not an individual in the House took up the question until the hon. and learned Member for Bandon expressed his intention of bringing in a bill upon the subject. Last year again the hon. Member for Limerick brought in a bill, in the greater part of which he concurred. But that bill had also been abandoned, he knew not why. He only knew that it had not proceeded beyond the mere printing. The House had concurred generally in all the main features of that bill. There had been no objection to it from either side of the House; there had been no division; yet up to the present time, though all admitted the abuse, and all acknowledged that a remedy was necessary, the question was left exactly in the same state. Such a course of proceeding was not creditable to the House, and he had therefore endeavoured, as far as in him lay, to bring forward a measure which he hoped would obtain the favourable sanction of both sides of the House, which he was resolved, as far as he was concerned, should suffer neither delay, nor postponement—a measure which he hoped would gain a candid hearing, and a fair discussion, and before the end of the Session, become the law of the land. The nature of this measure he would endeavour to state to the House as briefly as possible. In it he had endeavoured to follow up the provison of those other bills, which seemed to have met with the universal consent of the House. In the first place, he proposed to make the registration annual instead of quarterly. There was one point, however, which he wished to impress strongly upon the House,—namely, that it was not his intention to deal in any way with the franchise. By the English bill it was required that the occupation should be for twelve months, and then the elector was qualified to vote at once. The law in Ireland required but six months' occupancy previous to the registration, but the elector could not vote for six months after- wards. Now, upon this point there must be some change. It had been argued, and with some plausibility, that the establishment of the English principle of annual registration in Ireland would not place the English and the Irish elector on the same footing, because of the different length of time in the previous occupancy of each. It was possible that a tenant in England, coming into occupation in November or September, not being able to show a twelvemonth's occupancy, would practically be deprived of the privilege of voting for twenty-one or twenty-two months, whilst in Ireland no such delay would take place. He hoped that this would be considered an indication of the fair manner in which it was intended by this bill to deal with Ireland. For while it put that country on the same footing as England, with respect to the form of registration, without at all contracting the franchise, still he could not concur in a suggestion which had been made for continuing the six months' occupancy as a qualification, and fixing no period after the registration as that at which the elector should become entitled to his vote. He thought he had devised a means of solving this difficulty, and of placing the voter in a better position than that in which he at present stood; it was this—although making the registration annual, he would still introduce a provision, requiring that the person claiming to be registered should prove six months occupancy, and then that if the registering barrister placed the name upon the list, his title to the franchise should not be postponed beyond a period of occupancy which would in the whole amount to the twelve months. He would make this provision by means of a single clause, and carry it out by the insertion of a column in the registry showing the date of the registration, together with the date of the occupancy. With respect to the revising barrister, it had on a former occasion been proposed that the appointment of that officer should be vested in the Government of the day. To this he objected, on the ground that such appointment might possibly be used for political purposes, especially previously to a contested election, when barristers thus appointed would have a power of nominating subordinates to act for them. Now, the assistant-barristers did this duty in Ireland, and he could not see any rea- son why they could not perform annually that same duty which they at present performed quarterly. He had no doubt that the duty would be fairly performed, whether those officers were appointed by one party in that House, or by the other. The best security for their impartiality was, that they would be acting in the face of the country in which they were known, and under the eye of the public, by whom their conduct would be scrutinized. He should therefore feel the same confidence whether these persons were taken from the ranks of their political opponents, or appointed by the friends who surrounded them. He would not, as was formerly proposed by the now Chief Baron of Ireland, agree to the plan of having the revising barristers varying in their circuits from time to time. Such a course would be calculated to produce great uncertainty in the decisions with respect to claims. It would be much better that they should preside permanently in the same courts and in the same counties, subject to an appeal, a provision for which was made in a subsequent part of the bill. By adopting this plan uniformity of decision would be more likely to be secured, for if it appeared that a great number of appeals were made from one county, and a variety of decisions come to by one barrister, these appeals and decisions would afford an admirable check. He admitted that there ought to be an appeal from these decisions, and he thought the best mode of appeal was that which had been proposed in the bill brought in on a former occasion by Messrs. O'Loghlin and Perrin. It would not be right to subject such appeals either to a subordinate or a coordinate authority, but rather to vest the power of deciding them in the judges of the land at the ensuing assizes, and to allow of an appeal both pro and con. As there was not in Ireland overseers to post up the notices, that duty should be thrown on the clerks of the peace for towns and counties, they being required to specify the names and parishes of the persons claiming, and to make out local lists, as was the case in England. It was necessary, however, that this should be done at an earlier period than that at which it was now done here, so as not to protract the time into October, and thus to interfere with the other duties which the assistant-barrister had to perform at the quarter sessions. The power of appointing the place and time of registration should, as in England, be vested in the barrister, he taking care to hold different sessions in different districts, to accommodate the persons residing in the neighbourhood and parishes. As a check upon the list made by the barrister, he would introduce a condition similar to that in the English bill, which allowed of an appeal to the Lord-lieutenant on a memorial. This, to be sure, was a minor detail, but as the spirit of the bill depended in a great measure upon its detail, he felt warranted in pressing upon the time of the House for the purpose of making its provisions clearly understood. It was supposed that persons possessed of the 50l. freehold franchise would not abuse the privilege they possessed of coming before a court of assize and establishing their claims without liability to objection then or thereafter. He did not say that persons possessed of this qualification would abuse that power, but might it not happen that many persons, not only not possessing this qualification, but absolutely not possessing a penny, might avail themselves of that provision, and swear to that qualification, for the purpose of procuring a certificate, and tendering their votes? He did not propose to take away their exemption, but he would require that copies of the registrations of such persons should be left at the office of the clerk of the peace, and thus made as open to objections as those of the very humblest classes of the community. After this, his bill proposed to do away with the whole existing system of certificates—a system productive of fraud, perjury, and confusion. The bill further proposed to vest a power in the revising barrister of visiting with moderate costs those parties who came forward either with frivolous claims or frivolous objections, and also a provision giving to the judge of assize a discretionary and an unlimited power with respect to costs. Then with respect to persons who had already established their claims, should they, as was the case in England, permit objections to be made to such persons year after year; that was found to be a great hardship in this country, but it would be still more severely felt in Ireland, where preliminary inquiry was more strict. What he proposed to do in this case was, that where an objection was made, the onus of proving it should be thrown upon the person who impugned the vote, and he should be subjected to the liability of substantiating his own case, or else be subjected to the penalty. But, on the other hand, the bill would require that the party claiming to vote in the first instance should send the particulars of his lease, the date in which be registered for the amount of the property in that lease, the period at which the lease was to expire; or, if the lease should be for lives, the names of the parties mentioned in it. This, he thought, was but fair, when the onus of proof was thrown upon the objector, for either the lease might expire, or the lives might fall out, yet the same man might remain the tenant at will of the same landlord; and thus a person making a valid objection might find it difficult, if not impossible, to establish it by proof. Then, again, there was another question. Should there be any limitations as to the nature of these objections, and, in case of one being renewed, should the proof be confined entirely to new matter? Looking to the restriction by which the objector was already bound, seeing that the onus of proof would be thrown upon him, and that, in the event of failure, he would be liable to moderate costs before the revising barrister, and to unlimited costs before the judge of assize, it did not appear to him to be just that the evidence should be restricted to that which occurred since the last objection had been taken. For if it could be proved that the franchise had, in the first instance, been fraudulently procured, it certainly ought not to be continued on these grounds, the law being at present bad enough, as it secured the enjoyment of such fraudulent votes for eight years. If, as the bill proposed, the registration was to be for life, and if at the same time the objector were to be debarred from offering proof that it bad been fraudulently acquired in the first instance, a great hardship would be inflicted in rendering him liable to a penalty. It would be very hard to have the fraud made evident, and admit at the same time that the bill provided no possible remedy for its correction. Mr. O'Loghlin, who was the first to introduce the subject of limitation, seemed to entertain a doubt upon this point, and he had introduced a provision which he hoped would obviate the objection. He first proposed to make an annual registration, which would be good and final against any decision by a committee, but at the same time he proposed not to check an objector from going into matter connected with the claim before the last registry. He, however, would make the last registry final as regarded the committee, and thus avoid the annoyance and the expense, which were so little creditable to that House. There was yet another question to be considered—namely, how were they to deal with the existing registration? He thought he could fairly assume that the existing registries abounded with fictitious votes—of that there could be no doubt. They certainly contained many names which had no existence whatever. It had been said by many persons, why not altogether sweep away the old registries? But it struck him that the doing so would be a very great hardship to those who had already, at no little trouble, established their right to the franchise. It would be very hard to tell a man who, two or three years ago, had had the onus thrown upon him of proving his title, that he must take all the trouble over again; for this reason, then, he would not sweep away the existing registry. A remedy had been suggested in continuing the present certificates for the period they had yet to run, and that would, perhaps, to a certain extent, be doing justice as far as regarded individuals, but would it prevent the fraud, the perjury, and the confusion which were likely to take place before the eight years were expired? The course, then, which he proposed to take was this—to place the existing registry as it now stood on the same footing as that in which it would stand under the proposed bill next year, if the bill should pass into a law, but liable to the same objections as if the claim had to be substantiated under the new act. He had now stated, and he hoped he had done so without acrimony or party feeling, the main features of the measure which he was about to propose to the House. He was prepared either now, or at any future period, to listen to and discuss, with a view to making the measure more perfect, any suggestion or argument coming either from one side of the House or the other; and he could assure hon. Gentlemen that any argument or criticism which bore on the correction of the abuses which he sought to do away with, be they given in public or in private, by those opposite, or by those around him, should meet with respectful consideration,

admitted that the noble Lord had truly stated the history of the several steps which had been taken with regard to this subject since 1835, when the present Master of the Rolls for Ireland introduced a bill, which having passed through that House was sent up to the House of Lords, and was there, after a brief consideration, rejected. Another bill, which was very nearly the same in its provisions, was introduced into that House in 1836. It was true it had not gone through many stages there, but the Government had no reason to believe that its fate would be different to that of its predecessor, and they were also aware that if they persisted in forcing it on, they would expose themselves to the accusation which had been so frequently made from the opposite side, that it was a mockery of legislation to press on measures which they knew would be rejected elsewhere. From those considerations, the bill was abandoned. In 1838, the present Irish Chief Baron, then Attorney-general for Ireland, introduced another bill, with some slight difference in the provisions; that bill had not been carried through the House, but enough had been done to show that there was no chance of both sides agreeing to such a measure as would be calculated to conciliate the favour of the other House of Parliament, and that if they continued to urge it, they would be liable to the same imputation which he had already mentioned. It was clear, too, that that feeling was not confined to his (Lord Morpeth's) side of the House, for the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had in the same year obtained leave to introduce another bill, which he, however, did not carry through, though it proceeded to the last stage, and was recommitted for the purpose of being printed. In 1839 the hon. and learned Gentleman again gave notice of a motion for leave to introduce a bill upon this subject, and he (Lord Morpeth) naturally expected to find it the same as that which had previously been re-committed for the purpose of re-printing. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had not proceeded, probably because he felt that to carry any measure of amendment, however, desirable, would not prove an easy task. Since the accession of the present Government measures had been introduced during every session for the purpose of improving the system of registra- tion; but though they involved far slighter changes than that of the hon. and learned Member for Bandon, it was obvious that the two Houses were never likely to agree upon them. Seeing, then, the difficulty of introducing any measure likely to gain the joint assent of the two parties in that House, or of both Houses of Parliament, and as a plan for amending the registrations in England and Scotland was at present under the consideration of the Government, it was thought more advisable to wait, with a view, if possible, of bringing the three countries under one joint and united plan; and that the case as regarded Ireland could be far better considered and discussed after the valuation which would take place under the New Poor Law. Taking all these points into consideration, it was thought advisable to suspend the introduction of any measure, with a view to insure soundness and permanence in whatever bill should be brought in. The noble Lord, however, would appear as if he were desirous of merging his character of obstructer in that of constructor on the present occasion by this attempt at solving the difficulties with which the question was beset. Whether the noble Lord might not feel that he had some scores to pay off upon the present constituent body of Ireland, was a matter which would be best considered when the House had an opportunity of deliberately weighing the provisions of his bill as he had developed it, and developed it, he must say, very fairly and candidly, and of seeing the manner in which he worked out its details, which of course could only be when the printed bill was in the hands of Members. Until that time, reserving whatever opinion he might hereafter have to express upon the provisions, the scope, and the tendency of the noble Lord's measure, he should have been content to say nothing upon the subject upon the present occasion, but for one consideration to which he wished to advert. It might be in the recollection of the House that in the course of last session his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin brought forward a measure for assimilating the franchise of the people of Ireland to that enjoyed by the constituency of England. Now, his hon. and learned Friend, besides proposing measures for assimilating and identifying the electoral rights of the people of both countries to the general principle of which the present Government had always been favourable, also brought forward some striking instances of a disproportion in the number of voters in England and Ireland, a disproportion which the noble Lord opposite had himself admitted, and his hon. and learned Friend contended that this was sufficient proof of the necessity for an extension of the franchise in Ireland. Upon the first motion which his hon. and learned Friend made for leave to bring in the bill he met it with a decided negative. In doing so he hoped that he had not acted with any discourtesy, and he had some reason for entertaining that hope, as he knew that the charge made against him in some quarters was that his opposition to the motion was too courteous and deferential. He could not deny the statistics, or contravene the logic, of the arithmetical proportions laid by his hon. and learned Friend before the House, but he felt that after a great settlement of a constitutional question, by which the proportion of representation was ascertained for the three countries, after the great opposition which had been offered to the settlement of that question, and the great excitement which it had occasioned all over the country, it would be inexpedient, so short a period having intervened, to lend any countenance to a proposition for further change. The Government were now disposed to act in the same spirit; but at the same time he wished to state that if, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the bulk of the people of Ireland, who honoured the Government with their generous confidence—"and if the confidence of the Irish people, were regarded as a disparagement, he wished never to exchange destinies with the party opposite" if, he would say, notwithstanding the representations of a number of the Irish Members, a great proportion of whom gave the Government their support—if, notwithstanding the force of the arithmetical and statistical details which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had laid before the House, the Government yet refused its consent to such an assimlation and extension of the franchise, as those parties required at its hands, because the Government considered it inexpedient to alter the existing law, so, on the other hand, the Government was not prepared to assent to any proposition for altering the present system of registration in Ireland, if they found that it was the object or the tendency of the proposed measure to limit, control, and obstruct—to use the favourite word of the noble Lord opposite, beyond its due and just limits, that franchise which the people of Ireland had received at the hands of the noble Lord. There were some topics in the speech of the noble Lord which might excite discussion, but these, as he had said, he should reserve stating his opinion upon until the time when he had made up his mind upon, the provisions and the tendency of the noble Lord's measure. He had, however, thought it most candid towards his noble Friend opposite to say at once, without any reserve, that with whatever ingenuity the bill might be framed, however well calculated it might be to effect its own objects, and whatever collateral and incidental advantages it might possess, still if he were convinced in his own mind that its tendency would be to narrow and obstruct the political rights of the people of Ireland, he would offer his decided opposition to the further progress of the measure. Having thus stated the principles by which he should be guided in dealing with any measure which should affect the franchise in Ireland, and having intimated the spirit in which he should approach the consideration of any proposition of that nature, he should offer no obstacle to the noble Lord bringing in his bill, and submitting it to the consideration of the House.

was happy to find, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, did not intend to offer any opposition to the motion of the noble Lord who had asked permission of the House to bring in his bill, and he was also exceedingly happy to find that the noble Lord would give this bill a fair and candid consideration. That was all that the noble Lord asked the House to give. He had now risen because the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat had done him the honour to refer to his conduct on this subject. It was one which had been admitted to be of great importance by Members on both sides of the House. Some years ago the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had himself complained of the state of the law affecting registration, and gave notice that he would move for leave to bring in a bill to amend it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, for reasons on which he would not speculate, never brought forward, any motion in pur- suance of that notice, and the subject dropped for a time. In 1835, however, Mr. Justice Perrin, then Attorney-general for Ireland, did bring in a bill for the purpose of amending the system of registration, which went through the House between the 20th and the 29th of August in that year. Having stated that circumstance, he must say he thought that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had not dealt fairly and candidly with the other House of Parliament for having thrown out that bill. It did not go to the House of Lords till the 29th of August, 1835, and it was impossible for them to consider its provisions during the short remainder of the Session. It had been too much the practice, not in 1835 only, to send up to the House of Lords a heap of bills at the end of a Session, having till then given them nothing to do. In the next year, 1836, a similar bill was introduced in the House of Commons, but after it had passed through some stages, the right hon. Gentleman who brought it forward himself moved, that it should be taken into consideration that day three months. In 1837 no attempt whatever was made by her Majesty's Government to redress the grievance which they had acknowledged to exist. In 1838 his right hon. Friend, now Chief Baron in Ireland, was Attorney-general, and he called on him to ask whether it were his intention to bring forward any measure on the subject, and his right hon. Friend told him that such was his intention. A great part of the Session, however, passed without any motion on the subject by his right hon. Friend, and, under these circumstances, he gave notice that he would move for leave to bring in a bill. His right hon. Friend then got leave to bring in his bill, which not appearing, he obtained leave to bring in his own bill. He had asked that permission of the House, because he was sincerely desirous, as his noble Friend below him was, to bring in a bill which should be satisfactory to both sides of the House. His bill was then printed, and during the long vacation which followed the Session of 1838, he took all the pains' he could to get it circulated in Ireland. In 1839 he again asked leave to bring in his bill, and the bill not only related to the registration of voters, bat altered the mode of taking the polls in Ireland. He had subsequently withdrawn it, not because the subject was one which he did not feel to be important, but because the machinery which he had intended to adopt, which was provided by the Poor-law Act, was not then complete. His noble Friend had now taken up the subject, and if there were one man more than another who was able to deal with it, the noble Lord who sat below him was the man. The noble Lord was the minister who brought in the Irish Reform Bill, professing at the time, that so far as the registration was concerned, it was merely an experiment, which was to be continued only until the working of the new registration system in England under the Reform Bill could be seen. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had referred invidiously to a word which fell from his noble Friend in a former debate. His noble Friend did not state that he would make it his business to obstruct the measures of the Government. What his noble Friend said was, that Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House would propose good measures, and obstruct such as appeared to them to be of a contrary tendency and character. Having stated what was the humble part which he bore in this matter on a former occasion, he should not enter further into the subject at present. His noble Friend invited investigation, and he was quite convinced that both the measure and the motion of his noble Friend would bear the closest scrutiny.

did not intend any offence to the noble Lord when he expressed his regret that the noble Lord should have brought this measure forward, but he expressed the general feeling of the people of Ireland when he said that the noble Lord was the last person in the world who, from his principles and conduct towards Ireland, ought to have meddled in this matter. The principle of the noble Lord's political conduct had been to limit and restrict as much as possible the franchise of the people of Ireland. The noble Lord brought in the Irish Reform Bill on that principle. He contended with him on the subject out of the House and in the House, foot by foot, but where the noble Lord was worsted in argument he outvoted him. The noble Lord had great influence in the cabinet, and he succeeded in giving to Ireland a franchise which was admitted to be inferior in extent to that bestowed on England. ("No, no.") If it was not admitted, it could not be controverted, Let the House look at the result. Ireland had not the franchise for even five per cent, of her population, while England had it for 19 per cent. The people of Ireland knew that the object of the noble Lord's Bill was not to assimilate the franchise between England and Ireland, or even if it were, the Bill would lose its grace and power to the people of Ireland, as being transmitted through the noble Lord. He was not surprised that he should have been urged to undertake the task by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because, unrivalled as were his talents in debate, and notorious as was his zeal for the restriction of the franchise, he must have been quite a godsend to them. But when his ingenious and artificial speech, full of admissions and concessions that could not serve the people, arrived in Ireland, the people would at once perceive that no good could come from a measure which had the noble Lord for its proposer. He was not going to enter into the details of the Bill, but the principle was vexation, expense, and trouble. Was the noble Lord aware that the Conservative party in Ireland—he would not call them Orange now—were in the habit of employing both counsel and attornies to oppose the registration of Liberal voters, and this at every registry? They had regular paid swearers to put down the franchise; there was a staff of them in every county, and the landlords were constantly attempting to prevent their tenants registering their franchise. They sat on the bench with the assistant-barristers, and whispering to them one moment, and speaking to them the next, the unfortunate peasant had their testimony against him, and lost his vote. Every attempt was made to keep documents from the claimant, who had no process by which he could enforce the attendance of witnesses. If his lease should happen to be at all eligible, the landlord or agent refused to produce it for him; every impediment was thrown in The way of the poor voter; he was examined on oath, cross-examined hour after hour, and speeches were made to overthrow what he had sworn on oath, and force him to contradict himself. If the landlord were a Conservative, all this was a matter of course; if the landlord were a liberal, in nine instances out of ten, or at least in the greater number of cases, the agent was a Conservative. In his (Mr. O'Connell's) own county, Lord Monteagle's agent was as ready to oppose the registration of his own tenantry, as the most decided Conservative in the county could be, and Lord Listowell's agent acted in the same manner. The claimant had first to go through this ordeal at the sessions, and then, if the assistant-barrister decided in his favour, an appeal to the assizes was open to the objector, where the unfortunate voter had to encounter all this formidable array of opposition a second time. But was that all? The Conservative landlord endeavoured to intimidate him from coming up to the registry at all in the first instance, and again from availing himself of the second opportunity to press his claim at the assizes. The agent also intimidated him on both occasions, and at the risk of ruin the tenant was obliged to stand the two ordeals, which were forced upon him in order to accumulate and double the evils of intimidation. The noble Lord had talked with great seeming regret of the difficulty which the voter had in going thirty or forty miles to the sessions. Why, the voter would have first to go to the sessions, and then he would have to go fifty or sixty miles to the assizes, where he would have to wait, Heaven knew how long, while all the engines of intimidation were in motion against him, and that, too, year after year, to face the same difficulties on each successive occasion. Why, if the noble Lord had asked leave to bring in a stifling or gagging bill for preventing the votes from obtaining the franchise except by consent of his landlord, his measure would have been an excellent one, because it would have exactly answered the title. He sincerely trusted that this bill, if persevered in, would not succeed, and he knew no means of stopping its progress to which he would not think himself justified in resorting. He thanked the noble Lord opposite for the word "obstruct;"—it was the noble Lord who taught that policy, although the learned Sergeant who had last spoken, had declared that he was no obstructor;—for this was a measure which he thought every friend to the rights of the people of Ireland ought o join in obstructing. In saying this, he was not applauding the present system of registration. He knew that it had great evils, but the people had worked themselves out a certain degree of freedom under it, and while he would desire to alter it, in order that its operation might be made more unembarrassed, he would still adhere to it in preference to the noble Lord's bill, especially as that bill had not a proper basis. Every other bill that had been introduced on the subject of the elective franchise in Ireland, was favourable to the free exercise of the franchise by alt who were rightfully entitled to it, and explained the original act in a manner consonant with that view. Even the learned Sergeant's bill contained a clause which, if it had passed, would have been a really useful and beneficial enactment, and would have worked well; but the noble Lord stood alone, and opposed the Irish people's enjoyment of their rights, introducing no provision, except such as would in his judgment contract the present extent of the franchise. Why had not the noble Lord introduced a bill for the improvement of the English registration? Would hon. Members say that the English system was perfect, or that it gave satisfaction to the people? He would have thought it a legitimate exertion of the noble Lord's great talents and powers to prepare a bill for the amendment of the registration law in England before he went over the Channel to destroy the franchise of the people of Ireland. He wished the noble Lord's friends had persuaded him to try his maiden essay in England or in Scotland, where, according to all accounts, he would have found abuses enough to remedy. A really good bill would take up the subject for the three countries, or at all events to put Ireland on an equality with England in respect of the franchise. He called on the House to give Ireland the same franchise; that was what he had urged during the discussions on the Reform Bill. The noble Lord had treated with most unbecoming lightness, the affidavits of Irishmen upon oath. [Lord Stanley: I did not talk of "paid swearers."] The noble Lord had talked of volunteer perjurers, but he would not accuse the noble Lord of any more hostile purpose than that of restricting the franchise. All that the noble Lord had not deprived the Irish people of at the time of the Reform Bill, he would succeed in depriving them of by this bill. The noble Lord had complained of the Irish law being defective in this respect, that the committees of the House had it not in their power to strike off Irish voters from the register. He had always considered that circumstance to be a mitigation of the committees, which now stood condemned by the universal sentence of the House. When he had on a former occasion talked of perjury in connexion with those committees, he had been reprimanded for it; but, without going so far as to accuse them of that, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had shown how little those committees were entitled to the confidence of the public, having annihilated them, and replaced them by other tribunals, though he very much feared that the new committees would not be more satisfactory, from the specimens they had already had of the spirit of compromise prevailing in them, which was entirely opposed to anything like generous confidence on either side. He would not divide the House at this stage of the bill, as the noble Lord below him had conceded the first reading of the bill, and there was no distinct reason why they should refuse it; but on every other stage it should have his most decided opposition. Indeed, no friend to popular rights ought to rest satisfied until something was done to place the franchise on a proper footing, by introducing a bill containing at least, a definition of what constituted the franchise, so as to put an end to the vexatious questions now continually arising. He believed the noble Lord did not imagine that there were many judges in Ireland, in whose hands the people would be inclined to place the ultimate disposal of the franchise. He was sure that part of the bill would meet the universal reprobation of the people of Ireland. On the whole, the present bill appeared to him to be one calculated, not for the purpose of securing, as it pretended to do, a fair investigation of the claimant's right to vote, but of introducing such vexatious details as would be inconsistent with the situation of the tenantry in Ireland, as would be ruinous to them in point of expense and time, as would bring them twice every year under the lash of their landlord, as would expose them to the most merciless intimidation, and thus annihilate the elective franchise. Certainly the situation of the Irish people ought to have excited commiseration rather than resentment in the breast of the noble Lord, for he had left them so little of the franchise in his Reform Bill, that it was hardly worth while now to endeavour to extinguish the remainder.

said, that though he had been somewhat disappointed with the manner in which his bill had been received by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and in some respects by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, yet the strain of observations in which they had chosen to indulge, would not lead him to depart for a moment from that deliberate line of argument and calm discussion to which he had determined to confine himself in bringing forward this bill, and in which he would persevere. He had indeed suspected, that such a course might be taken on this occasion by those who were opposed to the policy which he had formerly adopted in Irish politics, for he had found that the Loyal Irish Registry Association of Dublin, had shown exactly the same spirit and announced the same hostility, even before he moved for leave to bring in the bill, as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, having agreed that instructions should be sent to all the liberal Members for Ireland to oppose the measure, whatever its provisions might be. For an assembly calling itself a deliberative body, and assuming, under the guidance of the hon. and learned Member opposite, to direct the judgment of the people of Ireland, he must say that a more absurd resolution, or one which more clearly showed its passers to be utterly unworthy of the confidence of any class of the community, never had been passed, and he trusted that the liberal Members of the House would show that they had at least more liberality of feeling, than to be guided by such blind leaders, and would not take the instructions that might be given to them by such unreflecting politicians, but would fairly consider the merits of the question. He would not take any notice of the imputations which the hon. Member for Dublin had cast upon him in attributing to him motives by which he was not actuated; but there was one part of the hon. Member's statement, which it was impossible for him to pass over in silence. The hon. and learned Member had repeated over and over again, that by the Reform Bill there was given to Ireland a franchise infinitely more cramped and restricted than that which was given to England, and that he (Lord Stanley) was the author of the plan. Now, he met the hon. and learned Member with a direct denial of the fact, and with the assertion, which he would prove, that the franchise in Ireland as settled by the Irish Reform Bill, was more extensive, and not less extensive, than the corresponding franchise given to England. He did not refer to the case of the 40s. freeholders; he had already stated, that that question was settled some years before, and was not at all disturbed by the Reform Act. The English bill restricted the 40s. freehold franchise, but did not abolish it; the Irish bill did not interfere in any mode whatever with freehold occupation, but left it as it had been previously established in Ireland. The Irish and English bills both added a leasehold constituency to the freehold constituency, which had formerly prevailed. What, then, was the tenure of leasehold property required to entitle to a vote? There were three several classes of leasehold voters. In England the franchise was given to the lessee or assignee entitled to any land or tenements to be held during a term of not less than sixty years of the clear value of not less than 10l. over and above all charges. In Ireland the property was to be held for a period of not less than sixty years, with a beneficial interest—the words were originally exactly the same as in the English bill, but were altered on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin himself—"arising out of it, of the yearly value of not less than 10l." The second description of voters under leasehold tenure in England must hold property for a term of not less than twenty years, of the clear yearly value of 50l. over and above all charges on it. In Ireland the second class was composed of those who held property for not less than fourteen years, having a clear yearly value of 20l. No lower term of years entitled to vote in England, excepting the tenant-at-will qualification, the voters under which must pay a rent of 50l. But there was another leasehold qualification in Ireland, to which there was no parallel in England. The franchise was given to a class of Irish tenants holding property for a term of twenty years, with a beneficial interest of not less than 10l. to the person entitled to occupy. That was the plan, as regarded the comparison of the leasehold franchises given by the Reform Bill to England and Ireland, and he defied the hon. and learned Member to prove that the Irish franchise, as he had stated its conditions, was more restricted than the English. The hon. and learned Member had urged, that the Irish constituency was smaller in propor- tion to the population than that of England; but that was no argument whatever in regard to the amount of the franchise. He said, that the Irish bill required a shorter and not a longer term, a smaller and not a greater interest; and if in Ireland there was a smaller proportion possessing the smaller interest than the proportion possessing a greater in England, that was no ground for charging the authors of the Irish Reform Bill, which like the English bill was founded on the basis, not of numbers, but of property, with giving a more restricted franchise to the one country than they had conferred on the other. With respect to the household franchise, there was no difference, and there was intended to be none, between the English and Irish bills, except that the English bill required all rates due on the 6th of April to be paid on or before the 20th of July following, while the Irish bill required all rates to be paid, except such as were due for the period of six months next preceding the day of registration. He defied the hon. and learned Member to shake these facts, or to make out any shadow of foundation for the assertion he had hazarded, that the Irish franchise was more restricted than the English. The hon. and learned Member said, that he wished to introduce needless expense and vexation in compelling persons to submit to an examination, and in giving an appeal to the judges, remarking, that there were not many Irish judges who had the confidence of the country. He was sorry to hear such language from the hon. and learned Member; he must protest against the justice of such a reflection. He had as much confidence in the decisions of Chief Justice Perrin, Chief Baron Woulfe, and Baron O'Loghlin, as in those of any judges who had ever been connected with his own side of the House. It was most detrimental to the usefulness of the judges to have such imputations cast upon them on every occasion, because they might have at one period expressed opinions different from those of the Speaker. With respect to what the hon. and learned Member had said in disapproval of allowing an appeal to the judges, he would content himself with referring to what the hon. Member had said when a bill for the amendment of the registration was introduced by Mr. Perrin in 1835. After speaking of the evils which arose from the uncertainty previously arising from the conflicting decisions of assistant-barristers, the hon. Member said, "This bill is calculated to put an end to all this by making the vote of every party conclusive for twelve months, and then allowing an appeal to the judges."

said, that when he asserted that the Irish franchise was more restricted than the English, his meaning was, that the Irish Reform Bill, not going so far as to restore the same franchise which was continued in England—the freehold franchise, was by that means made infinitely short of the Reform Bill in England, comparing the two measures on the whole.

Then he had the hon. Member's admission of the fact, that setting the freehold franchise aside, the qualification of the leaseholders and householders was at least as comprehensive in the Irish bill as in the English. He had proved, indeed, that it was more so.

, pursuant to a notice which he had given, moved for

"A return of the number of electors on the register for each county of England and Wales for the year 1839–40, and distinguishing, in classes, the number registered as freeholders, copyholders, leaseholders, occupying tenants at 50l. a year rent and upwards, or as holding qualifications of a similar nature, together with an abstract of the numbers of each class, showing the increase or decrease in number under each separate head since the returns of the registered voters at the general election in 1835 (as given in Parliamentary papers No. 199 and 227, of 1836). Also a return of the number of electors on the register of each city, town, or borough, in England and Wales, for the year l839–40, and distinguishing, in classes, the numbers registered in each place as 10l. occupiers, and the numbers registered under the old qualifications reserved by the Reform Act, specifying what such qualifications are in each, and whether the party possessed the old and the new franchise; together with an abstract of the numbers of each class, and of the whole, showing (as above) the increase and decrease since 1835. Also a return of the number of electors on the register for each county in Scotland for the year from July, 1839, to July, 1840, showing, in columns, those transferred from the old roll of freeholders to the new roll, the 10l. life rent, and those enrolled on the different qualifications of property, or lease, distinguishing in each class those enrolled as life renters and those enrolled as a joint qualification, showing a comparison of the increase or decrease since 1835. Also a return of the number of electors on the register in each city or burgh returning, or contributing to return, a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, in classes of burghs, for the year 1840, showing in columns the number of owners and occupiers, joint owners, and joint occupiers; together with an abstract of the number of each class, and of the whole, showing also a comparison of the increase or decrease since 1835. Also a return of the number of electors on the register for each county of Ireland qualified to vote at any election which may take place before the 1st day of January, 1841; and distinguishing, in classes, the numbers registered under the different qualifications, in each county; together with an abstract of the number of each class, and of the whole, showing also a comparison of the increase or decrease since 1835. Also a return of the number of electors on the register for the year, qualified to vote at any election which may take place before the 1st day of January, 1841, in each city, town, and borough of Ireland; and distinguishing the numbers in each place registered under the old qualifications, specifying what such qualifications are in each, reserved by the Reform Act, and the numbers registered under the new qualifications admitted by the Reform Act; together with an abstract of the number of each class, and of the whole, showing also a comparison of the increase or decrease since 1835."

objected to the motion of the hon. Member in its present form, on the ground that it would be productive of great trouble and expense. It might be supposed that the returns now moved for were similar to those ordered in 1836, which were alluded to in the first paragraph; but that was not the fact, because the present motion was not merely for returns of the number of electors, but for classification of them also. This would impose great labour upon the clerks of the peace of the several counties; and it could not be supposed that they were to perform such great extra labour without remuneration. Did the hon. Member intend that the counties should respectively pay the expense of getting up these returns? If so, although he did not object to the information, he must decidedly object to that mode of defraying the expense of obtaining it. Unless, therefore, the hon. Member could shew him that the expense would not fall upon the counties, he should be inclined to oppose it.

said, it was true that the noble Lord would not find the returns of 1836 in the same words as the present motion, because it had been amended in order to make it more comprehensive. The former returns were defective, and he wished to obtain complete ones. All the trouble that would be imposed upon the clerks of the peace would be merely to count up the number of voters in each printed register, and select from each page how many freeholders, copyholders, leaseholders, and occupying tenants there were. If the order were sent out from the Home-office, he hoped a prepared table to be filled up under heads would accompany that order.

admitted, that the information sought by the motion of the hon. Member, might not be unacceptable, but he wished to know in what way the Government could pay the clerks of the peace for furnishing it? If the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) had any means of remunerating those individuals, he should be glad to hear it. He wished the hon. Member to pause until that point was settled.

said, that with regard to Ireland, great expenses would be incurred in getting up these returns, but they could not be charged upon the county-rate. How were they to be paid?

observed, that the clerks of the peace were compelled to prepare and print lists of every man who had a vote, and therefore the labour of compiling the returns from those lists would be trifling, as well as the expense.

said, that the lists referred to by the hon. and learned Member contained a register of claimants, and were continually undergoing changes, which would render them comparatively useless in making up the returns.

thought the hon. Gentleman ought not to be permitted to impose this additional labour on the clerks of the peace, and that he could not get the information which he required by a motion of this sort.

also protested against the motion, on the ground of increasing the already increased charges upon counties. If the hon. Member would send for a list to each county, he could then have an abstract made by the officers of the House.

felt very strongly the objection founded on the extra labour imposed upon clerks of the peace in getting up returns like those now moved for by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. But if clerks of the peace were to be permitted to make out bills for their trouble, and charge them upon the public purse, an enormous burden would be imposed upon the country. These returns must be made, he apprehended, by the proper officers, and the House must take care to allow those only to be ordered which were necessary and useful.

begged the noble Lord to consider, that if these returns would entail an unreasonable burden upon the public purse, how much greater was the burden imposed upon the clerks of the peace who were required to get them up. He had, as chairman of a county, repeatedly seen the great trouble and expense to which clerks of the peace were put by such motions as the present. Indeed, he doubted very much whether it were practicable to make the returns from Ireland now moved for. On behalf of a very meritorious class of public officers, upon whom this gratuitous, and he thought useless, burden was to be thrown, he protested against the motion, and recommended the hon. Member to put it in a simpler form, which he might do without losing any necessary information.

, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, rose to move that Mr. Sheriff Evans should be permitted to go at large for a day, in order that the sheriffs of London might wait upon her Majesty for the purpose of ascertaining when it would be her Majesty's pleasure to receive the Address of the Corporation. He had no intention to apply for the discharge of the sheriff, as all he meant to ask for was the indulgence of a single day. The corporation of London, the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, had resolved on presenting addresses to her Majesty, congratulating her upon her marriage. They never had been lax in displaying their loyalty, but on this occasion they were unable to carry their loyal intentions into effect because of the situation of their sheriffs. For the last 200 years he found that, without any exception, the course had been for the sheriffs to ascertain the royal will. He thought hon. Gentlemen should have some little regard for the sheriffs—for men who were suffering incarceration merely because they had discharged their duty. He asserted that the sheriff now in custody was suffering much, and he could only say, that that House would have deep cause for regret if they kept him much longer in confinement. With respect to addresses of condolence, the recorder usually ascertained when they were to be received, but in all other instances since 1645, this duty had been performed by the sheriffs. The question then was, would that House refuse to the corporation the trifling indulgence for which they sought? It could be no satisfaction to the sheriff to be at liberty for a single day, but he thought, if they denied what he now asked, that House would not be acting with courtesy to either the Sovereign, the corporation, or the country. The corporation did not wish, in this instance, to depart from their ancient custom; and if that House was jealous of its privileges, why should not the corporation be equally so of theirs? If that House continued the sheriffs in custody until their power was at end, what would be thought of them? Why, it would and with truth, be said, that they had tortured these gentlemen merely because they had discharged their duty. On a recent occasion, when they wished to place themselves in a proper position, he asked the noble Lord what they were to do; and what was the noble Lord's answer? Why, he said let them present a petition. They were ready to petition; in fact, they had drawn up a petition last night. ["Where is it?"] He would answer that question—it was in his pocket. They were in a situation now to conform to the feelings of that House; and he must say, that he felt extremely disappointed when he received information from a high quarter that no petition would do—that, in short, nothing would do but the repayment of the money. It would seem, then, that that House was disposed to sell its privileges for 640l.; and, if so, the sheriffs should know the fact, and not be further misled. What! if they said that the sheriffs should not be liberated until they paid this money, this 640l., would not that amount to the statement which he had made? What had the sheriffs done? Had they not done all in their power to maintain the privileges of the House? He insisted that they had. They had got the judge to put off the writ of inquiry. "[No, no"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "No, no;" but he now knew their humours and fancies. He certainly had not thought that their humours and fancies were those of cruelty—that they would act like tyrants. All he asked was, that they should allow the corporation the services of the sheriffs for a single day. He did not think this was an arrangement which that House ought to refuse. If they detained the sheriffs until their power ceased, what would the country say of their conduct? And as to giving back the money, that was a thing which the sheriffs would not do. He hoped they would not give way. The hon. Baronet moved that

"The corporation of London having on the 12th instant resolved to present an address to her Majesty, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and his Royal Highness Prince Albert, on the marriage of her Majesty, and by the ancient custom of the city of London, the sheriffs being allowed to wait on her Majesty to receive her Majesty's commands with respect to the presentation of such address, be it resolved that Mr. Sheriff Evans be allowed to wait on her Majesty for the purpose of receiving such commands of her Majesty."

said, that it was not his intention to discuss a subject on which he had spoken so frequently before. He was afraid the hon. Alderman did not understand the grounds upon which the sheriff was detained; but, at all events, as agreeing to the motion could be attended with no good effect, and as the corporation might have the duty now required to be discharged performed by another officer, he felt it to be his duty to move, by way of amendment the other orders of the day.

said, that the noble Lord had accused his hon. Friend, the Member for the city of London, of not understand- ing the grounds for the treatment of the sheriffs by the House. He also laboured under the same disadvantage, so far as the question of privilege was illustrated by the treatment of the sheriffs. The hon. Gentleman continued for some time to address the House, but the interruptions were so incessant, that it was not possible to make out the bearing of his observations. The hon. Member was understood to comment on the inconsistency of which the House was guilty, in saying that it had committed the sheriffs for a breach of privilege, and in avowing that it would liberate them on payment back to Mr. Hansard of the 640l. of his money, which they had seized instead of his person.

rose to oppose the motion, and entered his protest against the unusual course which the noble Lord was pursuing in adjourning the House without postponing the notices on the paper. The noble Lord was attempting to get rid of his motion for the immediate discharge of his motion for the immediate discharge of the sheriffs. The sheriffs had now been five weeks that very day in custody. The House said that that was not punishment enough for them. ["Question."] They were attempting to teach the Court of Queen's Bench law through the imprisonment of the sheriffs. Was that in keeping with the dignity of the House? It might be that the House was justified in its present proceeding by ancient privilege; but if the privilege were ancient, it was as barbarous as it was ancient. ["Question,"] ["Divide."] The hon. and learned Member adverted, amid considerable interruptions, to the various steps which the sheriffs had taken from the middle of November till the day on which the House met, to prevent themselves from being compelled to levy execution on the goods of Mr. Hansard, in contravention of the resolutions of the House; and contended so far as could be ascertained, that they had done their duty both to the House and the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded, by moving that the sheriff be forthwith discharged.