hoped for the indulgence of the House while he addressed it for a few moments, and they should be very few, on a matter which was in some degree personal to himself. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in the course of the debate on the want of confidence in Ministers the hon. and learned Member for Dublin made an attack on the Conservative landlords of Ireland, whom he charged with being harsh and oppressive to their tenants. He took that opportunity of stating that the hon. and learned Member himself was not a good landlord, for that he had acted towards his tenants in a harsh and oppressive manner, and when the hon. and learned Member expressed a denial of that charge, he had asked him, would he deny having distrained on some of his tenants in April for rent due in the previous March, and he said, that he had asked the question on the authority of a gentleman (Mr. Twiss) who had called on him at his residence in Dublin, and told him the circumstance, and added that he might make any use of it, and of his name as his authority, in any way he thought proper. When he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) had resumed his seat, the hon. and learned Member got up and denied having ever made any such distress, and that if any such had been made it was altogether without his knowledge, and that if he should find that it had been done by his agent from any private motive of his own, he and that gentleman should part. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) then detailed the particulars of an interview between himself and the hon. Member for Tralee (Mr. Maurice O'Connell) when the latter called on him to ask the Christian name of Mr. Twiss, the gentleman from whom he had his information. He could not then recollect the Christian name or the date of the year when the distraints were made; but he told Mr. M. O'Connell that he had made a memorandum of the circumstance at the time, and as soon as he could find it he would give him the particulars he required. He had since found the memorandum, from which it appeared that the distraints were said to have been made in April, 1838. Besides this memorandum he had now in his hand a letter which he had that morning received from Mr. Twiss, which he owed it to himself and to the House, which always felt concerned in the honour of its Members with respect to any statements which they might make, to read. The letter bore the postmark of the Castleconnell post, and was dated June 6, 1841. It was as follows:

" My dear Sir,—I read with great pleasure the speech you made in the House of Commons on the night of the 3d of June inst., in which you truly stated that my celebrated countryman, Daniel O'Connell, in April, 1838, distrained on his tenants for the rent due the month before. This I have reason to know is the strict truth, as I heard it at the time from the distrainers and the distrained parties. I was on a visit at the time with my old friend James Butler, who lives within four miles of Derrynane. I deem it right, in justice to your good intentions of supporting the credit of the Conservative landlords, to put you in possession of this fact, and you are at liberty to make whatever use you may think fit of this communication. With every sentiment of respect,

" I remain, my dear Sir, yours most sincerely ROBERT TWISS."

" Castleconnell, June 6."

He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) thought that this letter fully justified him in the statement he had made. Mr. Twiss he had not seen for six years before the time he came to his study. Here, then, were the name and address of the party on whose authority the statement was made. But it might be said also to rest on the authority of Mr. James Butler, a gentleman of the highest respectability and the strictest honour, one who resided within four miles of Derrynane. He believed, also, that he was a relation of the hon. Member for Dublin, at least he had heard the hon. Member boast of the relationship; but whether it was so or not, the hon. and learned Member knew best. He had already said he found the memorandum. It was to this effect:—" Dis. by O'Connell in April, for rent due 25th of March, 1838." Looking at these circumstances, he felt sure the House would consider him fully justified in what he had stated.— [Cheers.]

said, he admired that cheer much. If ever there was an instance stronger than another of the injustice of making a personal charge on any Member without giving him notice, the present was the one. The hon. and learned Member for Bandon first made this charge against him without any previous intimation, and set it forth without giving the Christian name or the address of his informant, or even the year when those distraints were said to have been made. Was that fair or candid? Would any gentleman opposite have considered himself fairly treated in having a charge so brought against him? It was his (Mr. O'Connell's) case to-day; it might be that of any other Member to-morrow. His friend Mr. James Butler, than whom a more excellent man did not exist, had been now quoted as an indirect testimony in support of the charge against him; but had any one presumed to state that he had mentioned any thing of the sort? There was no man for whom he had a higher respect or regard than for Mr. Butler, though no two men differed more in their religious and political opinions. It was said, also, that the statement was made on the authority of the distrainers and the distrained. He said it was totally false—there was not a word of truth in it. It could not have possibly happened at the time, without his knowing something of it since, and if the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had given him notice of his intention to bring the charge, he would have refuted it on the instant. But who was this Mr. Robert Twiss, on whose authority the charge rested? He had been a magistrate, but was not now in the commission of the peace.

intimated his belief that Mr. Twiss was still in the commission.

said, it was not so. Mr. Twiss had had many misfortunes in the world. He had been a bankrupt, and had been discharged under the Insolvent Act. But he would not dwell on that. Mr. Twiss's name, however, had been notorious for his want of strict, adherence to truth. In fact, for more than twenty years he had been known in the county of Kerry as "Lying Bobby Twiss." As to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Bandon, that he had boasted of his relationship to Mr. James Butler, he would say that he should proudly boast of it if it were the fact; but it was not, and it was not true that he had ever boasted of it, so that the statement was doubly untrue. But again let him ask the House, was it fair to get up charges of this nature, and in this manner, against any man? It would seem as if the hon. and learned Sergeant had kept an office in Dublin for the purpose of registering such, or he would never have made a charge on such authority; but he repeated the whole was false.

said, with reference to the statement that he kept an office in Dublin for the purpose of registering such charges, nothing could be further from the truth. He could not prevent a gentleman from calling on him in his study and making the statement he did. As to the complaint that he had not given him notice of this charge, he would say, that he could not have anticipated that the hon. and learned Gentleman was about to make an attack on the landlords of Ireland.

wished to know from the hon. Member the Under Secretary for the Home Department whether the Government had taken any steps to prevent clerks of justices of the peace in Scotland, (particularly in Scotland we understood) from acting as political agents in election contests? The practice was most unfair. He was aware that Government had shown its disapprobation of it, but he wanted to know whether it had issued any further orders on the matter?

said the Government had no power to make any further orders with respect to it. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had intimated to the parties that the practice of clerks of the justice acting as political agents was wrong, and that, like the clerks to the sheriffs, they ought not to take any part as political agents. Some of them had acted on the intimation, but others had refused to do so. Government had not the power to make any order on the subject.

opposed the motion. The Bill was an interference with a humble class of traders. He was glad to see his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House. If his right hon. Friend would consent to allow an ass to be used [laughter], it might seem very ludicrous to the House to name the animal; it might perhaps be more agreeable to right hon. Gentlemen if he called the animal by the name of donkey. What he meant to say was, that if an ass were allowed to be used with the same license as was paid for using a dog, it would tend materially to lessen the number of dog carts, at least by one-tenth, throughout the country. He would conclude by moving that the Bill be committed this day six months.

seconded the motion, because he was satisfied that it was a waste of the time of the House to legislate on such trivial mutters. Last year it had been attempted to excite a feeling on the subject by appealing to their humanity, and stating that the dog was not proper for a beast of draught, surely those who had made such a statement must have forgotten the Kamschatka dogs. The object of the measure was to prevent persons possessed of small means and in humble life, who could not afford to employ other animals, from doing their best to gain a livelihood. If the reason for putting down these carts was that dogs were small animals and liable to throw down horses, then they ought to graduate the dimensions of all animals suffered to draw in the streets, and to prohibit Shetland ponies.

said, that having the honour to be one of the persons whose names were on the back of this bill, he would just shortly reply to the objections of the hon. mover and seconder of the amendment, that the more straightforward course for getting rid of this bill would be, by moving that so much of the Metropolitan Police Act as relates to the use of dogs in drawing carts and other vehicles be repealed. He could not see why the dogs in the country should be treated worse than the dogs of London. The hon. Member for Bridport had spoken of the dogs of Kamschatka, but he might have come still nearer home, for dogs were used as beasts of draught in Lapland and in Holland. But in Lapland and Kamschatka they ran over snow, and in Holland upon sand; therefore they did not suffer in the same way as in this country. He supposed, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, did not attach less importance to humanity now, than when he supported the measure which applied to the metropolis; and therefore he expected he would vote for this bill.

said, that he had been a Member of the committee before which the evidence was taken which led to the proposal of this bill. Upon the evidence adduced before that committee he would not give it his support. If the question were one of humanity, why should donkeys be allowed to be ridden? He believed there were no animals who were worse used than donkeys, and if the question were put on the ground of humanity, the bill should be applied to them. There was no doubt any animals might be abused, but that was no reason why they should never be employed. There were laws already in existence to punish cruelty to animals, and he thought it better to leave the dogs to the protection of those laws. Every one might see that dogs drew carts with the greatest pleasure, at least they seemed to have a great desire to do so. He thought the House should not legislate upon matters which it would be much better to leave to the good sense and humane feelings of the community.

replied. He had introduced the bill for the purpose of supposing those cruelties to dogs which took place no less in the country than in town. It should always be remembered, that the feet of dogs were not protected by nature so as to enable them to bear heavy weights. The bill was extremely simple, following closely the provisions of the Metropolitan Act, but extending it to the country. The dogcart nuisance was not only offensive to humanity, but was oftentimes productive of serious consequences. Only within the last few months the Lynn coach had been overturned by a dogcart, and much mischief was the result. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the bill to be proceeded with.

said, that by that clause, it' a child were riding upon a Newfoundland dog in a private garden, a constable might enter the garden, take the parties before a sitting magistrate, and have them convicted in the penalties of the Act.

thought such legislation was wholly unworthy of the House.

said, the bill was confined to high roads, and the hon. Member had put a forced construction on the clause.

proposed, that it should be omitted altogether.

said, that a policeman had no power to take up a person guilty of an assault without a warrant, but in the graver offence of employing a dog to draw a cart, it appeared that he was to have the power. He complained of this great legislative enactment, that it was imperfect, inasmuch as it made no provision for the objects of its peculiar care. When they had taken up the man, what did they propose to do with the dog? He was deprived of his only natural protector, and did they intend to leave him to the wide world, without any food but such as he could get by chance without attacking some unfortunate passenger. A bill was brought in by a worthy Alderman some years since, for the prevention of hydrophobia, which had been treated with great ridicule by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. One clause of that bill empowered a constable to take up any mad dog. In consequence of various imperfections that bill was referred to a Select Committee, the Members of which had, he supposed, been chosen for their names. These were Mr. Lamb, Mr. Fox, and himself(Mr."Bull"er)—who was at the time a very young Member. That committee, however, had elicited some most important medical testimony, from which it appeared, that hydrophobia was one of the rarest diseases known, and that it never originated spontaneously, but was always the consequence of absolute contagion. The hon. Member for Shoreham supported the measure on the ground of humanity to bad riders, as dogcarts made horses shy, and unhorsed gentlemen who were not very firm in their saddles; but if they were to legislate for the safety of gentlemen who could not ride well, they ought to go further. Many horses shyed at a wheelbarrow—and he never knew a horse who would pass a knife-grinder's wheel without shying. Therefore, if they wished to carry out the Legislative foresight for gentlemen who could not ride well to the full, they ought to follow up this great measure, by a bill against knife grinders' wheels and wheelbarrows.

moved, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to address her Majesty on the subject of the Danish Claims.

said, it was undoubtedly true that a resolution had been adopted by the House for an address to the Crown on the subject of these claims, the amount of which was somewhere about 270,000l. He was sure it would be gratifying to the House to afford relief to any persons who had sustained loss, but he did not think they ought to vote away so large a sum of the public money without taking into consideration the circumstances under which these claims were made. On the present occasion, he felt, that the amount was of very little importance, compared to the principle involved in it. The House was no doubt aware of the general nature of these claims. On two occasions lately it had been discussed in that House. It appeared to him, that the arguments did not embrace the entire principle. The compensation asked on the present occasion, was compensation for the loss of certain ships and goods, which were seized by the Danish Government in 1807, in consequence of the attack that had been made on Copenhagen by this country. About thirty years subse- quent to the seizures, was the first time an application was made to the House of Commons on the subject. The first application was made for compensation for the loss sustained by certain individuals for the confiscation of debts which had been owing by Danish subjects to the subjects of that country, and which had been confiscated in consequence of the events to which he had alluded. Subsequently there was a compensation demanded for goods on shore, which had been seized by the Danish Government. A discussion took place, and it appeared to the House, that they ought, with propriety, to sanction those claims of compensation. The ground on which these claims were urged by Sir James Mackintosh, were very general, but they were to the effect, that the goods seized, and the debts confiscated, were seized and confiscated contrary to the law of nations, and that where the Government did not enforce redress, they were bound to make good the claims of their own subjects. That point was discussed more than once, and undoubtedly it did seem, that the principle which had been laid down and acted upon was, that if the government of the people suffering the injustice did not think it right to enforce compensation from the offending Government, the burthen was transferred to the Government to which the party belonged. The concession of those claims gave rise to an application, in the year 1834 or 1836, on behalf of the owners of ships and goods which had been seized afloat, and encouraged by the success of the previous application, petitions were presented on behalf of this claim. Various statements had been made to the House in relation to the facts, on a former occasion, when the subject of the claim was brought before the House, when it was negatived. It had since been advocated by several hon. Members. Although the principle he had referred to was adopted by the House in relation to debts and goods on shore, no such authority was applicable to the present question, because it stood on a different footing, and involved a principle which was totally different. He would call the attention of the House to a distinct statement of the facts, as many speeches had been made in that House on the subject, which varied somewhat as to the true statement respecting the origin of these claims. It would be material for the House to attend to the state of relations existing between this country and Denmark at the time of the seizure of the ships and goods. On the 27th of July 1807, the English fleet sailed from this country with sealed orders, and arrived early in August in the Great Belt, and cut off all communication between Zealand and the continent. From the 3d of August negociations were prosecuted by Mr. Jackson, seeking for the surrender of the Danish fleet, for the security of this country. Upon the 16th of August—a most important date—the Danish Government issued a proclamation, stating that the English Envoy had on the 13th declared that hostilities would commence, and therefore, that the two countries were at war; and then gave orders for the seizure and detention of British property. Now, as Very much had been said on every occasion, on the subject of want of notice of caution on the part of those in possession of the ships and goods which were ultimately seized by the Danish government, and for which compensation was claimed, he wished to impress upon the House the circumstances which occurred at this date, the 16th, long before the seizure of the property. A proclamation was issued by the Danish government, stating, that the two countries were at war of the same date. Admiral Gambier published a document explaining the objects of the expedition, seeking the possession of the Danish fleet, and threatening capture in case of refusal. On the 24th, the Danish government issued a further manifesto, and on the 25th of August, the Admiral, who was the officer of this country, issued an order for the detention of the Danish vessels. On the 2nd of September, the bombardment of Copenhagen took place, and on the same day there was an order in council issued for the seizure of Danish ships. On the 23d of September, a manifesto was issued by Great Britain, and on the 4th of November, there was a declaration of war. Now, in the course of the discussion which had taken place on this subject, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had protested against being supposed to sanction the claim. The matter was referred to a committee, in order to ascertain the facts connected with the claims; and a report was ultimately obtained in July last upon these facts. That report gave the dates on which the seizures had been made, He had called the attention of that House to the date of the 16th of August. One vessel was seized on the 23d of August, and four on the 25th. In the month of September, there were five. The whole of the remainder were seized at a later period, extending through September, October, and November, and the claim to which he had referred embraced the whole of those captures down to the month of December. Now what was the ground upon which the House was justified in imposing a burthen exceeding a quarter of a million on the public in respect of these captures? However much it might be lamented that public events should inflict loss upon individuals, it was not a received principle that taxes should be imposed, and that compensation should be paid by the public to individuals who unfortunately suffered from the operations of war. It required something more than that an enemy should have seized the property of individuals to warrant the House in voting public money to relieve the sufferers. If these vessels had been seized according to the laws war as observed amongst civilized nations, on what ground could the House distinguish the Danish claims from the claim of the immense class of ruined persons who had suffered from the seizures of France, Russia, and other nations? It was most material to see whether there was any real ground of distinction. He had cautiously attended to the grounds urged at various times in order to induce the House to vote the public money. First of all, it had been stated, that these individuals had a claim to compensation, because they had no notice of the intention of this country to commence hostilities with Denmark; that they embarked upon their voyage, and remained in the Baltic in full confidence that the amicable relations between this country and Denmark were not likely to be disturbed. He presumed that something more must be shown than that the Government did not give notice to the merchants of this country when they were about to commence hostile operations or to commit a hostile act, or to commence a war against another power. Whoever attended to the circumstances attending the seizure of the Danish fleet would perceive that the slightest previous intimation of the intention of the Government, if it had not totally defeated the immensely important subject which was gained by the seizure of the Danish fleet, would at least bare added very greatly to the difficulty of the enterprise. It was impossible, consist-tent with public duty, and with public policy, that the Government could have been justified in giving such information. No notice, therefore was given prior to the sailing of the fleet, except what was afforded by those public acts to which he had referred. He presumed that when the British fleet appeared off Copenhagen, and occupied the station which it did, no man in his senses would draw any other inference than that it was extremely probable that hostilities would take place. The vessels did not arrive there certainly with any view to preserve peace in any sense which could induce persons to suppose that peace was secure. But this fleet arriving there at the date he had mentioned—on the 3d of August—these vessels continued there. He would not say that by such conduct they had acted imprudently. While the fleet was there, he would not deny but that they were safe enough; but where they traced the course of events, and found these vessels remaining after the English fleet had left the Baltic, taking with them the Danish fleet and stores, no one could contend but that they had had abundant information given to them, sufficient to put any prudent person upon their guard? He begged the House to notice what the principle was on which this compensation was claimed—and to what that principle would lead. If that country found it necessary, on a sudden emergency to make an attack on a Foreign Power, and the Foreign Power should seize on British property—thus circumstanced, would that make a claim for compensation. He beseeched the House to look to the public consequences to which such a principle must lead. He, therefore, thought the argument that they had not had sufficient intimation was one which was not applicable in the present instance. But it was said the House ought to consider the peculiar circumstances under which that fleet had gone to Denmark. As far as he could gather them the circumstances were these. The Government of the day having no doubt, obtained secret information of the fact, understood that the Danish Government had agreed to give Buonaparte the use of their fleet to serve against this country. In fact there was a secret article to that effect in the Treaty of Tilsit. The British Government having obtained information of that fact, acted in anticipation of the secret article. They found the Danish Government was a weak Govern- ment compared with the French, and knew that they had agreed to aid the French against this country by the loan of the Danish fleet, and undoubtedly, and he thought rightly, before that secret article could be acted on, the Government thought it right to save this country from the dangerous position in which it would be placed by the execution of that secret article of the treaty by sending to Denmark and seizing the fleet. If a weak man possessed an instrument capable of destroying you, and a strong man, your enemy, had induced the weak man to lend him that instrument, and you knew it before hand, who would hesitate to arrest that weapon from his hand? It was not possible to discuss such a question on narrow grounds. But he did not apprehend that the propriety or impropriety of that war had anything to do with the legal part of the question. They were not to decide on claims for compensation by looking back to the history of the justice or the injustice of the war. That question was to be decided on other principles. He knew that some persons considered the seizure of the Danish fleet an act of great aggression, but it would be a most unfortunate result for the country if they should lay it down as a principle that because in the opinion of a certain portion of the community hostilities were unjustifiable, that therefore parties thus situated should be entitled to compensation. Allusion had been made to a conversation stated to have taken place between Admiral Gambier ] and certain persons interested in these claims at the time the fleet were in the Baltic. It had been stated, that two persons asked the Admiral if they might not safely go up the Baltic, and that the Admiral had told them they might. Now that conversation had been mentioned thirty years after it was stated to have taken place, when Admiral Gambier was dead, and when the only witnesses to it were the persons interested in making the claims. He thought no one could doubt that such evidence was not sufficient to warrant them in coming to a decision on the subject, more especially when they had no knowledge of the dates when, or the circumstances under which such conversations took place. He knew that the Government had caused search to be made among the public documents, in order to discover if any could be discovered to justify the opinion that the Government of the day had misled the merchants, but no such document could be found. He would, therefore, say, that neither the recent or previous motion, nor the justice or injustice of the war, formed any ground for granting compensation in the present instance. The next ground alleged was, that the English fleet was in the Baltic for a certain time, and had left it without protection. Now he (the Solicitor-general) presumed that those who were there were not in a situation in which facts so notorious and open to the public as the British fleet being in the Baltic and having the whole Danish fleet in its possession were not known to them. The very fact of its leaving the Baltic was too notorious for such a state of things, and the state of affairs was such that no individual could be without some knowledge of them, and ought not to have suffered, property and goods to remain in those ships under an idea that circumstances would alter the position in which they were then placed, and that protection would be afforded them. Was it a ground for composition if any department of the Government of the day had left that or any part of the world without protection, whereby the property of individuals was hostilely seized? Was that a ground upon which the House could vote public money by way of compensation. Blame might be passed on such a Government for this neglect, but he did not recollect ever to have heard or read that, because protection had not been afforded in some parts of the world that those who had suffered by the neglect were to receive a compensation by a vote of that House. The complaint that protection had not been afforded had been repeatedly made and brought before the House; but he believed it had never been followed up by a vote of public money for compensation. Another ground urged was, that if the House thought fit to grant compensation for the loss sustained by the confiscation of the debts and goods ashore that it ought, therefore, to do equal justice and to extend compensation to ships and goods afloat. He believed that the House was induced to vote such compensation upon very distinct principles, On a public principle, not taken up for the occasion, but one that was supported by the books and authorities. After compensation had been afforded to those who had sustained losses in respect to what he had adverted, it was urged, on the part of the present claimants, that those individuals had no just claim. If it was true that the confiscation of goods on shore was contrary to the law of nations—if that was true, said they, you granted compensation when the principle was not called for, for when you made your treaty with Denmark you made it to the effect that debts should not be recoverable, notwithstanding compensation; but that statement was never made to the House till long after the compensation was granted by the House. The House granted the compensation on the grounds he had stated, and it was urged by Sir James Mackintosh in the first instance, and that argument was afterwards granted by other hon. Members that the country had stipulated for the redress. Now, if that argument was well founded, the subsequent stipulation overrode the original claim. In that instance the House, in allowing compensation acted upon a distinct ground, but then it was stated, that though the House had granted compensation, and though the country had stipulated for the redress, that it could not be maintained, and it was subsequently stated that the subjects of this country did not desire it. He knew not how that might be, but he knew that many had applied for it. He repeated that the House had never sanctioned the principle on which the present claim was founded, and that the former claim had been granted on entirely different grounds. There was another fact which had been stated, and he apprehended it was one which had made a considerable impression on the House, and probably went far in inducing it to be acceded to the late motion upon the subject; it was this, that this country at the time had seized Danish property to a very great amount; and it was said that as we had, possessed ourselves of property amounting to upwards of one million sterling, the petitioners who had suffered by the acts of hostilities ought to be compensated out of that fund. That argument appeared plausible enough, but it rested upon precisely the same grounds as the claim which the subjects of a country might make for their losses they had sustained from an enemy, while they sought to be indemnified out of the property which the country had got as the fruits of the war. It did not appear to him that the proximity in point of date of the seizure of the Danish to the seizure of the British property in any respect affected the principle. It was no just ground of compensation that that country, in the course of its hostilities with another, acquired property of great value, that certainly was no ground for putting forward a claim for compensation. Such a principle would lead to very extensive consequences, and very great embarrassment. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Althorp) said, that these claims not having been made for thirty years afterwards, the fund had been long since exhausted, or if not, that a very small and insignificant sum remained available. Let not the House act upon the presumption that that country had had the benefit of a large surplus amount of property taken from the Danish nation beyond the payments appropriated to the subject. From his inquiries on the matter in order to ascertain what was his duty with respect to these claims, he had learned that no such fund now existed, and it would be a gross injustice to vote away the public money under the erroneous impression that such a fund was available. He believed he had stated the various arguments that had been urged in the discussions that had taken place on the subject. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to some authorities which he said sanctioned these payments. If his hon. and learned Friend thought there were any such authorities, let him point them out, for he had not been able to ascertain that such claims as the present were anywhere mentioned by the law of nations. If the Danish Government, in seizing the goods and ships, were in the course of legitimate warfare—if they committed that infraction according to the laws and rules by which the civilized nations conducted their warfare, then what was there in that case whereby, according to general principles, the sufferers were entitled to compensation at the public expense for losses sustained in the course of legitimate warfare. Nobody had ever attempted to deny that the warfare was legitimate on the part of the Danes. He heard the echo of the word legitimate. Probably an impression existed in the quarter from which that sound emanated that the warfare could not be legitimate on the part of the Danes, if that warfare was induced by a wrongful act on the part of our Government. The question was, had the Danes, in seizing the property, committed any act by which the claim of those who suffered was justified. Many persons differed as to the propriety of the act of this Government in commencing hostilities, but nobody had denied that the Danes were justified, if they thought fit, in seizing the property of the subjects of this country. It was of great importance when that House voted large sums of money as compensation to persons standing in a situation analogous to that of the present petitioners, that the act should be intelligible on general principles. The House should not, in its votes, give rise to the probability of an opinion arising, that it was influenced by favour to this or that class of persons. The vote should be given on broad intelligible public principles. He was satisfied that if that came to be distinctly stated, his hon. Friend, who advocated the cause of those petitioners, would perceive that there was no just foundation for those claims. He therefore, had called the attention of the House to the facts, out of which those claims arose, and he certainly failed to discover any ground upon which this House would vote compensation in the present instance, which could not be advanced by any set of persons who might suffer by war. He did not think that those claimants suffered as much as the persons from whom Russia had made its immense seizure. He did not think it would be difficult to prove that the claims of those who suffered by the Russian seizure stood higher than the present claims. For it was more than doubtful that the Russians acted according to the laws of war when they seized the property he alluded to. He trusted the House would address its attention to those general public powers on which the claims of compensation was made, and say whether it was one which they could impartially and honestly grant. He would be the last man to stand in the way of compensation, if those individuals could sustain a well-founded claim. He thought no such grounds existed, and he hoped that the House would perceive that the first resolution adopted with respect to the claim, whereby it was rejected, was a fitting one; and that the last arose from some such cause, or the eloquence of the gentleman who advocated the claim. As there were no fresh grounds for sustaining the claim, he hoped the House would oppose going into committee on the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment, that the House would resolve itself into a committee on that day three months.

wished to say a few words on this question. He considered the frequent discussions of this question and the votes to which the House had previously come respecting it, was a sufficient justification for the present motion—for the House had already passed three subsequent votes on this subject, not in previous Parliaments, but during the existence of the present House of Commons. Without recurring to any previous knowledge of the proceedings he considered he was at least bound to support the votes he had given. After the House had gone this length it was for the Government to consider whether there were any circumstances such as would not warrant them to take those steps which could carry the votes of the House into effect. As on those former occasions he had voted with the majority he should vote with his learned Friend on the present occasion. He was well aware of the distinction the hon. and learned Solicitor-general had drawn between these claims, as related to one part of the property concerned and those which related to the other part. If he rightly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman he admitted that the former claims rested on this ground, that the Danes in confiscating this property had exceeded the law of nations. He was perfectly well aware of the peculiar relations between England and Denmark, at the breaking out of the war in the year 1807. That principle if fairly applied to other cases left this case an exception. With regard to the time he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was valid, for the other claims that were satisfied were not brought forward until thirty years after they had accrued. It depended entirely upon the circumstances under which that war commenced, and he must be allowed to observe that this being established all that had been said about the danger of introducing bad precedents was set aside. It would appear that on that occasion the Danish government had thought it right to exercise what in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was a legitimate right, and they appeared to have exercised it with every wish to maintain pacific relations with us. We had showed our specific intentions by the armament we had sent out so as to take away from the Danes all excuse for resistance. It appeared that no embargo was made in this country till long after the squadron was withdrawn, and the merchants might have presumed that negotiations in the presence of so large a squadron would have had a peaceable effect, or at least have sufficed for their protection. These circumstances justified his hon. Friend in bringing forward the sub- ject. There were great peculiarities in this case—peculiarities so great as to render persons concerned entitled to indemnity, to which, under other circumstances, they would not be entitled. If it were not for these extreme peculiarities, he should be one of the first to recognise the danger of acceding to these claims; but he felt that he was justified in giving his vote for this motion. Whatever might be their ulterior proceedings, he thought the House was bound to follow up the votes they had already given.

Sir, this subject has been so often before the House) and so well argued by both parties, that I really do not consider that much time ought now to be occupied with it. I cannot but express toy regret, that the learned Solicitor-general did not favour us on a former occasion with his views on this subject, that we mighty in the first instance, hare had the benefit of his learning and research, and an opportunity of looking into those facts to which he has alluded, although I must say I have not been able to discover any novelty nor much discrimination in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has addressed to the House. It is now nearly twenty years since I first took part in these discussions. On the first class the justice of the claim was still more manifest, but the game arguments which have been used by the learned Solicitor-general were urged against the first class. The House of Commons, however, decided in favour of the claim. The same arguments were adduced against the second class; and yet the House of Commons agreed to the vote. The same arguments have been brought against the third class; the matter has Undergone considerable discussion, and three votes' have been taken upon it. Sir, I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have attempted to induce the House not to accede to this motion, by stating that the funds received from Denmark are now exhausted. We know full Well that 1,200,000l., dame into the British Exchequer, and of this sum not more than 600,000l. has been paid. The interest alone would have doubled that amount. From the circumstance that the hon. and learned Gentleman has resorted to that threadbare argument, I infer that he is conscious that he has no other to urge. Let Bs not forget the circumstance which attended the commencement of the war. The right bon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his predecessors in office, have contended that by admitting this claim you would be establishing a dangerous precedent. The war against Denmark was commenced in the most atrocious manner. Nothing but overpowering fear on the part of the British Government could have dictated it? Political feelings we have nothing to do with. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that when the Government had undertaken an expedition which they supposed to be necessary for the interest of Great Britain, it would have been improper to answer inquiries—" Are we going to war or not? May we trade or may we not?" If the Government had given such information they would undoubtedly have risked the success of the expedition. I do think that the circumstances which have been mentioned by the Solicitor-general, place the claimants, in this case, in a peculiar position, and make it almost impossible any similar case should occur. Considering what Parliament has already done, the long and elaborate discussion which has taken place, remarking that with reference to dates and facts the Opposition had been found defective; for although I do not recollect the whole of the dates alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think the hon. Baronet who has spoken, stated very correctly that many, if not all of the seizures were made at a time when British subjects had a right to expect security. Under all these circumstances', I must say that it would only be an act of justice to these individuals who have suffered for so many years, that we should at last compensate them as far as we can for the losses to which they have been subjected. I hold them to be entitled to receive both the principal and the interest, but as the principal only is concerned, let us grant one part of the justice to which they are entitled. At any rate, I shall certainly vote, as I have done before, for going into committee, in order that justice may be obtained by these individuals.

said, he was rather disposed to consent to the appointment of the committee than to divide the House on the question. He was determined that the matter should come fairly before the House. The parties had before stated, that they did not go for the money, but for the principle. It was now made a question of actual money. He did not think he need discuss the question at length as it bad been exhausted by the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-general, who had, he should say, completely demolished the case of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool. He must complain that he had not on a former occasion been treated with courtesy by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had applied to him when the question came last under the consideration of the House to defer the discussion in the absence of his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor general, considering that the debate could not well be conducted without them, the one of them being absent from business, and the other from illness; but the hon. and learned Gentleman refused to accede to the request, and he thought he had a right to complain of that. He would not, however, oppose the motion for going into committee, but he would take the opportunity of stating his views on the bringing up of the Report.

was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had complained of his want of personal courtesy towards him in a former debate.

Yes, personal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the date:

said, that on the occasion of the last debate, on his asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone it, in the absence of the law officers of the Crown, the hon. and learned Gentleman told him that he would not, and that he thought he was justified in not granting the request. He had, accordingly brought forward the question, which left him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) under the inconvenience of answering, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friends.

said, that he had not the slightest recollection of the occurrence; but if it had taken place, he thought he was perfectly justified in taking such a course, because the subject had been argued on two occasions before. It had been argued under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor by the Attorney and Solicitor general; and he had himself at that moment a note of the arguments they had used. He could not therefore, understand why he should have been called on to put off a motion of the kind from day to day, and from night to night, while a number of persons, who had entrusted him with their case, were looking for justice. If, therefore, he had acted as was said, he was justified in doing so. But after the House had twice affirmed the principle of the motion, and when increasing majorities had declared in favour of its principle, he should say the right hon. Gentleman had no reason to expect that he (Mr. Creswell) should postpone its consideration in the absence of the law officers of the Crown. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman would not oppose the motion for going into committee, he would not allude further to the matter.

distinctly recollected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in the former debate, that he was placed in a very inconvenient situation by the absence of his two hon. and learned Friends, and that another occasion for the discussion would be more convenient to himself; but he had not put it as a matter of personal favour to the hon, and learned Gentleman, who said, that as the matter had not been argued before, he would not consent to the request.

said, that it appeared to him that his right hon. Friend bore too hard upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, because his right hon. Friend must be aware that it was his duty, as guardian of the public purse, to make the best defence which he could, while the hon. and learned Gentleman was equally justified in injuring his case. He had, on more than one occasion, voted against the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not see anything in his conduct which he could not applaud.

said, that as the committee was conceded, he would not occupy the time of the House with any discussion of the question.

thought the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by far the most convenient one, since, before coming to a final decision, it would be well to have a discussion, in which the force of the arguments addressed to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general might be considered.

objected to a clause which had been added on the recommitment of the bill, which suggested the existence of doubts as to the individuals in whom the estates of charitable trusts were legally vested. By the English Reform Act they were distinctly vested in the corporations. The name of the Attorney-general was endorsed on this bill; and he charged the hon. and learned Gentleman with endeavouring, by a side wind, to effect an object which was not within the purview of the bill. He begged to move the omission of the clause.

considered that the clause to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected was a satisfactory one, and ought to be retained. It appeared that his right hon. Friend did not oppose the clause itself, but objected to the mode in which it had been introduced. The bill before the House related to charity trusts estates. The question was, whether the provision which was now opposed came within the scope of the bill, or was introduced clandestinely. The hon. Member knew that the clause was to be introduced. The bill was repeatedly printed. Ample opportunity was afforded the right hon. Member, if he had been disposed, to offer any opposition to the clause. He would explain shortly to the House the purport of the clause. When the Municipal Corporation Bill was under discussion it was thought expedient to retain what was termed the legal estates in the members of the old corporation up to a certain period, but no provision was made what should be done after that day. The period had elapsed, and nothing had been done. It was time that Parliament should legislate on the subject. It was stated by his right hon. Friend, that he doubted in whom the legal estates were now vested; but he (the At- torney-general) entertained considerable doubts on that point. Many eminent lawyers, including the Lord Chancellor, agreed in these doubts. He considered the clause highly beneficial, and hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his opposition to it.

thought that the clause did not come within the general scope of the bill, and ought to form the subject of a distinct measure. That was the first time the clause had come under the notice of the House, and he hoped the motion of his right hon. and learned friend would be acceded to.

denied that the clause had been introduced without due notice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had ample opportunity afforded him to make himself acquainted with the nature of the clause. The clause was of great importance. He had received several petitions from Bristol and Bridgewater, calling his attention to the difficulties which this clause was intended to obviate. The subject was also mentioned to him by several gentlemen of great legal attainments and experience connected with the Court of Chancery, who all approved of the propriety and necessity of a clause of that kind. He repudiated the charge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the clause was smuggled into the bill. He thought that, under the circumstances of the case, he and others, who supported the bill, were not open to such an imputation. The bill was one in which he took a great interest, and, considering it would have a most beneficial tendency, he hoped the House would reject the amendment, and allow the bill to be read a third time.

moved, that a sum not exceeding 166,230l. be granted to her Majesty, to defray the charge of the embodied militia of Great Britain and Ireland for the year 1841–42.

said, that, under the circumstances of the House, he should not oppose the vote, but he considered this expense altogether useless, and hoped that in a new Parliament it might be saved.

moved the following grants to her Majesty: — 6,200,000l. from the consolidated fund; 47,308l. 18s. surplus of grants of former years; 500,000l. transfer of aids.

complained that the Government had not kept good faith in bringing forward these bills, when it was distinctly understood from the declaration of the noble Lord (J. Russell) that no bill that was likely to be opposed should be proceeded with. The hon. Baronet alluded particularly to the Charitable Trusts Bill, to support which several Members of the Government had come down that evening, although it was known that his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ripon, (Sir E. Sugden), and other hon. Members on that (the opposition) side of the House, entertained strong objections to many of its provisions.

said, that Ministers had not attempted to proceed with any one of their own measures to which objection was likely to be urged, but that with regard to the bill to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, it was not a Government measure, but had been introduced by an hon. and learned friend behind him (Mr. J. Stewart.) The Government were no parties to it, and any two Members of the Government might have voted opposite ways upon it.

said, the present bill was not a Government measure, and he understood there was no opposition to it.

complained of the disposition manifested by the Members of her Majesty's Government to hurry over measures at inconvenient hours, and he thought that his right hon. Friend had done no more than his duty in calling the attention of the House to such humbug. Ministers went about amusing themselves, instead of attending to the business of the country. A more idle and deceitful set of men were never allowed to fill such important offices, but he was resolved to follow them, and nothing should deter him from that which he believed to be his duty.

said, that he should not take any notice of the observations which the House had just heard; they were below contempt. [Order, order.] He had been willing to go on with the Bribery Bill, but after the notice given by his noble Friend it was impossible.

having left the House,

said, he could not help apprehending some unpleasant consequences from the words which had dropped from the hon. Gentleman opposite, and from what had been stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just left the House—[cries of "oh, oh."] Some hon. Gentlemen might, perhaps, treat the matter with ridicule, but he (Mr. Wynn) certainly did not consider it so lightly, and he, therefore, moved that the hon. Mem- ber for Lincoln be directed to attend the House.

did not object to the motion, that the report on the Houses of Industry, &c. Bill be then received.

appeared at the Bar, saying that he had served the order of the House upon Colonel Sibthorp.

inquired where?

In the passage leading to the House of Commons.

Do you know where the hon. Member now is?

In one of the committee-rooms of the House, I believe.

then left the House, and speedily returned, accompanied by Colonel Sibthorp.

stated, that the House having been informed that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln bad taken offence at an expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for Elgin, he felt called upon to state, that the expression had not escaped him; and that he had called the hon. Member to order at the time; and the hon. Member having recommenced his speech, without the words which had given offence to the hon. and gallant officer, he had considered that those words had, in fact, been retracted, Understanding, however, that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was not satisfied that such was the case, it now became his duty to call upon the hon. Member to retract an expression which had given offence to another hon. Member.

stated, that he certainly meant to mark, as strongly as he could, his opinion of the language of the hon. Member, to the Members of the Government and his hon. Friends around him; but if, in so doing, he had exceeded the limits of Parliamentary language, he felt bound at once to modify his expressions within those limits.

said, in the course which he had taken, he was influenced by only one motive. He considered that he had a right to express his opinion with regard to the conduct of public men. He left the House as he always would do upon such an occasion; and, although he was ready to bow to the authority of the Chair, he must say, that the guardianship over his honour, and his character as a public and private man, should never prevent him from protecting that honour and that character, in the manner most consistent with his own feelings, and with his duty to the public. If he understood rightly, the hon. Gentleman had retracted the. expression which he had made use of. If so, he (Colonel Sibthorp) was perfectly satisfied. But he thought he had a right to put it to the Chair, whether the words and imputations of the right hon. Gentleman had been wholly and entirely retracted.

did not entertain the least doubt on the subject.

submitted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the expression had been amply retracted, and that the hon. Gentleman opposite had made every fair concession. He trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman would allow him (Sir R. Peel) to act as moderator, and that no fresh explanation would be called for.

said, that as that seemed to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen who were most careful of the preservation of their honour, he should rest satisfied.

was glad to hear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was satisfied. But he heard the hon. and gallant Member say—

said, the hon. Member would see that the affair bad been concluded, and that it would be inexpedient to renew the subject.

moved, that the bill be recommitted. He took up the subject in the absence of his hon; Friend, the Member for Warwick, The subject had not been sufficiently explained, and he thought that time ought to be given for the introduction of fresh clauses.

was opposed to any unnecessary delay, and hoped that the proposition for recommittal would not then be pressed.

moved, that it be an instruction to the committee to give compensation to the clerks of the justices of the peace for the borough of Manchester.

opposed the motion. There had been no petition in favour of any such proposition, and it was deprecated by all parties in Manchester.

moved, that the provisions of the bill be extended to Bolton.

opposed the motion, on the ground, that the charter of Bolton was in dispute.

supported the motion, as it did not affect the point in dispute.

thought this an improper time to bring forward the motion.—Motion negatived.

moved, that a clause be brought up, to allow compensation to the clerks of the justices of the peace of the borough of Birmingham.

opposed the motion. There was no proof before the House that the ratepayers of Birmingham, who would be saddled with the expense, had had any notice of the matter.

moved the further consideration of the report on the Administration of Justice (No. 1.) Bill.

had expected that this bill would not come on again at so late a period of the Session, especially as it might have been passed long ago; nor did he consider that any inconvenience would accrue from letting it stand over to the next Session. It would seem, indeed, that the legislation on this measure had been resumed at distant intervals, for the purpose of prolonging the existence of the Administration; still he would not oppose the passing of the bill now, if the Government would adopt certain modifications which he meant to propose. He did expect, that after the vote upon the question of want of confidence the other night, the noble Lord would not have thought it desirable to pursue this measure any further, nor avail himself of the patronage which it must necessarily give her Majesty's Government in the distribution of those valuable appointments which would arise from it. The noble Lord should recollect, that he had put himself upon his trial, and that he had been tried by this House, and had been found, he would not say guilty, for he would not wish to make use of any word that could, by possibility, give the slightest offence—but the noble Lord, and his colleagues, had been tried by this House, and had been found wanting. The noble Lord was, however, now going to be tried by the country, and if he should succeed, then the measure which he (Sir E. Sugden) was about to propose, would not have the effect of throwing the slightest impediment in the way of the administration of justice, for Government could then carry forward their measure with a greater certainty of success, and with more credit to themselves. He proposed to postpone the operation of the bill for a short time, and he should be greatly surprised if the noble Lord were to oppose this very reasonable proposition. The House must consider this demand to be only fair, when it considered the position in which the Government at present stood. If ever there was a time in which great caution should be observed in the appointment of officers to fill those judicial situations which this measure would create, it was the present. The House should remember, that the judges, when once appointed, remained in their several situations, although the Government that appointed them might be obliged to give up office. Was there then any man who felt an interest in the due and proper administration of justice, who would desire that the power of the Crown should be exercised over such institutions as the present bill comprehended, at the present moment, when the real administration of the country was to be immediately decided by an appeal to the people at large? He asserted, that the perfect exercise of those powers required the complete absence of prejudice upon the part of Government. With such observations, he begged leave to move the insertion of the following clause, "And be it enacted, that this Act shall commence, and have effect, on and after the 10th day of October next, except when a subsequent day is hereinbefore fixed.

had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have been satisfied with the obstacles which he had already offered to the passing of the bill; that the delays and inconvenience which the administration of justice had suffered, owing to the interposition of the right hon. Gentleman, would have induced him to refrain from further interposition, and raising new obstacles. The right hon. Gentleman might endeavour to throw upon him the blame of not passing the bill last Session, by alluding to certain rumours, but not referring to any distinct cause. But it was quite certain, that the bill, having the assent of Lord Cottenham, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and other high authorities in the House of Lords, having been supported by a great majority of that House, having also had the support of the legal authorities, generally speaking, on both sides in the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman at the end of last Session, when the attendance of Members was thin, declared his determination to oppose the bill by every means in his power, and even, as he understood, to use the forms of the House to prevent its passing. Therefore he had found it necessary to postpone the Bill. In the present year, the right hon. Gentleman said, that he had not used extreme diligence for the purpose of passing the bill. It was easy to say that, with regard to any particular bill, without looking to the general state of the business before the House. There might be an urgent reason for proceeding with the army or navy estimates for instance, which would interfere with the other business. Now the right hon. Gentleman said, it would be most convenient for the administration of justice, that this bill should not take effect till the 10th of October. He could not conceive in what way. There were arrangements to be made for the sitting of the new courts, and he certainly could see no grounds for the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, if he understood him rightly, that it would be the most convenient to wait till the whole bar were assembled in term, and then appoint the judges, who should then learn, for the first time, that they were to fill the situations. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to confess, that the real reason for which the right hon. Gentleman proposed the clause had nothing to do with the administration of justice. The right hon. Gentleman's real reason was, that the House had passed a vote of want of confidence in the present administration. That reason might be very good to the right hon. Gentleman, but it was one to which it was impossible for him to assent. It was impossible that he should assent to such a ground for postponement, without admitting, what, of course, he could not admit, that no appointment should be made; no act of the executive Government performed, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite had obtained a vote by a majority of one, on a resolution declaring a want of confidence in the present Administration. He denied the authority of that vote as an expression of the opinion of the country. He could not consent that the Administration of the executive government should be paralyzed until the time that the question as to the opinion of the country should be decided by a new Parliament. He could not admit the principle generally with regard to their carrying on the executive department of the Go- vernment, and he certainly could not admit it with regard to the Court of Chancery. Was it to be said, that the Lord Chancellor of all persons holding office in this country, was the man most unfit to hold office; the man most unfit to give his opinion with regard to patronage; the man whom the House of Commons was to fix the brand of its distrust? With regard to the disposition of patronage, there had been occasions on which the Lord Chancellor, finding persons holding offices which he thought it desirable to abolish, and finding vacancies to which these persons might be appointed, had gladly taken the opportunity of recommending the appointment of such persons rather than others, causing thereby a saving to the public by the suppression of their former offices. He might mention the cases of Mr. Justice Erskine and Sir George Rose, to show the desire of the Lord Chancellor to choose persons, not, as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, from political considerations, but purely from their competency to fill the offices in which they were placed, and on account of the additional advantage to the public of the suppression of useless offices. These were voluntary actions on the part of the Lord Chancellor and on the part of the Government, not forced upon them by any vote of that House, or any necessity whatever. Yet the right hon. Gentleman could come forward and say, when a bill was passing through the House which, by the confessions of all, would be for the benefit of the public, which would prevent further arrears, and relieve existing suitors, which would put an end to many evils, notorious and not denied; that, having such a bill before them, they should take the opportunity of fixing a brand on the Lord Chancellor. He could take no other view of the clause of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did not veil his purpose. The right hon. Gentleman did not say, that in consequence of the vote of the House expressing its want of confidence in the Government, the disposal of all patronage should be postponed, but he selected this particular case; and where the person to be consulted, and by whose opinion the Government would be guided, was Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He happened to have had a conversation with the Lord Chancellor last year relative to the disposal of these offices, and he could venture to assure the House, that the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor would be given entirely with a view to the better administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, and the improvement of the equity jurisdiction, and from no other motive whatever. This was the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and it would be the opinion of the Government. It would be the opinion of Lord Melbourne, and of all the Members of the Administration. Therefore the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was nothing else than saying, "We have triumphed by a majority of one, and we shall take the opportunity it gives us to say, that Lord Cottenham is unfit to exercise the power of disposing of this patronage." Yet the right hon. Gentleman himself said, he had no fault to find with the disposal of equity patronage by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor had been hitherto respected by all for the ability with which he had presided over his administration of justice, for the patient attention which he gave to all that came before him, and for the clearness, uprightness, and learning of his judgments; but the right hon. Gentleman now proposed, that the House of Commons should condemn him, because upon a party vote the other side had succeeded by a majority of one. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeded again, he must submit to the majority, but he never would voluntarily take any share in fixing such a brand on the Lord Chancellor.

expressed his perfect satisfaction with the appointments which had been made in the Court of Chancery. He believed there was no one who objected to any of those appointments. He had come down prepared to oppose the motion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Ripon, thinking its object was to get rid of the bill altogether; but from his (Mr. Richards) situation in the Court of Exchequer, he could say that the proposed delay would cause no impediment in the business of the court, and therefore he should support the proposition of his right hon. Friend.

said, if for a moment it could be inferred, that by his vote on this occasion he meant to imply distrust of the character or integrity of the present Lord Chancellor, he would be extremely cautious how he gave a vote which should have the semblance of sanctioning such a censure. If the object of the present motion were attempted to have been carried by means of an address to the Crown, which, after reciting, that the House had agreed to a vote expressive of want of confidence in her Majesty's present Ministers, had appealed to the Crown to prevent these appointments consequent upon the bill from taking place, he should not have supported such an address by his vote, because it would appear as if he distrusted the exercise of the Government of the patronage which they at present possessed. But the case before the House was a totally different one. The present bill established a new court, and made a new judicial arrangement altogether, with which the executive government as yet had nothing whatever to do. It possessed as yet no patronage under the bill, therefore it could not be said, that any precautionary vote of that House robbed the executive of any such patronage. The noble Lord admitted, that the meeting and the votes of the Parliament about to be forthwith called was to settle the great question, and decide upon the existence of the present Ministry as constituting the Government of the country; was it then Unreasonable that the operation of such a bill as this, and the nomination of the high officers under it, should be postponed, as his right hon. Friend had suggested, until the country could fairly know whether it had a Government possessing its confidence or not. If the noble Lord allowed the bill to be withdrawn, in consequence of his objection to this limitation of its operation, he promised the noble Lord the full benefit of his support, should he make this one of the first bills, which, on his reassembling Parliament, he should bring before the Legislature and, considering the sanction it had met in the Upper House, there could be no doubt in the noble Lord's mind, that the bill must pass during the Session immediately following the present. The only reason why his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Sugden) did not oppose the progress of the bill altogether, and why he had limited his motion to the present object, was, that his right hon. Friend was apprehensive, that by opposing the bill the country might receive detriment by the postponement of the meditated improvements in the administration of justice; or that the bill might not pass in time to secure to the country the benefit of the alteration introduced under the auspices of the present Government. But if the noble Lord really presumed upon having the support of the country, and carrying this measure in the House about to be called together, he had no objection to assure him that the decision of the House generally should draw with it his compliance and support in respect to this measure, and the appointments under it. He would just ask the noble Lord to deal out the same measure of justice to him, that he sought for himself, and suppose that this was a case when he was in the Government, as in 1835; and, without having before him, as a stumbling-block in the way, a vote of want of confidence, as in the present instance, there had been introduced by him (Sir It. Peel) a great measure like this, affecting the administration of justice, to which he asked the assent of the noble Lord and his Friends, what would be their answer? They would naturally answer no; they would reply very properly, "Prove to us, first, that you have the confidence of the House of Commons, and we may comply." The noble Lord had confessed that, in the present state of things, the Government ought not to attempt to propound the change in the existing Corn-law system, because it was a measure of such extreme importance; also that it should not, for the same reason, proceed with the Poor-law bill. He was disposed, for the same reasons as operated upon the Government itself in those cases, to say in this they ought not to insist on the bill coming into operation till after the meeting of the next Parliament. His vote was founded upon a reluctance to invest Government, not with the patronage that resulted to it from holding the Government, but from a reluctance to grant it patronage, which was to be the result of an act of Parliament, not yet passed. To the measure he had given his assent, because it had the assent of all the persons of all parties most competent to decide upon its merits. If the noble Lord could say he felt that he would be in a situation to pass it in the Parliament which was to be called together as early as they had a right to expect its reassembling, he would suggest, that let this be the first act of the next Session, and both he and his right hon. Friend would be perfectly content. If the noble Lord did not choose that course, and preferred driving them to oppose the bill because be would make no concession as to the period when those appointments should take place, let not the noble Lord blame him or his right hon. and learned Friend as having stood in the way of a great improvement in the system of the administration of justice.

could not avoid rising to protest against the doctrine of the right hon. Baronet, as most novel and unconstitutional. He never heard of such a course as that of passing a bill giving patronage, and at the same time depriving the Ministers of the Crown, of the right of exercising it. If this was done for three months, it might be done for three years. He trusted the House would not sanction so dangerous a principle.

in explanation, said that he had not the slightest intention of casting any imputation on the Lord Chancellor.

said, that the hon. Gentle-man might as well have said at once, "we want to have the nomination of the judges ourselves, and we don't choose to leave it to you." There was no analogy between this case and that of the Corn-laws. The present bill had received the sanction of both Houses, and the natural course was to pass it without any unusual conditions. The Corn-law question was much disputed, and the reason for not bringing it forward did not at all apply to the present case. This was entirely a party motion, and party feeling never appeared in a stronger light. The House divided, on the question that the clause be read a second time:— Ayes 101; Noes 83; Majority 18.

said, he was sorry to find his opinion upon the subject was different from that of the majority of the House, but, after the vote which had passed, he certainly could not consent to be a party to proceeding with the bill, and he would, therefore, move that the further consideration of the report be postponed to that day three weeks.

said, the noble Lord was at liberty to take his own course, and, for his part, he found no fault with it. He would merely assure the noble Lord that, if he had the honour of a seat in the new Parliament, he would support the bill by every means in his power.

said, that it appeared as if a bill of great importance to the public was about to be refused, because there was a chance that some patronage would fall to the lot of the Government. He hoped that fact would go forth to the public. He hoped so, though he might be wrong in his estimate of public opinion. But he considered it to be a matter of importance, and he hoped it would be marked there, as it would be elsewhere, that the present was a Parliament of monopolists, who had only given still further flagrant proofs of the partisanship by which it was animated.

I am not content that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member, should go forth to the public without an answer. He says, that the motion of my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Sugden), will have the effect of preventing the enactment of a measure to remove existing abuses, but I will tell him that the effect of that motion, had it not been for the course which her Majesty's Government have thought proper to pursue, would not have postponed for a single instant the beneficial operation of that measure. I will tell him that this act could not have come into operation for any beneficial purpose until the commencement of the term after the long vacation—until the 1st of November. It has been decided by the House that the act shall come into operation on the 10th of October, and that the appointment of the judicial officers under the act shall be vested in the Government of that day, whoever at that period the Government may be. And, if her Majesty's Government had consented to such a course, on the 10th of October—a fortnight or more before the act could under any possibility come into practical operation—not only without one word of opposition or without the delay of a single moment, but with the cordial approbation and concurrence of all parties, the Government of the country— the hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they then were the Members of the Government, would exercise the power of the Crown, by making those judicial appointments which they have long contended are so desirable. But the House has decided that these important functions shall not be exercised by a Ministry which it has itself declared to be at present in abeyance, by a Ministry which is now holding office only under the condition of resignation, that is, only holding office until the opinion of the country has been pronounced either in their favour or against them. By the amendment of my right hon. Friend, we have once again declared that her Majesty's Ministers are not capable of exercising the functions necessarily attaching to the executive Government of the country; and, holding this opinion, we were bound to oppose their performance of those functions in a case where no detriment could possibly arise to the public service. If, before the time mentioned in the motion of my right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentlemen opposite are in possession of that power of which they are not now in possession then they, of course, will perform this amongst the other duties of the Government; and by the course we have to-night pursued we shall have deprived ourselves of all power of opposition or objection. The noble Lord, and no one else, is preventing the progress of this measure, The delay—the impediment—is caused alone by the course which he is pursuing; but, notwithstanding the step he has taken, if he calls the Parliament together at a time at which we have a right to expect it, he will still be in time to introduce a new bill in the terms of my right hon. Friend's motion, and will then be able to appoint these officers without the slightest opposition on our part.

said, that the speech of the noble Lord, had confirmed the impression which was formerly produced upon his mind, that the House had established a doctrine equally novel and dangerous. The course which hon. Gentlemen opposite had pursued, they had not attempted to justify by the production of a single precedent. They had attempted to lay down the doc- trine that for certain purposes they were to legislate on the principle of putting in abeyance the ordinary executive functions of the Crown, for it was a mere quibble to pretend to draw any distinction between the patronage conferred under that act, and the ordinary patronage at the disposal of the Crown. The House had again and again declared, that, it was fitting that these appointments should be made; but it now declared that it would prevent these appointments from being made at certain times, and under certain circumstances. Such a doctrine as that which had now been laid down he had heard with surprise proceeding from Tory benches. In the time of the greatest party violence such a doctrine he had never heard, even from those who entertained the most extreme opinions on his side of the House and the hon. Gentlemen opposite would ere long regret the course which they had that night pursued. He had heard with great regret the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth—a speech, he must say, the most contrary and opposed to his usual doctrine. He had always appeared to be especially tender of any infringement on the powers of the executive Government, and yet he now defended the adoption of a course by which a most unconstitutional attack was made against them. He must repeat that, he rejoiced that his noble Friend., in taking his choice of the alternative left to him, had determined not to expose the prerogative of the Crown to an attack equally unprecedented and unconstitutional.

said, that no Government of common sense or common feeling would submit to the humiliation to which the motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) exposed them. The object of that motion was to prevent the bill from coming into operation. It was admitted that a denial of justice necessarily took place from the want of such measure, and yet, by the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that denial of justice to the people of England was maintained and persisted in. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had said, that the bill could be passed by the new Parliament. On what grounds did the noble Lord make such a statement? How could the noble Lord know in what manner a new Parliament might think fit to act? Yet this was the universal practice ! The noble Lord said, that he should do one thing, and the right hon. Baronet intimated his intention of doing another. The noble Lord answered for some measures, and the right hon. Baronet for others; but on what security Could they make these statements, or give these promises? Never was a greater satire inflicted oh the system of representation. He knew not who would be the Members of the ensuing Parliament, and he would now give this notice to the public that, in Consequence of the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there was a great chance that the existing evils would not be remedied—that these judges would not be appointed. For years there had been a great struggle between various individuals and opposite parties on the expediency of this measure. That struggle was how at an end; and when it was so— when the incalculable inconvenience and loss inflicted on the people was about to be done away with—then hon. Gentlemen opposite must interfere and prevent the accomplishment of so desirable an object. There never had been a single instance in which the public had more right to feel themselves aggrieved. And whence did the conduct of the opposite party arise? From their interested and violent opposition to any alteration of the Corn-laws. In consequence of their determination not to discuss, consider, or change those hateful laws, this House was to be dissolved, this beneficial measure rejected, and everything disturbed.

agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the country had great reason to complain of the course which had been adopted with respect to this measure; but against which party would that complaint be directed? His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had said, that the amendment which had been proposed that night Would not impede or in any way interfere with the beneficial operation of the present measure, and every one at all acquainted with the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery must acknowledge that that statement was a just one. He (Mr. Pemberton) had always supported, had always been anxious for the passing of this bill; and he had even blamed the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for his withdrawal during the last Session, without, as he thought, any fair of sufficient reason. Yet upon him, and Upon those with whom he thought and acted, the blame of impeding its profits was now most Unwarrantably thrown They were accused of preventing this measure from becoming law by hon. Gentlemen Opposite, yet what had been the course which they themselves followed under similar circumstances? In 1836, the Duke of Wellington introduced a bill appointing an additional Vice-Chancellor, yet, that bill, effecting the same object and brought forward for the same purpose as the present they had most violently opposed. In 1836, also, the King's speech said, that an improvement in the administration of justice in the Courts of Equity was a main object to be considered by Parliament; and yet from that time, 1836, until 1840, what step had the Government —what step had any individual of the hon. Gentlemen opposite taken? They had done nothing whatever during that time. In 1840 the present bill was introduced into the House of Lords, and it was sent down into this House in the July of that year. In the course of the Session it was withdrawn by the Government without any cause; and during this Session when it had been again brought forward, it was unnecessarily postponed; and now, when no obstacle was thrown in the way of its enactments and of its beneficial operation —when it was ripe to be passed, it was again given up by the noble Lord. The House must recollect that the bill not only contained the appointment of the new judges, but it also included the appointment of the registrars and the other officers necessary to the constitution of a Court of Law. These could not be appointed until after the 14th of August, and then it was well known that the Court did not sit again until the 2nd of November, the first day of the term after the long vacation. He protested against the observations of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The inconvenience of the course adopted by the noble Lord would, of course, extend the delay which must take place before the bill could again be passed; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) talked against the bill passing at all in the next Parliament, he would ask him who prevented it from passing in this? The blame and responsibility rested, not with those on that side of the House, but with the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen who supported him.

did not think the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) could, as a Minister of the Crown, proceed with the bill, under the present circumstances, and he begged to remind the House, that the outrageous proceedings which had given rise to the noble Lord's motion, did not originate on the Radical side of the House. He, for his part, had always considered the Radicals to be the true Conservative party in that House, and the night's proceedings had confirmed him in that view; for the Radicals had never made such attacks on the prerogative of the Crown as he had had the fortune to witness within the last three weeks in that House, and he was prepared to prove this assertion by reference to facts. If the conduct of the two parties, as lately developed, continued much longer, his conviction was, that the hours of the Monarchy would be numbered. The millions out of doors were disgusted with what passed in a place where, though it was pretended to be for their benefit, they had no representatives. When the people petitioned for the relaxation of the prerogative, or its exercise in favour of their champions, they were told it was better to leave such matters in the hands of the executive: that was the language of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth. But when party interests became involved, the prerogative was made a shuttlecock of, and no more respect was paid to it than to a dirty rag. As a Radical, he was always prepared to say, he respected the throne, the prerogative of the Crown, and the Monarchy. No sort of Government suited the people of England better; and none had ever heard him say otherwise. But he must say, that he looked upon the result of the present proceedings as likely to be highly disastrous, unless the people saw more respect paid to the prerogative oil the part of those who talked so largely about it. He only begged to ask, in conclusion, if the leading party in that House treated the Crown in that manner, what would be the conduct of an excited multitude abroad with respect to that same Crown which they had so insulted?

thought it was quite evident that the real cause of that apparent interference which had been ascribed to them at his side of the House, was neither more nor less than the attempt which had been made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite to carry on the executive Government of the country when they did not possess the power to do so. There had been clearly no other course for that Government to pursue, when the House of Commons had so decidedly declared that it did not possess their confidence, than that of resignation or immediate dissolution. By immediate dissolution he did not mean that dissolution which would interfere with those grants which were necessary to conduct the public service, or which might prevent the passing of those legislative acts which enabled them to levy the ordinary duties. But he did say, no conceded motion of any kind, no act of the House of Commons implying confidence in the Government, should be passed after such a vote as it had come to. While a Ministry was placed in such a position as the present, it was an anomalous, extraordinary, and unprecedented thing of them to come forward, as on the present measure, to ask for a vote of confidence from that House. It was perfectly impossible that a Government could be so conducted. It was impossible that the House could agree to a measure, by which such a devolution of authority took place as would imply that they still possessed the confidence of that House. If they passed such a measure, would not the Gentlemen opposite, and every one besides, say such conduct was most inconsistent. Were they to confirm, by new legislative enactments—were they to place upon new grounds, the authority of the present Government, as was proposed by the present bill, he was perfectly convinced they at his side of the House would he taunted by the Gentlemen opposite with their inconsistency, and that they had not drawn the ordinary distinction between the prerogative of the Crown and power conferred for the first time. If that precedent was to be resorted to—if that Government which, not only being in a minority, but which had not even the power to carry one of its measures, called upon them for a new vote of confidence, then he certainly thought the House could not consent to it with any degree of consistency. The hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Finsbury), who had just addressed the House, complained a good deal of the interference, which he ascribed to them, with the prerogative of the Crown. Now, they claimed something also for the prerogative of the House of Commons. They claimed the right, when an act was proposed enabling the Government to make certain appointments, of considering whether these appointments were to be made on the 15th of October or the 15th of August. It Was, indeed, a flew doctrine, that which the hon. Gentleman opposite propounded—namely, that the House of Commons was not at liberty to express its opinion with respect to a mere legislative enactment, and to exercise its own discretion on such a question as that then before them. So far from thinking the prerogative of the Crown in danger, as seemed to be the opinion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, he (Sir R. Peel) never recollected a time when it was more respected; and he certainly could not entertain any alarm for the Throne, because the House of Commons claimed for itself the right of substituting the 15th of October, instead of the 15th of August. No man would be more disposed to uphold the prerogatives of the Crown than he would; but if a Ministry, without the confidence of the House of Commons, would endeavour to carry on the affairs of the country, they must be prepared to meet with obstructions, and to be thwarted in their measures. It was not alone, because they who were in the majority in that House claimed for themselves the privileges which they did, that the present course was adopted; but it was also because they felt that those who, being situated like the present Government, did not pay proper homage to the true principles of a representative Government, if they continued not only to administer the executive functions, but proposed to the House of Commons new legislative enactments, implying confidence in themselves.

thought it would have been a more manly course for hon. Gentlemen opposite to have declared before then the course they meant to pursue. They had not objected to other legislative measures, but their present course was evidently nothing but a shabby scramble for patronage.

asked the hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition what the people of England would think of the integrity of their judges when their appointment was made a subject for party contention?

moved the Committal of the Debts of Parishes Bill.

wished to know, before assenting to this bill, what the object of it was?

replied that his object was to provide for the payment of debts incurred by parishes before the passing of the Poor-law Bill.

said, those debts might have been contracted a hundred years ago, and it was, in his opinion, very unjust to saddle the new occupiers with the payment of these debts. He should move that this bill be postponed to that day six months.

maintained that the continuance of the payment of the interest of these debts by the parishes was a proof that they coincided in the opinion that they were legal.

maintained, that the investigation of these alleged facts was necessary, and that a committee was the only proper tribunal for adjudicating upon them.

said, that the present bill had received the sanction of all parties at the commencement of the Session, and not only the Poor-law Commissioners but the Government had agreed to it. He would give one instance, whereby they would see the necessity for the bill. A certain parish had been informed that its poor were entitled to a certain disputed property, and they had obtained a loan for the purpose of meeting the expense of prosecuting their rights at law. They had succeeded, and were then in possession of the property, but since the passing of the new Poor-law Act the commissioners had conceived that they had no right to authorise the payment either of the principal or interest of the money so advanced. Cases of that description were frequently occurring,

observed, it was not usual to take the views of the Poor-law Commissioners from the other side of the House. He thought it would be better that the debate be adjourned to Friday.

Oven supposing that petitions were before the House demanding this bill, the facts contained in them should be submitted to a committee.