was anxious to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a remarkable omission in her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, as also in the speeches of the Ministers of the Crown who spoke in the course of the debate last night. It had been complained of last night, that no mention had been made of France in the Speech from the Throne; but the omission to which he was now about to allude was of a matter nearer home, and of much deeper interest to this country. He believed, that every Member present would anticipate that he wished to refer distinctly to the repeal question in Ireland. He wished that her Majesty's Ministers had advised her Majesty to express an opinion on that subject. But even if any consideration could have induced them to have passed it over in the Speech from the Throne, no such consideration could have justified them, as he thought, in maintaining that studied silence on the matter which they had maintained during the night. It was true, that it could not be expected that the Speech from the Throne could comprehend every subject of general interest on which Parliament might have to decide in the course of the Session. But he would ask any Minister of the Crown, or any Member of the House, to state any one subject of greater importance to the tranquillity and safety of the empire, than that agitation with regard to the Union which now prevailed among the whole community in Ireland. Was the subject looked upon as too inconsiderable, or as having no direct bearing on the tranquillity of the empire? The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, whom he did not then see in his place, would hardly agree with Ministers in saying that the subject on which he had almost staked his political existence was one of minor importance. Either the Ministry would credit the hon. and learned Member or they would not. If they were inclined to believe that hon. and learned Member and a near connection of his who had been engaged in the work of agitation, 50,000 men had assembled on one occassion, 100,000 on another, 200,000 in Cork, and 300,000 in Kilkenny, taking part in the proceedings. He would ask the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether, if those statements were correct, it were fit that the subject should have been passed over unnoticed by her Majesty's Ministers in the Speech they recommended her Majesty to address to the House? Or was it considered, on the other hand, that the question did not involve the peace and tranquillity of the empire? Why, her Majesty's representative in Ireland seemed to think that the mere agitation of the questtion involved the tranquillity of the second city of that country, and he had accordingly despatched troops thither, in order to enable the civil authorities to maintain the public peace when the matter came under discussion. There was also another question which he wished to put to her Majesty's Ministers. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had distinctly stated, that the repeal question was now a vital one, and that every man must either be a Conservative or Repealer. He would ask the noble Lord whether he would accept that alternative—he would ask him whether he were content with it? And then he would ask the noble Lord was he a Conservative or was he a Repealer? The time was come, said the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, when every man must make his election. Had the noble Lord made his choice—was he a Conservative or a Repealer? Or, if the noble Lord did not accept that alternative, and did not confide in the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, would he express that want of confidence before the House? Were Ministers prepared to take their stand upon this question? There could be no mortal doubt they were. He was confident they would not hold the situations which they now held, unless they were determined to stand or fall by the question of the union. Then why not say so? They should either have stated so in the Queen's Speech or in their personal addresses to the House in the course of the debate. A few words from them, and especially from the leader of that House, last, night, would have been very satisfactory to the people, and he believed to every individual in that House, except, perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He would not advert to those points in the Speech on which sufficient discussion took place last night, farther than to say that he entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), with respect to the omission of the name of France—an omission which, he thought, might have been supplied, without any loss to our national dignity, and with great advantage to the feeling and peace of the country.

said, that he certainly had not thought it necessary to make any statement to the House respecting the agitated question of the repeal of the union. He conceived, that his opinions upon this subject were sufficiently well known; and his noble Friend, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had recently expressed himself on the subject in a manner which might be taken to convey the declared opinion of her Majesty's Government. With respect to the policy of advising her Majesty to make a declara- tion on the subject, he conceived that the propriety of doing so depended upon whether or not such a declaration would be advantageous and expedient; and certainly in time of formidable agitation on the subject, it might be expedient to advise the Crown to make such a declaration, but at other times he thought that such a declaration would rather add importance to the cry at the moment, and lead to such agitation being too frequently repeated, which he thought it was highly expedient to avoid. Upon these considerations, therefore, he had not thought it right to recommend her Majesty to make any allusion to this subject in her Speech from the Throne on the present occasion. His hon. Friend had asked him a rather singular question upon the authority of a position stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—namely, that all men were either Conservatives or Repealers, a statement which the hon. Baronet appeared to consider to be conclusive. It might be so to the hon. Baronet, who might put implicit faith in any dictum of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin if he pleased: but all he could say was, that he was not prepared to follow his example, and therefore he held himself free on the present occasion from declaring himself either a Conservative or a Repealer. But he would now put a question to his hon. Friend, in return, respecting the movement of certain troops to Belfast, which were so moved in consequence of a threat or announcement which had been held out by certain persons, that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin made his proposed journey to Belfast there would be a violent resistance to his progress, and that a riot and breach of the peace would in all probability be the result. Now, he begged to ask the hon. Baronet if he could inform him whether these threats were made by Conservatives or Repealers? If by Repealers, he should not have thought they would have made so violent an opposition to the hon. Member for Dublin; but if by Conservatives, it seemed to him to be a very odd exhibition of Conservative principles—a very odd way of preserving; the peace. Perhaps his hon. Friend would favour him with a definition of his views on this subject.

suggested that those petitions ordered to be printed by the House, without reference to the committee on petitions, should have a mark of privacy put on them to this degree, that they should be printed for the use of Members only. It was desirable that Members should have an opportunity of sifting the allegations of some petitions, but it was equally desirable that charges should not be circulated throughout the country under the sanction of their privileges which the parties affected had no opportunity of refuting.

There had certainly been greater abuse of the privilege of printing petitions in the manner represented by the noble lord than in the printing of any other of their records. It was a question whether they should not adhere to the practice of sending all petitions to the committee, unless in some cases of great, urgency.

observed, that it was only in cases of urgency that the rule was now departed from. He was of opinion that there should be a separate committee for the consideration of petitions containing criminatory matter and that that committee should have the power of deciding on the question of printing.

The experience of every Gentleman for the last Session must convince him that they were rapidly relapsing into the old and condemned practice as regarded the presentation of petitions. Whenever a Gentleman wished to call particular attention to any complaint, no matter how ill-founded, he presented a petition according to the usual rule, and it was appended without opposition to the votes. The committee on printed papers, of which he was chairman, recommended that some steps should be taken to remedy this evil.

If petitions containing charges were sent to the committee upstairs, he did not see that they could exclude any portion without special instructions. In that way the objection as to publicity would remain as strong as ever. The only remedy in his mind was to print such petitions for the use of Members only.

thought that all petitions should be referred to the committee, giving them a discretion as to the selection of parts for publication.

doubted whether the House would be willing to delegate such a power. The best security against abuse was in his opinion, the vigilance and precaution of the House and of the Member presenting any petition. He concurred, therefore, in the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley).

It would be well if notice were given the previous day of the presentation of any petition that was to be brought forward, and that it contained criminatory matter.

knew that persons entrusted petitions to Members who, after the accusatory matter was mentioned in the House, said their object was gained, and they did not desire to push the matter further. This was a gross breach of the obligation by which every Member should feel himself bound. Every Member should certainly satisfy himself that there was at least some good ground for bringing inculpatory allegations under the notice of Parliament. If the suggestion of the noble Lord were acted on, the accused party would be shut out from a knowledge of the facts affecting him.

His desire was to prevent a general circulation. But there was nothing to prevent an individual Member from apprising the accused party of the charges made against him.

objected to the introduction of any new business after twelve o'clock. This proposition appeared to him so reasonable, that he could not believe it would be opposed. Whatever might be the feeling of that House with respect to limiting the duration of their proceedings, he was quite convinced that the feeling of the country did not approve of their late proceedings. They often boasted of the wisdom of their ancestors. Their ancestors wisely legislated in the day-time. All the Legislatures of Europe, and of the United States, did the same. It was objected by some honourable Members, that the adoption of his rule would lengthen the Session; but he was of opinion, that the principal effect of it would be the shortening of some of the speeches. It seemed to him that the restriction which he proposed as to the hours for legislat on would greatly facilitate the progress of public business. There was another point of view in which this question ought to be considered. The public had a right to know what was done in that House; but under the present system it was impossible they could obtain that knowledge. At midnight the reporters were exhausted, and experience proved thot they could not pay attention to matters which occurred after that hour. The public remained uniformed upon topics of great importance if they were discussed after twelve o'clock. In Ms opinion it would be better to adjourn early; but, failing that, he hoped the House would agree to his proposition, which, indeed, was so reasonable, that it ought to obtain general support. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That no new business which shall be objected to by five Members be brought on after twelve o'clock at night."

seconded the motion. He thought that late sittings pressed with peculiar severity upon those hon. Members who attended to their duties in the day time upon committees. It was alleged, that if the House adopted the proposition of the hon. Member for Salford, it would soon be found necessary to meet at an earlier hour, which would be very inconvenient to lawyers and merchants, who were Members of that House; but he could not admit, that the convenience of those Gentlemen ought to be put in competition with the public interests. If the House of Commons were to rise at an earlier hour, it would very soon produce aw effect on the customs of society; for it could not be doubted that the late hours which distinguished English society from that of every other country were the result of the protracted sittings of Parliament. The practice also produced a bad effect in the public offices, for there business was rarely transacted until one o'clock in the day. It would be better on every account to sit at one o'clock in the day, as in the time of Sir R. Walpole. Would it not strike a foreigner with astonishment to witness the dormant legislation which was transacted in that House at a late hour? On one bench a Secretary to the Treasury might be seen extended at full length; on another a Secretary to the Admiralty alike recumbent; on another a non-effective army official; and on another a subdued President of the Board of Control. Last Session, when a question was addressed to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, it was found that he was fast asleep. These were unseemly incidents, which could not occur under a different system.

supported the motion. He referred to the day legislation of France and America, and said, it would better become the Members of the House of Commons to follow that example than to waste their time and constitutions in idle declamations and contentions.

said, that this question had been several times discussed, and he had never been able to perceive that, by the adoption of the rule which the hon. Member for Salford proposed, the House would be enabled either to do more business, or to do it more efficiently; on the contrary, he believed that the establishment of the rule would cause business to be postponed day after day, which at present was transacted conveniently and well. The hon. Member for Wigan seemed to think that the assistance of lawyers and merchants and others might be of no advantage; but, for his part, he doubted very much whether the debates would be shortened, or the business transacted as efficiently, if lawyers took no part in the discussions on legal points, merchants in those connected with trade, and official Members in those relating to official details. If such discussions were carried on in the absence of the classes of Members to whom he had referred, the House collectively would lack much of the information which it was essential it should possess. He did not wish to underrate the eloquence or talent for debate displayed by the members of the American Congress or the French Chambers, but there really could be no comparison between the amount of business done in Congress (which, alter all, was not the Legislature of the country),or in the French Chambers, and that transacted in the House of Commons.

said, that there was a great difference between getting through business and doing it. He believed, that the House of Commons got through more business than the French Chambers, but he doubted whether they did as much. A number of Acts of Parliament were passed every year which never received proper consideration. The objection which the noble Lord had taken on behalf of the lawyers and merchants would apply only to those who resided in London; for by others the inconvenience, if any, was already endured. But in any case the public interests ought not to be sacrificed to the convenience of any man. It was notorious that at present five Members might, by acting in concert, prevent any business from being proceeded with; and the adoption of the hon. Member for Salford's resolution would only have the effect of relieving Members from the odium of resorting to such a course. He would support the motion in the hope that it might have the effect of compelling the House to return to common-sense hours of doing business. As a proof of the bad effect of protracted sittings on the health of Members, he might mention that the late Speaker informed him that the last six weeks of a Session in which the House sat late, were more prejudicial than all the previous part of the Session.

approved of the motion, and suggested that the House should adopt a rule to prevent the debate being adjourned for more than a single night beyond that in which it commenced. It must have occurred to every one who had watched the discussions in that House, that, after the second night of debate, no new matter was ever introduced. If his suggestion were acted upon, it would cause Members, who now postponed their speeches to a late hour, to speak early in the evening.

said, that the reform he proposed related to the judicial, not the legislative, character of the House. Nothing was more important than that that portion of its character should be pure. It nearly concerned the public that it should be so, and it nearly concerned the House itself. It must have struck every Member who had either personally attended, or become acquainted with the proceedings of committees on private business, that the constitution and character of those committees were capable of much amendment. The most obvious defect lay in their constitution, the number of their members was too great for responsible or efficient action. He proposed at once to increase their responsibility and efficiency by reducing the number of their members. But the most serious ground of complaint lay not in the constitution, but in the character of the committees. It had been, he feared with too much justice, imputed to those committees, that they acted frequently from local, sometimes from personal, feeling. He need not say how grievous such a charge was when made against the Members of that House, how much it would tend to lower them in public estimation. How necessary it was, therefore, that the ground for such imputations should be removed. Members might now be personally interested in the subject of a bill proceeding from their own neighbourhood, and yet they might form part of the committee on the bill. They might be locally interested through their constituents in the fate of the measure, yet they served on the committee by which that fate was decided. He appealed to Gentlemen who had sat upon those committees, whether after the committees had met, they were not often divided into several local parties and swayed by local influences. He saw several hon. Members near him who served on a committee last Session, which was prolonged for the space of about two months; he alluded to the Liverpool Docks Committee. In that case the contest became one of local opinion and local interest; and it was almost impossible, from the views taken by most respectable persons on both sides, for the members to separate and keep clear of those feelings of locality, which, to the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, on the one hand, and to himself on the other, rendered it so difficult to come to a conclusion. But this was only one case; such instances were almost innumerable. There was scarcely one hon. Member who had served upon committees, who had not reprobated this evil in a tribunal which ought to be strictly judicial, and should never be made to serve a local, much less a personal purpose, It had even happened that a subject, apparently local, had been converted into a political question. One political party had taken up one side of the question, another party the other. It had been surmised, for instance, that by the passing of a particular act, the number of voters belonging to one party would be diminished, or those of another party increased. Thus the question, from being purely judicial, became first a local, and secondly, a political one. The ends of justice were frustrated, the House did not do its duty, and the public interest was forgotten. Then the existence of these feelings in the committee gave rise to a system of canvassing out of it. An active canvass of members by the parties took place both previous to, and during the sitting of the committee—a system degrading to, and deprecated by, both sides. He therefore thought the time was come when they were called upon to vindicate the character of the House, and do their duty to the public. The public had not slumbered on this important question. There had not been many petitions on the subject from the people of England. But a reference to the journals of the House would show that there had been numerous petitions complaining of committees of the House of Commons from Scotland. He supposed that this circumstance was attributable to the clear sightedness and intelligence of the people of that country, which prompted them to enquire sagaciously and keenly into the conduct of those deputed to represent them. He found from the journals and reports of the House that petitions had been presented on this subject from Dunbarton, Ayr, Dunfermline, Forres, Glasgow, Greenock, Kilmarnock, Perth, and Wick. As the Perth petition at once corroborated and embodied his (Mr. Ewart's) own views, he would beg leave to quote it. The petitioners complain that, "instead of committees being chosen, like all other impartial judicatories, in respect to entire freedom from bias or connexion, the almost inevitable consequence of selecting Members from within the divisions where the measures originate, is either to bias the judgment of those called on to adjudicate between the parties, or to produce serious heart-burnings and differences between the Members of the committees and their constituents, that the Members should be limited in point of numbers: and that local connexion with the measures to be discussed instead of forming a ground of selection, should invariably be held the most cogent reason for disqualification and ineligibility." He now proceeded to develope his plan. They now had a committee of selection appointed at the beginning of a Session. He proposed, that, whenever a committee was required on a private bill the committee of selection should choose seven Members from among those gentlemen who were least interested, either personally themselves, or locally through their constituents, to act as a committee on the bill. By this provision he would endeavour to increase the purity of these tribunals. His next object was, by reducing the numbers, to increase the responsibility and insure a more regular attendance of Members. He did not come before the House without strong evidence on the subject (The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote, from the report of a committee which sat last Session, the evidence of a number of Parliamentary agents of great experience—Messrs. Hayward, Pritt, Bourke, and others—in corroboration of all his preceding statements, both as to the existence of the abuses of which he complained, and the necessity of the reforms which he proposed). In fact, the experiment which he suggested had been partly tried already and had succeeded. It was known that the committee of selection had lately placed upon committees on private bills, Members who were called "Selected Members." They were placed there, generally to the number of two or three, to counteract the partial tendencies of the rest of the committee. They had given great satisfaction to the parties in the cause, wherever he (Mr. Ewart) had been able to pursue his enquiries. The principle therefore of his reform was already admitted. He wished to carry it out. He wished all the Members to be "Selected Members." But he had not only the evidence taken before parliamentary committees to support the suggestion which he made, he had not only the fact that the experiment had been partially tried and had so far succeeded, he had also the satisfaction to find that the plan which he pro- posed had been adopted, and had succeeded in the House of Lords. It was well known to hon. Members about him that the House of Lords several years ago found the same reason to complain as the Commons did now, of their committees. They reformed the whole system; reducing the Members of their committees to five, and selecting those five from Peers neither personally nor locally interested in the question before them. He would not further advert to this part of the question, but refer hon. Members to the evidence given by the Duke of Richmond before a committee of the House of Commons in the year 1838 on this subject, which he (Mr. Ewart) had then before him. He felt convinced, that by the change which he proposed, not only would the tribunals to which it applied be rendered more pure, but that business would be better conducted, and the delays which had been hitherto to a very great extent caused during the sittings of committees by Members interested in the questions under consideration, would be put an end to. He said Members had caused delays, and it must inevitably be so, inasmuch as they were interested as partisans, and they acted with the spirit of partisans. Another advantage of the system he proposed was, that many excellent Members who at present were scarcely ever called on to serve on committees, would have their talents and their energies brought into action. If Members did not happen to represent places in some large manufacturing districts—if they represented an agricultural district or a rural town—they never served, except on some paltry bill for the diversion of a road, or the establishment of a turnpike. He would add that though by the plan proposed, Members interested through themselves or their constituents would be prevented from sitting as judges in the committee, they would have the power to appear as witnesses. In this character they might fully develop their views. His (Mr. Ewart's) plan would not exclude information, but it would exclude interest. And he would further add, that he should prohibit Members from serving on more than one committee at a time. He therefore called upon that House to adopt the amendment he proposed. The character of a public body, like that of an individual, was the first of all considerations. It nearly concerned the character of the House that the fountains of its justice should be pure: or, if not pure, as little contaminated as possible. He therefore proposed the following resolution, as the basis of his scheme:—

"1. That it is expedient that committees on private bills should be approximated, more nearly than they now are, to judicial tribunals, and exempted, as much as possible, from all motives of local and personal interest; and that the responsibility and efficiency of committees of this House in general would be promoted by diminishing the number of Members composing them."

hoped the hon. Member for Wigan would not press his motion to a division, but would await the result of the improved system now in operation. He hoped the hon. Member would think his purpose was sufficiently answered in having brought the question before the House. If the hon. Gentleman did press for a division he should be compelled to vote against him.

said, it had been always thought most essential to have our tribunals as pure as possible from all private and local interests. This question was not a new one, but had been raised again and again before the House. It was necessary to have local information, but it was not necessary to have local interest—or if it were, the local interest he would have should be the same as that had by the House of Lords. It was admitted that no Member who had pecuniary interest could sit on a committee about to decide on some question that might affect it, and he could not distinguish between pecuniary interests and the bias and force imposed upon Members by the wishes of their constituents. The system adopted by the House of Lords was found to work very well, and he could not see why the House of Commons should be behind that noble House in reforming its private business. Sufficient time had been allowed for trial of the present system, The Speaker had had the honour of introducing many reforms, but many were still required.

hoped that hon. Members would take the advice of the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), and not press for a division. It was a question of great importance. If he considered a committee of the House of Commons as a purely judicial tribunal, he might agree with the hon. Member for Wigan; but he did not regard a committee of that House as acting in an exclusively judicial capacity. His view of them was that a committee was appointed to do that which the House of Commons itself ought to do, but which for the convenience of public business was devolved to a selection of Members of the House to prevent the House being so encumbered with business as to be prevented discharging its duty to the public. He should as soon think of excluding any person from giving information as a Member of the House of Commons from a committee on a question in which he was locally interested. The hon. Member for Wigan's motion went to the point that no Member should serve on a committee who, through his constituents, was interested in the bill. Now that would exclude him from doing: that which was one of the objects for which he was returned, A Peer had no constituents to represent, and could have nothing but a local interest, therefore the House of Lords were bound to take measures to prevent their committees being formed by those who might be personally interested. He could not consent to adopt a practice, which, in his view of the duties of a Member of Parliament did incapaciate him from superintending the interests of those by whom he was sent to that House. The present system ought to have a fair trial, but at all events it was a subject of too much importance to be decided in so thin a House.

could draw no distinction between the duties of Members upon public bills, and their duties upon private bills. Members were sent there not as the agents or attorneys of their constituents, but to consider the interests of the whole empire. No doubt the present practice was an improvement upon the whole system, but even now repeated applications were made from committees on private bills, in consequence of the requisite number of disinterested Members not attending for permission to proceed in spite of that non-attendance. He was of opinion that the sooner the present system was changed the better it would be for the public.

said, that if his hon. Friend pressed his motion to a division, he should certainly vote with him, because he was inclined to think the committees wanted further improvement. At the same time he thought his hon. Friend had not completed the plan he intended to adopt. He agreed that the committees ought to be kept as pure as possible from local interests. He thought that the plan proposed by his hon. Friend might be more fully worked out, and he would therefore wish that he would not call on the House to come to a decision without further consideration.

thought, that the hon. Member might more properly have introduced his proposition some years ago, when abuses existed in regard to committees on private bills, which had since been removed. The amendment had been made on various occasions, and some of them in the course of last Session. Besides, no system could obviate every possible inconvenience; and for his part he was of opinion that if they removed from private bill committees all Members who had an interest in them, they would only deprive themselves of the necessary local information.

hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his motion against the recommendation of the committee of last Session that the system then adopted should have a fair trial. The question whether committees should be exclusively official and divested of local interests was one of very great difficulty. That House could not separate its committees from the representative character of the whole body and render them strictly judicial, as were the committees of the House of Lords.

considered it would be a great evil not to have local Members on the committees, and thought that a committee, constituted on the plan of the hon. Member for Wigan, might, with the greatest possible desire to do justice, commit gross injustice for want of local knowledge.

would ask the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge what he would think if he were to see a jury-box filled with persons having a local interest in the matter to be tried, and the cases of a jury and committee were exactly similar. He would admit, that it had been usual to consider Members were placed on those committees to do the jobs of their constituents. But that was an abuse which he wished to see done away with altogether. He would admit, that many abuses which had existed formerly in respect to the appointment to private committees, had been remedied, but that, was only a reason for getting rid of the remaining ones. He thought, that the time had come when there should be no more temporising, and would, therefore, support the motion of his hon. Friend. He, for one, would not be afraid to go before the country on this question, as he was convinced, that every honest constituency would say, that they would rather submit a question to a committee having no local interests, than be subjected to jobbing.

said, that it was frequently considered an advantage at quarter sessions and assizes for a jury to have local knowledge of the matter in dispute.

, with every disposition to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, felt so strongly, that, justice and reason were on his side, that he must press the question to a division.

could assure the House, that he did not intend to let even a stage of the bill pass without offering to it his most strenuous and determined opposition. When the matter was formerly discussed, either upon the introducing of the bill, or the second reading, Gentlemen on that side of the House stated, that they entirely disagreed, both with respect to the principle and details of the bill, but if he would allow the hon. and learned Member to bring in the bill, when it came into committee they would assist him in opposing the details of the bill, and then there would be no difficulty in getting rid of the question. He divided the House on the second reading, and those Gentlemen voted with the hon. and learned Gentlemen. He of course supposed, that when the bill came to the committee, he should have had the assistance of those Members, amongst whom were her Majesty's Attorney-general, and some of the Cabinet Ministers, but when the bill came into committee, he had as much reason to complain of the state of the House as the hon. and learned Gentleman had. Those who had promised him their support were not in attendance, and he had to fight against the bill single handed. He would not commit the same mistake again, and therefore it was, that he was determined to fight it in every stage, and if he could not get support in that House, he would endeavour to get it out of it. He considered the bill as one that was calculated to inflict the greatest injustice on certain portions of the community. In the very outset of the question, the hon. and learned Gentleman and himself were at issue upon the true principle on which the judgment of Members ought to be guided with respect to the measure. He considered, that that judgment ought to be formed upon its utility. He did not agree with that mode of meeting the question. He contended, that the interests of authors and the interests of the public were both to be considered, and properly and duly weighed. It was upon these grounds that the discussions before the judges and the House of Lords proceeded. On former occasions, when this question had been argued, the hon. and learned Member had said, "I have the common law right with me."