stated, that he had been requested by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, in his absence, which was unavoidable, to state the terms of the resolution that it was his intention to move, upon the motion for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means on Friday, to consider the Sugar Duties, they were as follows:—

"Resolved, that considering the efforts and sacrifices which Parliament and the country have made for the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery, with the earnest hope that, by our exertions and example, we might be able to lead to a mitigation and final extinct ion of those evils in other countries, this House is not prepared, especially considering the present prospect of a supply of sugar from British Possessions, to adopt the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government, for the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar."

wished to state that, in the event of the House not going into Committee on the sugar duties, and the resolution, of which they had just heard the notice given, being put from the Chair, he should move an amendment to it in nearly the following terms, but which to-morrow he would give more correctly:—

"That it is the opinion of this House that it is practicable to supply the present inadequacy of the revenue, and to meet the expenses of the country, by a judicious alteration of the protective and differential duties, without materially increasing the public burdens, and at the same time to promote the interests of trade, and to afford relief to the industrious classes; and that this House will consider such a course as best calculated for the maintenance of the public faith and the general welfare of the country."

wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies whether any of the surplus funds which had fallen into the hands of the Church commissioners had been applied to the augmentation of poor benefices.

said, the subject had undergone a great deal of consideration on the part of the ecclesiastical commissioners, but they had not yet adopted any general principle for the application of the funds, and therefore none had been applied.

then observed, that, as far as the matter had gone, he was to understand that no portion of the funds for the augmentation of poor benefices, had been applied iii the different dioceses in which the benefices became vacant.

replied, that sums had not yet been so applied. It was considered by the ecclesiastical commissioners desirable not to do so until some general plan was laid down.

had observed, that in the sales of land ordered by the commissioner in this country in our Australian colonies, there was none ordered for sale in Van Diemen's land. He wished to know whether it was intended, or was it any mistake?

said, when the lands were advertised, there was not considered to be enough in Van Diemen's Land ready for sale to make it worth employing an agent in this country. It was more than probable that some would appear for sale in the next advertisement.

observed that as a great deal of excitement prevailed out of doors, on the question of the new Poor-law, he wished her Majesty's Government to state on what day the bill would be again brought on.

replied, that it was on the orders of the day for Monday; but he could not say whether it would then come on.

was not satisfied with the answer. He said for himself he was not satisfied with it, and he was sure the House would not be satisfied with it.

said, that the clause provided that justices of the peace should meet in Session for the purpose of dividing the counties into districts. He thought it would be but an act of courtesy if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pakington) proposed in his bill that, before counties could be divided into districts, coroners should receive intimation of what the justices intended to do. He was aware that in arguing the case of the coroners against the justices in that House, there were fearful odds against him. It was extraordinary that justices of the peace, without giving notice to the coroners of what was to be done, should consider that they had the power to decide what was more convenient for the public than the coroners themselves who had been acting in those districts for many years. Several coroners loudly complained on this subject, and considered they were most unfairly treated. If the hon. Gentleman would intimate that the coroners should be adequately protected, he would not trouble the House with the proviso which it was his intention to move to the second clause. But if the hon. Gentleman should not give such an intimation, he should be obliged to put the House to the inconvenience of moving such a proviso. The hon. Gentleman read a note from a coroner in Gloucestershire, to show the injurious effects of the clause upon the interests of the coroners. The note complained of the injustice of putting coroners, who had been at great expense in getting elected for large districts on account of the large emolument arising there from, on a level with coroners of small districts who had been at little or no expense or trouble in obtaining those districts. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that some compensation ought to be made to such coroners. He was desirous that the House should not interfere with the present management of counties when the counties had been divided into districts for a long series of years, and if the hon. Gentleman should state that that were his opinion he, (Mr. Wakley) would not trouble the House with the proviso he had mentioned.

assured the hon. Member he had no desire to act discourteously or harshly towards the coroners, and, seeing nothing objectionable in the hon. Member's proviso, he would not oppose it.

said, that the clause proposed to make it incumbent on every co- roner to reside within the district for which he acted; but if a coroner resided in a town which had a right of holding quarter-sessions, he could not be, strictly speaking, residing within his district. Now, he thought that such a provision would press hardly upon some coroners, and therefore he wished to see some words introduced, giving to the justices the power of giving leave to the coroner to reside out of his district in some cases, as it may seem fit.

would accede to the introduction of some such provision.

objected to giving the justices such power. They were constantly boasting of the necessity of having the judges independent, and here they were proposing to make the coroner, who was a judge, dependent upon the magistrates. It would be impossible for him to do justice if he were placed in such a situation. Nothing could be more unfair than the manner in which coroners were elected; and he rejoiced that the hon. Member had brought the subject before the House. What he complained of was, that the bill left the justices to deal with the present coroners as they thought fit. He should, therefore, move, that the following proviso be added to it:—

"Provided also, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any existing coroner of any county of which the duties have been discharged during.—number of years, unless the consent of the coroner has first been obtained in writing."

did not think the hon. Member for Finsbury had any reason to complain of the powers given by this clause to the justices.

contended, that as many of the coroners had vested interests, it should not be left to the caprice of magistrates, by contracting the range of their duties, to curtail their emoluments, without granting some compensation.

said, that certainly it was a fair principle to give compensation where existing interests were affected. He did not think that the question of compensation ought to stand in the way of the public good; on the contrary, where the public convenience required that vested interests should be interfered with, it was only just to grant compensation. The principle had been admitted last year, in the case of the coroners of the County Palatine of Chester, and although that was in a private bill, still the principle was a public one. It should be recollected that this clause gave to the justices an unlimited power to interfere with the ancient office of coroner, and that without appeal. He feared that this was likely to detract from the dignity of the office of coroner, but if the public good required it he should not object to it. He thought, however, that compensation ought to be awarded.

assured the committee that the coroners had no intention whatever to urge claims for compensation. The object of his proviso was to secure the independence and integrity of their courts from the interference of the justices. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not give the committee the trouble of dividing against it.

expressed his readiness to introduce a clause at another stage of the bill to give compensation to parties affected by the operation of the measure.

thought a public officer had a perfect right to ask for compensation for losses suffered by an alteration in the state of the law, but he bad no right to ask for a power to decide whether or not a great public improvement should take place.

suggested, that as the committee were agreed upon the principle of the amendment, it would be better to leave it to the hon. Gentleman to introduce a compensation clause than to divide upon the question now.

recommended that the clause should be so framed as to give power to the Privy Council, upon the representation of the magistrates, to decide upon the division of a county into districts, and that the Privy Council should have the power of awarding compensation.

hoped that it would not be understood that he had said one word against the division of counties into districts under coroners; no one would give more support to such a measure. But what he complained of was that the magistrates should have power, without reference to the coroner, to make the alteration. Satisfied that if the course recommended by the hon. Baronet were followed, justice would be done, he would withdraw his amendment.

opposed the amendment.

, moved to add to the clause after the word "election," the words "have been rated for six months to the relief of the poor in any parish in such district."

said, that this was an amendment to which it was quite impossible he could give his consent. The proposal, however, was not new, inasmuch as it had been made to him on bringing in the bill by the hon. Under-secretary for the Home Department. He (Mr. Pakington), thought, that so far from being an improvement, this addition to the clause would destroy the whole principle of the bill, the object of which was to simplify the mode of the election of coroner, to lessen the expenses of such election, and to put an end to the extensive frauds by personation and otherwise which were practised on those occasions. If the amendment were agreed to, it would amount to universal suffrage in those elections. He (Mr. Pakington) had no wish to narrow the franchise, and he had only adopted the county franchise for the sake of a criterion as to who should and who should not have a right to vote; and it was with that view that he had introduced as a constituency the constituencies of the boroughs in the particular districts. On the whole, the amendment was so objectionable that be must divide the committee against it.

supported the amendment, and denied that its adoption could lead to universal suffrage in the election of coroners. It would only give to the poorer classes a voice in the election of a public officer who of all others was most nearly connected with them.

said, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He (Mr. Jervis) was clearly of opinion that the choice of coroner should remain, as formerly, in the freeholders of the county.

should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, because it was impossible to retain the present franchise without encouraging fraud and perjury.

was much surprised that hon. Members opposite should argue from the abuse of the franchise for its further extension. He congratulated the hon. Members on the accession of the Government in the person of the hon. Under-secretary of State to the principle of household franchise.

opposed the amendment.

agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Cheater, and he should therefore oppose the amendment.

. supported the amendment.

doubted, that the bill would secure a good constituency, though he believed it was well intended as a remedy for abuse. The existing evil, however, was of such enormous magnitude that, even if the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny were lost, some other founded on the clause before the House would be adopted. Under these circumstances he suggested a compromise to the effect of extending the right of voting to boroughs not now returning Members to Parliament.

objected to the amendment, the effect of which, he said, would be most disfranchising.

proposed an amendment, with a view of adding to the class of voters at present embraced by the bill, those who would have been included as the clause stood when proposed by the hon. Member for Droitwitch.

opposed the amendment.

said, that he should vote for the amendment, because he did not like to disfranchise the old freeholders. He thought that it was an extremely good proposition to qualify by the registration.

said, he should vote for the clause so amended.

said, that if this clause were struck out he should not think it worth while to go on with the bill.

said, he should vote against the clause, as did Mr. Godson.

supported it.

believed that residence in the district was absolutely necessary to curtail the expense of electing coroners. The office was interesting to those who inhabited the districts in which the coroner was to act, and therefore the inhabitants of the districts ought to vote. He trusted the Committee would maintain the vote to which they had already come.

was opposed to the clause.

proposed as an amendment, that coroners should be empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses by fine and imprisonment.

suggested that the object would be sufficiently attained by raising the fine from 40s. to 5l.

conceived that the powers already possessed by coroners were amply sufficient for this purpose; but, as some lawyers were of a different opinion, he was glad that the hon. Member for Droitwich had introduced this amendment.

thought, that the power of enforcing the attendance of witnesses at an early stage of the inquiry ought to be given. As he was now satisfied that the coroner had sufficient power to compel the attendance of witnesses, he therefore suggested that the clause should be postponed. He thought that the fine that was proposed to be inflicted on witnesses would, in cases of murder, have no effect at all.

had held 2,000 coroners' inquests, and had experienced no difficulty in obtaining the attendance of important witnesses. If a witness refused to attend on a warrant being issued, and committed a contempt of court, he (Mr. Wakley) would have no hesitation in committing him.

would like to see the hon. Member for Finsbury try the adoption of that course. If he did so with reference to him (Mr. Jervis) he would bring an action against him.

hoped the hon. Member would put the question to the test, as it would save the public much expense, and settle an important point. If he committed a contempt of the coroners' court, he (Mr. Wakley) would commit the hon. Member immediately.

proposed to strike out of the clause all that related to witnesses.

said, that he proposed that the words "being a barrister or attorney" be struck out of the clause.

said, that he had introduced the clause reluctantly into the bill; but he did so because it was much pressed upon him by those coroners who had communicated with him on the subject.

said, that although he thought coroners should have the power of appointing deputies, be could not agree that the consent of the justices would be either convenient or necessary. He, therefore, meant to propose an amendment in the clause to dispense with such consent.

said, it was a principle of the law of this country, that no judicial officer should appoint a deputy, and he did not think coroners should have a power which a judge did not possess. He thought the clause should be withdrawn.

said, that he meant to support the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.

said, that he had not put his amendment.

then expressed a hope that the noble Lord (Lord G. Somerset) would withdraw his amendment, in order that the House might decide on the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.

did not think his amendment at all interfered with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

agreed, that it would be more convenient to dispose of the amendment of the noble Lord, and afterwards consider that of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.

said, that if the clause were to pass in its present shape, it would be impossible for the county coroners to exercise their duties, and all they wanted was to be placed in as good a situation as the coroners for boroughs, and particular franchises or liberties.

consented to withdraw his amendment.

proposed to withdraw the clause, in order that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford might be discussed on the bringing up of the report.

opposed the withdrawal of the clause, and said, that if coroners were to be allowed to appoint their own deputies, without any restriction, the result would be, that unqualified persons would be found presiding at inquests.

thought, that instead of getting rid of the clause, they should try to amend it. In cases of illness, or unavoidable absence, coroners should have the power of appointing deputies, but, then, these deputies should be either barristers or attorneys.

complained, that the hon. Gentleman bad not treated him fairly, and he therefore should press the proposition of his hon. Friend for withdrawing the clause.

spoke in vindication of the course which he had pursued, and said, that he intended to have spoken on the amendment of the noble Lord, had he not withdrawn it.

said, that it was also his intention to have addressed the committee on the amendment of the noble Lord, but that it was withdrawn before he had an opportunity of doing so.

remarked, that all this was most extraordinary to him; but he would now give notice, that on the bringing up of the report he should renew his amendment.

thought, that the coroners' mileage should be 1s. 6d. instead of 9d., he therefore moved to substitute 9d. for 3d.

seconded the amendment. He mm quite sure the sum proposed did not, at least in Yorkshire, cover the coroners' expenses.

suggested, that if it ware to be 1s. 6d., it should only be for every mile beyond two miles from the coroner s residence.

said, that the present remuneration of coroners was so low, that in many cases they were out of pocket. This state of things was highly improper, as it might have a tendency to make coroners evade their duties, on which the safety of the public in some degree depended.