seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland in his place, wished to ask him one question. It would be recollected, that the hon. Member for Roscommon asked, the other night, whether her Majesty's Government had made up their minds to adopt any plan for railways in Ireland. As he understood the noble Lord's answer to that question, it was, that several plans which had been forwarded to him had been referred to the consideration of the Government, who had not as yet come to any decision upon them, either for their adoption or not. He would be glad if the noble Lord would now say whether his impression was correct, and if the noble Lord was able to assure him that the plans were now under the consideration of her Majesty's Government, and that no decision had as yet been come to either one way or the other?

replied, that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right as to what he said or intended to say the other night. The plans of several parties for railways in Ireland, submitted to him, had been sent for the consideration of Ministers; he was not prepared to state what the decision of Government would be; but he had added, on his own responsibility, and from what he knew of the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that Government would not sanction any plan which would require an advance of public money, or saddle the country with any guarantee as to the amount of interest.

had understood that there had been a reduction of the number of the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland; he would ask how far that reduction had gone, and whether it was intended to carry the reduction further?

replied, that eight stipendiary magistrates had been reduced, and it had been contemplated to make a reduction of ten, but in consequence of the representations of the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, that the services of the others could not be conveniently dispensed with, the number had been limited to eight; and it was not the present intention of her Majesty's Government to carry the reduction farther. He begged to add, that the reduction had been carried on in such a manner that no selection had been made, but those were reduced who had been most recently appointed.

rose, to ask the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, a question relative to the resolutions which he had laid on the table last night. Among those resolutions, he did not hear one on a subject of great importance, and he would ask whether it were the right hon. Baronet's intention to make any improvement or alteration with regard to the mode in which the duties are now taken upon the importation of corn; in fact, whether it were his intention to make the duty payable when corn was brought into this country, or when it was taken out of bond

said, it was not his intention to make any alteration in the period at which the duties on corn were paid.

would call the attention of the committee to that subject.

would put a question on a point which materially affected Ireland. The right hon. Baronet was probably aware that there was a difference in the law regulating the importation of flour into England and into Ireland. The importation of flour into Ireland was wholly prohibited, whilst it was admitted upon payment of certain duties into England. If the right hon. Baronet had the same law for Ireland as for England, flour would be admitted into Ireland at the same duties as into England. Was it the right hon. Baronet's intention to re-introduce into his Corn Bill a clause to prohibit the importation of flour into Ireland under all circumstances, or did he mean to have a uniform trade in the two countries?

had reserved this for separate consideration. He believed, that the restriction was in a separate bill.

No; it was a clause in the bill.

said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow him till Monday to give a reply: he had meant to reserve the point for separate consideration.

asked the noble Lord in the office of the Woods and Forests, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to throw open Richmond Park and Kew Gardens?

replied, that there was no present intention to make any alteration with respect to those grounds.

inquired whether any change or alteration was contemplated with reference to the not very intelligible order given to the gate-keepers in St. James's-park, by which persons having parcels were not allowed to pass through? It had occurred to himself once to be sent back because he had a bundle of petitions and a book in his hand, and the order was the cause of great public inconvenience.

said, that the order in question was not made by the Woods and Forests, but by his Royal Highness the ranger of the park, and he knew nothing more of the order than seeing it in the papers.

had promised to give an answer to the question which the learned Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) asked the other evening, as to our relations with Texas. There were three treaties between Texas and this country, which had been duly signed by the agents of each party. One was a treaty of commerce; the second related to the debt; and the third to the slave-trade. The two first treaties, as to the commerce and debt, had received the sanction of the senate of Texas. The third, relating to the slave-trade, owing to the gentleman charged with that treaty not having arrived in Texas before the separation of the senate, had not received the sanction of that body. As the agreement was, that all the three treaties should be simultaneously ratified, and as the slave-trade treaty had not received the sanction of the senate, none of the treaties had been ratified.

asked when the right hon. Baronet would produce to the House the bill alluded to in the Speech from the Throne for the registration of electors?

replied, that the bill was prepared, and would be introduced at as early a period as possible, but he did not think it would be advantageous to enter upon the discussion till by the settlement of other questions it could be fully discussed.

said, all he wished was, that the bill should be laid on the Table, that the country might have plenty of time for its consideration, and that the second reading should not be pressed till after Easter.

promised that there should be ample time for the consideration of the bill.

had to call the attention of the House to a report which had been laid on the Table at the close of the last Session of Parliament, and which had created in the borough which he had the honour to represent both astonishment and annoyance —astonishment that an individual, deputed by her Majesty's Government to inquire into the state of families suffering distress, disease, and death, should, in a public document, have denied facts of public notoriety; and annoyance that he should have gone out of the way in order to attribute to gentlemen, some of whom were the most honourable and most benevolent in existence, and who had engaged in an inquiry into the misery which surrounded them, and of which they had evidence on every side, motives other than those which influenced them, which were indeed no other than to ascertain the facts as to the existing distress, with a view to its removal. The hon. Member, the seconder of the Address, had allowed frankly, fairly, and boldly, that the statements made on that (the Opposition) side of the House of the sufferings of the people, and of the great and extensive misery on the part of the manufacturing population, were not only not exaggerated, but that those statements were frightfully true. To that sentiment the right hon. Baronet the Premier, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had responded, and had declared that the existing distress was severe and of an alarming character. He might appeal also to the hon. Member for Newark, for Canterbury, and for Sandwich, who had lately visited Bolton, who had seen with their own eyes the sorrows and sufferings of the manufacturing people, who had heard with their own ears their tales of misery, and who, no doubt, when appealed to, would come forward and confirm his statements. He had brought forward three cases of a peculiarly distressing character; he had chosen those instances from a multitude of others that had been placed in his hands; he was willing to allow that these melancholy facts had occurred some time ago, and he did attach some blame to the gentleman who had placed these statements in his hands, that he had not attached to the document the dates when the cases occurred. The earliest cases as they stood on the list were undoubtedly the most remote in point of time; but the state of things was aggravated now, and from that period to the present the distress had not been diminishing, but increasing. The cases which were few two years ago had now become numerous; and he could bring evidence that at the present period not only was there a general want of food, but that many thousand individuals had not the means wherewith to supply the ordinary cravings of nature. He had brought forward the case of a person named Pearce, and it was averred that he had been starved to death, and the jury had recorded that verdict. That was one of the cases to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had specially called the attention of the Poor-law commissioners, and Mr. Mott had embodied in the report which had been presented to the House, the evidence which he supposed had disproved the facts which had been brought to the notice of the House. He had to complain, and the people of Bolton had to complain, of the manner in which the inquiry of Mr. Mott had been conducted. Evidence had been brought before him which he had refused to receive, and the most important facts had been stated in his presence, which he had either refused to record, or which he had not recorded in the document which had been laid upon the Table of the House. With reference to the death of this man, the following questions had been put to the relieving officer, with regard to the position in which this individual had been found. After describing the condition in which Pearce's family was found, the question was asked "Was that the state in which we found the family when we visited them? His answer was "Precisely so !" Was it your opinion at the time "that the man had died from want?" The answer was, "That is still my opinion," but in Mr. Mott's report, no notice is taken of this important testimony. He called the attention of the House to this point, on account of the excitement produced by Mr. Mott's report, and which had led to a reinvestigation of the cases referred to. He, himself, though he had taken no part in that inquiry or examination, had afterwards gone over the ground, had examined witnesses, had seen many individuals, whose names he was about to introduce to the notice of the house, and he ventured to assert, that after this examination, the House must agree with him, that the facts stated were substantially true, and that they could not be better employed than in finding a remedy for evils and miseries, such as those he was about to describe, which were not solitary examples. Mr. Mott had asserted, in his report, that there was no evidence of this man having died of want; and he had gone so far as to declare, that the family was in a comfortable condition. He had visited the family. Mr. Mott had declared, that the family, at the time of Pearce's death, received 9s. a week for their support—but the woman, Mrs. Pearce, had denied to him that they had ever obtained that sum. He (Dr. Bowring) did not attach any value however to the widow's evidence. She was in a state of complete mental imbecility. She was not able to give an account even of the present earnings of her family. When he went to her, she had informed him that she had received about 2s. a week, but her daughter, who was in a condition almost equally imbecile, stated that the amount was only ls. 10d. per week. Ought Mr. Mott to have been satisfied with the statements of an imbecile old woman? alarmed as she probably was by his presence. Why did he not refer to the books of those who employed the family? It was proved by the most irrefragable evi- dence, that the maximum of their receipts was only 4s. a week, and the books to which Mr. Mott had access, had recorded that the amount did not exceed 3s. per week. He had found one individual after another desirous of offering evidence that a scene of greater misery had never been witnessed than that presented by the house of this family. What was stated by the relieving officer? He said—

"That he was waited on by Mr. Coop, a comb-maker, who said, that a man residing near his house was starving to death: he went and found him dead."

He said?—

" I felt the corpse, and it was still warm. I noticed the cellar to be in a very wretched state. Through the wall of the back part of the cellar, I perceived dirty filthy water oozing through the crevices of the bricks, which I afterwards found proceeded from a middenstead adjoining the cellar. There was a nauseous smell, and which I considered very unhealthy. All the furniture in the cellar was a small three-legged table, an old chair with scarcely any bottom, and a three-legged stool such as children use; there was a small bedstead, on which was placed some sacking containing shavings; the shavings were quite visible through the sacking. There was no covering. The bed was quite wet with damp, and stunk with filth—so much so, that I gave orders for it to be burned, which I believe was done after deceased was buried. The corpse of Pearce lay out on a loom, without any covering, but Mrs. Coop lent them a pair of sheets. The value of the furniture altogether, I should consider, would not fetch two shillings if sold. I asked the woman and her daughters whether they had any food. They said, ' They had not tasted any that day.' I went to my house, and brought them a quantity of broth, which they all devoured very voraciously. I was in the cellar whilst they partook of it, and one of the daughters, immediately after she had taken it, began to vomit very much; which I attributed to an excess of appetite, and being kept without food so long previously. I may add, that previously to partaking of the broth, they began to quarrel amongst themselves which had the greatest portion. I reported the case, and they were duly relieved. On the Tuesday following, the committee sat, and they were ordered to be relieved. I now refer to the book in which the distressed cases' are entered, and I find that they were relieved with a grant of three shillings per week. I find the following entry:—Pearce, Ellen, widow, Howell-croft, to receive three shillings per week for an unlimited period;' and the following entry in the remarks:—'Husband supposed to have died from want.' I inquired into the earnings of the whole family, and found they did not exceed three shillings per week. I have since several times visited the old woman, Ellen Pearce, and find that she is of very weak intellect; and any statement she might make is not fit to be taken as evidence; and her daughters are the same. It appears that a dullness of intellect afflicts the whole family. I went to the Coroner's Inquest for the purpose of giving evidence, but not being called upon, I did not do so. Had my evidence been taken, I do not know how the Jury could have done otherwise than returned a verdict that the deceased died from want."

What said Mr. Webster, the town missionary of Bolton? He said:

"My duty is to visit cases of sickness and distress. On Monday, the 24th of February last but one, from information I had received that a man had died from want in Howell-croft, I went there and made enquiry. The cellar of the deceased was pointed out to me, and on entering I saw the deceased dead, and laid out on his loom. I found the whole of the household requisites to consist of a small three-legged table, a chair, almost without a bottom, a stool, and a bed with some sacking on: the whole of which were worthless, not worth carrying away; the bed was very filthy. I reported the case to the Benevolent Society, who gave the family 5s. I have seen the entry made in the Benevolent Society's book, and find Pearce's case is entered 'Died from want of food; ' and this was my full impression immediately after I had examined into the case On inquiring into their earnings I found they did not exceed three shillings per week. I have frequently visited and relieved the case since, and I consider them all—that is, the old woman (Mrs. Pearce) and her two daughters, to be of such very weak intellect that it approximates very closely to insanity, and that they are totally incapable of giving evidence that could be depended upon. Whenever I have conversed with them I have always left them fully impressed that they were labouring strongly under a degree of insanity."

And yet Mr. Mott chose to rely on the testimony of this poor and almost insane old woman, in opposition to that which was tendered on every side. Another party (one Ann Beswick) spoke of this man in the following terms:—

"About three weeks previous to the death of Pearce, I stood against my own door-step and saw Pearce coming towards my house. There are three steps up to my house. He looked very wan, and pale as death, and was so weakly, that to get on to my house floor he had to go down on his hands and knees and creep up. He had been in the habit of weaving for us some months before, and I had missed him for a month about, on the day I am now speaking of. When he got in, he said, "Nancy, do, bless you, make a sup of warm tea, for I am dying for want." I made him some tea and a little toast, and he devoured it very greedily. When he had done it he told me all that he had had for three or four weeks back; he had had nothing but a bason of gruel per day to subsist upon. In about a quarter of an hour after the old man had had the tea, he was seized with sickness, and I had to obtain the assistance of neighbours, for I thought he was dying. We reared him up in chairs with pillows, and in about three quarters of an hour he came round. I then asked him why he clammed himself to that degree, and he said as he did not belong to Bolton he could not get relief. He pulled up his trowsers and showed me his legs, and they appeared nothing but skin and bone; and it was frightful to see him. He was taken home by my husband, and I and his wife went to the overseers' office to represent the case to them. We saw Bridge, the assistant to the relieving officer, and told him the case, and he was very saucy, and said we had better mind our own business. I gave in the name of Pearce to the officer myself, for although his wife was present when the officer asked her husband's name, she could not tell, and desired me to do so. The officer said, he should visit the case, but whether he ever did so or not I never ascertained, and I never heard anything more until about three weeks afterwards, which was, that he was dead. I heard this the same night that he died, and went to the cellar. I there found them in a most shocking state, and the cellar smelled so much that I could not remain in it. He was laid out on the loom, with a sheet over him. I noticed in the back cellar there was a sewer, or midden channel, ran through, and the floor was covered with nauseous filth and water. All the goods in the house were a broken three-legged table, a stool, chair, and the bed, made of sacking, without covering. I went again on the Monday morning, and turned down the sheet to look at the corpse, and there were hundreds of creeping filth upon him. I pointed out the filth to his wife, and she appeared to be quite vacant."

Similar evidence, no less distressing was given by a neighbour, Mr. Coop. One of the overseers gave the following evidence:—

" I was one of the overseers of the poor at the time of the death of Pearce. I recollect going with Mr. Naisby to the cellar at the time that Pearce lay dead on a pair of looms. From what I saw and heard from the old woman and her two daughters, I felt convinced that the old man died from want. The old woman and her daughters appeared of very weak intellect."

Now, notwithstanding this evidence, Mr. Mott, in the report which was laid before the House, declared that this family was well off. He (Dr. Bowring) confessed that the result of the inquiry had produced a great change in his mind with reference to the Poor-law commissioners; his con- fidence in them was wholly shaken, and he should deliberate long before he delivered over the suffering poor to their tender mercies. And now to the case of James Bristol; and what was the evidence with respect to this case? Mr. Skelton, a neighbour said:—

" I recollect, about two years ago, Mr. Naisby calling upon me to visit the case of Bristol. On getting into the house, we inquired of the woman where her husband was, not knowing that he was dead. She stated that he was up stairs. Mr. Naisby replied, 'I want to see him;' and she then said, 'He is dead. Mr. Naisby then went up stairs and looked at him. The woman had a very bad leg, and was quite unable to walk. There were two children lying in the corner of the house, on a bit of straw placed on the flags. One child was very much afflicted with the St. Anthony's fire, and all the other children were very ill and sickly. I asked Bristol's wife what food he bad had lately, and she then stated that her husband had asked, the day before he died for a bit of cheese and bread, but that she was unable to procure him any. An old woman, a neighbour, stated, that Bristol had been clammed to death.'"

The wife of Bristol gave the following evidence:—

'My husband died about two years ago. I recollect, when he was laid out dead, Mr. Naisby then coming to visit us. My husband was laid out on the necessary door, up stairs, covered over with a sheet, which a neighbour had lent us. I was lame myself at the time, and could not walk. For three weeks previous to my husband's death we had nothing but three shillings per week coming in; and we had to live sometimes on potatoes, sometimes on porridge, but had only one meal a day, which we generally made about four o'clock in the afternoon. I think it was for a fortnight that we had to confine ourselves to one meal a day, sometimes having porridge and sometimes potatoes. When Mr. Naisby found us in this state, we got more food; otherwise I believe I should have lost more of my children, for we had got as far distressed as we well could be to be alive, About five months previous to my husband's death I had a child sucking, which died; and I feel sure that its death was occasioned by my not being able to give it suck, for want of sustenance. I had no bed, bedding, or anything whereon to lay, when Mr. Naisby visited us. I had only a stool whereon to sit, for myself. I had no shop where I could get provisions at; they all refused to give me credit. My husband wished for a bit of cheese and bread the day before he died, but I was unable to procure him any."

The evidence of Mr. Wood is as follows:—

" I was a guardian at the time of Bristol's death, and recollect the case being brought before the board of guardians, and Mr. Naisby remarking to Mr. Benjamin Brown, the relieving officer, who was then present, 'Why, that poor fellow has died from want, Brown;' to which Brown made answer, ' Yes, I believe he has."

Betty Brown spoke as follows:—

" At the time of the death of Bristol, I laid him out on the top of a necessary door. I assisted to undress him, he having died with his clothes on, in which he had lain for many weeks, having nothing besides to keep him warm; when I cut his trousers legs and stocking-legs open, there were large quantities of creeping filth, which had eaten quite into the flesh, and his legs were nothing but putrid flesh and scabs. He had nothing but straw to lie upon, which was spread on the floor.' One of the children had the St. Anthony's-fire, and the rest were all more or less very sickly and bad. They all slept together in one room, and the wife of Bristol had a great hole in her leg, and could not walk or assist her husband; but after she had received relief, and had got bedding, she began to come round. I recollect Mr. Naisby coming down, when Bristol was laid out on the necessary door, and I then told him the man had died for want, and I knew such to be the case."

The third case was that of a man named Kirkman, but as Mr. Mott did not deny the facts which were brought forward, he would not weary the attention of the House by referring to it any further. But he had not attacked the Poor-law guardians—he did not say that they were cognizant of these cases. He believed that they were not, and he was bound to say that, whatever might be the benevolence of the guardians, they had no sufficient means of relieving the aggravated distress which surrounded them on every side. Mr. Mott, however, had not satisfied himself upon an inquiry into these three cases, to which the attention of the Poor-law Commissioners had been drawn by the right hon. Baronet, but he chose to enter into a work of supererogation and entirely beside that to which his notice was directed; Yes! he chose to enter into the question of the general distress existing in the borough of Bolton. In December, 1840, a number of excellent and benevolent men, struck with the scenes of calamity which surrounded them, determined to institute an inquiry into the extent of the prevailing distress. Mr. Mott, in his report, has ventured to throw on these gentlemen the reproach that they had gone into the investigation —not to relieve the distress—not on the interest of the sufferers, but to aid the progress of Anti Corn-law agitation. He said:

"Their object was not explained at the time, but it would appear to have had reference to the anti-corn-law meeting which was held in the Temperance Hall, Bolton, on the 2d, of January last. At that meeting statements were made by those gentlemen who had instituted the inquiry, by which the distress was attributed to the operation of the duty on corn. No attempts were made by them to relieve the distress which was said to exist, and no application was made to the guardians or the relieving officers until the 15th of January, a fortnight after the statements had been used at the meeting, when a deputation of gentlemen waited on the guardians, and left a list of upwards of three hundred families, who were described to be in great distress. The information so obtained was handed over to the relieving officers, and the facts elicited by them are deserving of notice, as exhibiting the evil tendency of all such voluntary attempts to seek out cases of distress. The relieving officers found that the cases had been grossly misrepresented to the committee; that only one out of the whole number was considered as attended by circumstances requiring relief; that in this case the guardians granted relief of 2s. weekly, in money, and supplied the family with bedding and a bedstead, as they were found to be lying on the floor; and, to show how slightly the poorer classes estimate the possession of this last article of furniture, on visiting the family three months afterwards, the relieving officer found their bed placed on four chairs and some boards, and the bedstead remained unused in an adjoining room."

He begged to say that no man had done more for the relief of the poor—for the substantial relief of the poor than those gentlemen, whom Mr. Mott had thought fit thus to calumniate; and he thought that he could not do better, if the House would permit him, than to read the words in which those gentlemen had repudiated the charge brought against them. They said:—

" We deem no apology or explanation requisite from us for having inquired into the condition of our distressed and destitute neighbours. The inquiry originated in a purely charitable and benevolent intention; and although the information was made public at an Anti-Corn-law tea party, we can truly say the inquiry was neither instituted for that purpose, nor was any such service contemplated at the time the inquiry was made. By making public the extent of suffering, we were in hopes some effort would have been made, as upon the previous winter, when near 3,000l. was raised by private subscriptions, towards alle- viating the distress; but, from the great increase of the distress, as well as the greater inability of many of the middle classes again to subscribe, it was eventually thought more deserving the attention of the board of guardians, than to be dealt with by private charity. Having done what we conceived to be an act of duty towards our fellow parishioners, and for which we received the thanks of the board of guardians, we cannot but express our surprise and regret that a public functionary, holding the high and responsible office of assistant Poor-law commissioner, as well as special government commissioner for inquiry into some particular cases of destitution, should so far have forgotten the trust reposed in him, and so far have wandered from the obvious line of his duty, as to impute unworthy motives to the parties who instituted this distressing inquiry: nor has he been satisfied with imputing motives; he has ventured without personal investigation of his own, without any effort to ascertain the truth of the statement made, to accuse us of partisanship, and of misrepresentation, leaving the impression that we had invented or exaggerated tales of distress, in order to serve a political and party object. We deny the accusation, and complain of the levity and carelessness in which it has been made. Since that report has been printed, we have felt it incumbent on us to re-institute a minute inquiry into all the cases now to be found. Each family has been visited by two respectable ratepayers, who are ready to vouch for the correctness of their statements; and of the 308 families before reported, forty-eight are broken up, and no longer to be found. Some have entered the workhouses, two families are gone to Australia, others are dispersed among their friends and relations. The condition of the remainder is in no respect better than last year—they remain living and suffering testimonies to the truth of our statements—sixtynine families are receiving parish relief, and this, in addition to the earnings of the parties, when rent is deducted, will only leave ls.5½d per head per week for each individual to exst upon; their beds, bedding, and clothing, are in a worse condition than before."

He would not go into further details, but he would only add this important fact from the document which he had quoted, in which the guardians declared,

" From the best information we can obtain, we have good reason to believe, that Mr. Mott himself never visited a single case, and certainly avoided putting himself in communication with those who with much labour had undertaken the painful duty of examining into the sad condition of the people."

He did not believe, that it was the purpose of the right hon. Baronet, when he sent Mr. Mott to Bolton, that he should conduct the inquiry in the way in which he had done, because he had left a feeling in that place,—that his object was to suppress the truth, and to give evidence only of such a nature as would meet his own views. And now, if he turned his attention to the general question, and especially to the increased mortality in the manufacturing districts, his mind was most painfully impressed. He saw by a report on the health of the navy, that the decrease in the mortality in that service had been very great. In 1779, among seamen, the proportion of deaths was one in eighteen; in 1811, it was one in thirty-two; but in the years for which the last return had been made, from 1830 to 1836, the mortality had been reduced to one in seventy-two. We had to contrast this state of things—this diminished number of deaths in the maritime service with the great general increase, and especially with the increase in the seats of manufacturing labour. The mortality in this country, he could not doubt, had been greatly increased by the want of sufficient food for the people: in 1840, as compared with 1839, there had been a very considerable augmentation in the number of deaths. From the year 1838 to 1839, the number of deaths was one in 46·52; in 1840, one in 44·56; but he begged the House to look at the alarming increase in the manufacturing districts. In Leicestershire, in 1839, the number was one in 48·27; in 1840, it was one in 39·89. In Nottinghamshire, in 1839, it was one in 47·74; in 1840, it was one in 35·61; in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in 1839, it was one in 44·47; in 1840, it was one in 42·92. In Lancashire, it was, in 1839, one in 35·71; in 1840, it was one in 31·99. Mr. Mott had endeavoured to show, that the number of uninhabited houses was attributable to the over-building which had taken place in that town and its neighbourhood. Now, he held in his hand a document which showed, that throughout the country there had been an enormous increase in the number of houses which were unoccupied. In a statement drawn up by Mr. Porter of the proportion of uninhabited to inhabited houses, it appeared that in 1811 the number was 2·77 per cent., in 1821 it was 3·27 per cent., in 1831 it was 4·66 per cent., and in 1841 it was 5·58 per cent. In Bolton, since 1835, 1836, and 1837, the whole loss sustained by empty houses, removals, and other causes, had been immense. At that period scarcely a house remained unoccupied for a month. Building had been stopped, population had increased, but the number of uninhabited houses was progressively augmenting; one house in nine is unoccupied, according to Mr. Mott's confession. In 1836, of the rates levied amounting to 2,062l., only 88l. 13s.4d. was lost by removals, allowances for poor tenants, and empty property;—in 1841 more was lost than the whole amount of rates in 1836, for while the rates laid amounted to 12,750l., the losses were 2,963l. from removals, unoccupied houses, and unrecoverable rates. So great was the proportion of unoccupied houses and shops, that in the poor-rates collected from March 1840, to 1841, on two shillings in the pound, there was a deficiency of 1,000l., making a diminished rental of 10,000l., independently of which 1,000l. had been remitted, to those unable to pay; so that another 10,000l. must be deducted from the average rental of 70,000l. per annum, which was the estimated rental of shops and houses independently of factories, founderies, land and other property. What had been stated with regard to the poor-rates at Bolton? The amount laid in Great Bolton in three years, namely, 1835, 1836, and 1837, was 11,900l., while for the year ending in March 1842 the amount levied was 16,740l.; so that in the last year the amount levied was 4,800l. more than in the three years preceding 1837, and, this, notwithstanding the amount of 4,000l. had been received from charitable contributions. In Little Bolton, the amount levied in the six years, from 1834 to 1840, was 6,307l.; while in the single year to 1842, no less than 7,000l. had been levied. Now, what was the present condition of Bolton? He would refer to a return which was made up of the Poor Relief Society in that place. The number of persons relieved from the 22d December to the 22d January last, was 6,167, the average income of each being 11¾d. per week—or less than 1¾d. per head per day for finding them with food, clothing, firing, and to pay their rent. The application of 828 persons had been rejected, on the ground of the insufficiency of funds, and the average earnings of these rejected persons was only Is. 9¾d. per week, while of the total number of applicants amounting to 6,695 individuals, the average earnings were but 13d. per week; and yet Mr. Mott had ventured to talk of the generous and even profuse expenditure per week for their relief. Of 50 mills usually employing 8,126 men, 30 were either unemployed or working short time. Of trades not exclusively dependent on factory work, such as Iron-founders, Carpenters, Bricklayers, Stonemasons, Tailors, and Shoemakers, it was found, that of 3,100 employed in 1836, only 1,730 were now employed, In December last there had been a survey made of the people of Bolton, and 1,003 families were then visited, consisting of 5,035 persons, whose net earnings amounted to 339l. 15s.7d. per week. They received parish relief and donations amounting to 521. 8s. 5d., making 392l. 4s. The amount required for the payment of their weekly rent, if paid, was 82l. 3s. 4d., and thus it appeared that the amount left for clothing, food, &c., was 310l. Os. 8d., which was ls. 2½d. per head per week. Among the whole of these families 950 had beds, and in the whole 1,553 beds were found; 716 were filled with flocks, the remainder with straw, chaff, and other such matter; among the 5,035 persons there were 466 blankets, or about 10½ persons to each; 53 families were wholly without beds; 425 persons were sleeping on the floor; there were found amongst the whole 2,876 chairs, 1,380 tables, 642 stools; 511 of these families existed by the habit of constantly pledging their small possessions, and 609 families had no change of linen whatever. This survey had been conducted by persons who expressed their readiness to attest the veracity of their statements. He had himself gone over this town, accompanied by an hon. and gallant Gentleman accustomed to witness the consequences of war, who had seen towns besieged, and all the other miseries and privations which belonged to such events, but he said that he had never witnessed scenes in which wretchedness so deplorable was depicted. In many of the streets of Bolton there was not a single inhabitant—many of the inhabited houses were without any furniture whatever—hundreds of families slept wholly on the ground without bed or bedding, and there were thousands who had no supply of daily bread to keep existence together, and to whom the use of animal food was altogether unknown, They had a feeling that that House might do something to relieve their distresses. They were innocent, desirous of procuring labour, and exerting themselves to procure it. They had heard that many countries were willing to receive labour at their hands, and to pay for that labour the superfluous food which those countries produced, and they inquired in their honest anxiety and their most excusable discontent, "Is this state of things to continue?" In conclusion, he moved for copies of any communications addressed from Bolton to the Home-office, during the late recess, upon the subject of Mr. Mott's report.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put, in the first instance, a question concerning the motion with which he concluded his speech, a great portion of his valuable time might have been saved, as he had no intention to offer any opposition to the motion. The hon. Member for Bolton, in speaking of something which had been done before the late prorogation upon the subject, said, that he (Sir J. Graham) had been guilty of supererogation. He (Sir J, Graham) however must say, that he was satisfied, from the best information which he could obtain, that he believed certain statements which had been made by hon. Gentlemen had been exaggerated. The hon. Member had now thought it necessary to go into a great many facts. He (Sir J. Graham) however should avail himself of his advice on this subject, and would not, therefore, be guilty of supererogation by following him throughout all these details after they had been already discussed for a third time, He thought, that it would be much better if the discussion upon this question were postponed until both sides of the House had been put into possession of everything connected with the case. He should not resist the motion, but he should propose to add to it the following words—viz., "together with any reports presented by Mr. Mott in answer to any such communications." Before, however, he sat down, he begged the House to recollect, that though he did state it to be his conviction, that certain facts had been exaggerated, yet he did not deny the truth of the statement, that great distress does exist in Bolton. Upon this point he would be very sorry to he misunderstood. He would beg to move the amendment.

wished to hear his testimony to the existence of great distress in Bolton; indeed, in the whole course of his life, he never knew distress so pre- valent. With respect to the cases alluded to by his hon. colleague, he must say, that with respect to the case of Pearce and Kirkman the facts were most deplorable. The family of Pearce were in a state of imbecility, for the questions which were put to them by various parties were answered by the most opposite replies. With respect to the relieving officer, he was aware, that relief would have been afforded them if he had not conceived, that they were in the receipt of certain wages. When the relieving officer called upon them the second time, and discovered their destitute situation, he lost no time in administering to their relief. Indeed the relieving officer did whatever he could, after he had discovered their real situation. That relief had been since constantly given. This same statement, he believed, would hold good with respect to the family of Bristol, who were also relieved upon their case being made known. That family, he believed, were now in some employment in the borough. He regretted exceedingly the distress which had existed; but as far as he could judge, being intimately connected with the Poor-law guardians, relief had been granted, as far as it was possible to do so consistent with the rules and regulations laid down. Subscriptions had been raised amounting to upwards of 4,000l. for the poor of Bolton. He must bear his testimony to the manner in which relief had been administered by the Poor-law guardians to the poor of Bolton. They have even gone on their own responsibility, and have given out-door relief where they deemed it necessary, and have not consulted the commissioners. With respect to the relieving officers, he was quite sure that in every instance they had done all they could. He thought that Mr. Mott went much out of his way, indeed, to condemn the conduct of many individuals in the borough, who were solely actuated by a proper feeling of charity and good-will towards their poorer brethren. He, therefore, thought, that Mr. Mott did very wrong in making those remarks. He did not think that the distress was in the slightest degree exaggerated. There was, however, one point upon which he hoped he would be excused making an observation. His hon. colleague had stated that there were fifty mills in Bolton, thirty of which were unemployed. He had just left that borough, and he must say, that he believed the whole of the mills were at present employed, but working short time. He thought it right that those things should be fairly and honourably stated. He believed that there might be one at the present moment unemployed, but it arose from causes not connected with the general condition of the country. With respect to the number of houses unoccupied in the borough, there were certainly about 1,500 or 1,600 in such a state now, and have been in this state for some time.

said, he did not be lieve that the distress of Bolton had been at all exaggerated. He went himself down to the borough to inquire into the truth of this fact, being unwilling to believe that such a state of things could have existed. As an Englishman and a Christian he was not disposed to believe this distress. He had, however, seen that distress, and he must bear testimony to the truth of the statements which have been made by the bon. Members for Bolton on the subject. He hoped, however, that some measure would be adopted that would permanently relieve this state of things.

was convinced that the opinion was daily gaining ground that the system, of sitting until such late hours was anything but advantageous to legislation, or beneficial to the public. He had often brought forward the motion before, but had not been successful in inducing the House to agree to it, but as he saw many new Members present, he was in hopes that his present proposition would be attended with better success. He did not object to a debate which commenced before twelve o'clock being terminated that night, but he was strongly opposed to business ocoupying considerable time being brought forward after midnight. In 1614 an order of the House was made, that no new business should be brought forward after twelve o'clock at noon. To show the change that had taken place in the feelings and circumstances of the times. he had now to bring forward a motion to prevent new business, if opposed, being brought forward after twelve o'clock at night. Another order of the House was passed, that no Member should leave the House before the Speaker, and that he should leave first, and that the other Members should follow. If this system obtained now, they would certainly ensure the attendance of at least 100 Members. The hon. Member concluded with moving, "That no opposed motion be brought on and decided after twelve o'clock at night, unless 100 Members be present."

observed, that as the hon. Member had stated, that there were many new Members in the House, and that he was anxious to take their opinion on the subject, would it not have been advisable to have waited and let the new Members have some experience of the present system? He (Sir R. Peel) confessed that he saw no particular advantage that would arise from adopting the motion of the hon. Member. Circumstances and habits had altered since the time that the House used to meet at ten o'clock in the morning, and if the House reverted to that custom, there must be a total change in the mode of conducting business. As long as they met at four o'clock, and did not commence public business until five, the motion, if carried, would prove a great impediment to the discharge of public business. It would be highly inconvenient to allow one Member to throw an impediment in the way of business; but at present, if five or six Members objected to new business being brought forward, or expressed themselves in favour of an adjournment, he, for his own part, was, and should continue to be, willing to yield.

rose to move for copies of the letters of the late Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and the late Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, resigning their judicial offices. He made this motion in consequence of the circumstances under which those resignations appeared to have taken place. He said "appeared to have taken place," because the letters for which he moved might give some colour to the transaction which he was not aware of. He thought it of the greatest importance that that House should pay rigid attention to whatever related to the judges. They were placed in a high station, to which they were appointed for life, they were paid large salaries, and retiring pensions were allowed to them when unable to perform their duties. The performance of these duties was generally attended with very great respect and observance on the part of the public, and on the part of Parliament; so that, however some might object to that principle of the constitution which rendered the judges independent, it could not be said that the judges had reason to complain of the mode in which they were treated by Parliament or the public. Such being the case, and the in- conveniences which some very considerable writers had pointed out having been incurred for the sake of placing the judges in an almost irresponsible position, he thought, the public was entitled to expect from them a total and entire devotion to their judicial duties, and that nothing of a party political character should attach to them while they held the station of judges. Now, circumstances had occurred in the cases to which he referred, which certainly were prima facie of a suspicious character; for no sooner was one set of Ministers changed for another, when two of the highest judicial personages, one holding the office of Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, and the other the office of Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, resigned their offices, and accepted retiring pensions. He said, that on the face of it, it would appear that one of two things had taken place — either that these judges, during the period in which they retained their offices, had been for some time unfit to perform their duties with that vigour and intelligence which were requisite—or that, being still in full possession of their powers, they had resigned their judicial situations into the hands of those whom they considered their political friends, and obtained retiring pensions, thereby depriving the public of the use of those talents which ought to be devoted to its service. That one of the two cases had happened appeared to be probable, for otherwise it would be extraordinary the inability of two persons holding such high situations should be precisely cotemporaneous with the accession of a new Ministry. This might be explained by the letters for which he had moved. It might appear to have been the case, however singular and strange, that in September or October, 1841, such an infirmity or illness had attacked both these eminent persons as led to the resignation of their offices, and rendered them unable any longer to perform their duties. If such should appear from the letters, or from any statement that could be made in that House, then all suspicion would be at an end. At the same time there were other circumstances that made it more necessary for such an explanation to be given. One was with respect to the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, that for some time he had seldom attended circuit, or performed the duty of a Judge going circuit. Another was with respect to the Lord President of the Court of Session, that his near rela- tion had been appointed to the vacant seat. These circumstances were calculated to strengthen the suspicion, that those judges had retained their situations, in order to deliver them into the hands of their political friends. He said, that considering the eminent situation which the judges filled, the purity with which they ought to maintain their character, the manner in which they ought to stand clear from all political partiality, it would be a great Misfortune if judges were found to abuse their situations, and take advantage of the act by which they could not be deprived of their places unless for misconduct, and by address from both Houses of Parliament —so far to regard, not how the duties of the judicial bench were to be performed, but in what manner the Treasury Bench in that House was occupied. He thought, that would be a great misfortune, and he should be sorry if he found no sufficient explanation on the subject. He did not think, as the case at present stood, that any charge, or anything approaching to a charge, was to be made against the executive government on the subject. It was their duty, when the vacancies took place, when the resignations were placed in their hands, to ascertain, in the first place, that they were made by persons who could not properly go on with their duties, and in the next place to see that those vacancies were filled by persons of sufficient learning and ability. He had nothing to say on these points, having no doubt that those duties were performed. With respect to the persons nominated to the vacancies, their names were sufficient guarantee for their high character, legal ability, and integrity, and these he was not going to question. It was not, therefore, to make any charge against the executive government, that he wished to ask for these letters. It was that notice might be taken of the subject, which might Operate as some warning to person in high judicial situations, not to allow themselves to be bent by political partiality, but to consider themselves as judges totally removed from all partisanships, whether Whig or Tory. With these few observations, he begged to move for the papers to which he had referred.

said, that until the noble Lord rose for the purpose of explaining the reasons which had induced him to bring forward this motion, and after the best reflection he could give to the noble Lord's notice, he had remained in the gravest doubt as to what could be the motives or intentions of the noble Lord in bringing it forward. If the noble Lord had any accusation to make against her Majesty's Government, if he had had any doubt of the purity of their conduct, or any allegation to bring forward touching the motives which had induced them to give effect to the resignations of those judges, then he should have been perfectly prepared to meet the noble Lord, and should not have hesitated one moment as to the course he ought to pursue. But the noble Lord said that with respect to the executive government he had nothing whatever to allege—that they had no option in receiving the resignations duly attested—the fact being undoubted, and the inability of the parties to perform their duty being ascertained, that they had no alternative but to accept their resignations and exercise the best discretion they could in advising the Crown as to the manner in which the vacancies should be filled up. The noble Lord had no complaint to make of the mode in which that duty had been discharged by the executive government; and in bringing forward his motion it now appeared that it was not for the purpose of reflecting on the character of those venerable judges who had lately retired froth presiding, the one over the highest court of common law in Ireland, and the other Over the judicature of Scotland—but as a warning to future judges not to follow their example. He had not the honour of knowing either of those eminent persons, but he should say that their conduct, so far from being held up as a warning, had left a bright example to be followed by their successors in office. Their ability, their learning, their impartiality, could not be impugned, and on the testimony of the bar of the countries where they had sat upon the Bench was, a complete answer to the insinuations of the noble Lord. With respect to Chief Justice Bushe, he saw on the other side of the House a learned Gentleman, who he believed in latter years had been much opposed to the chief justice in politics, and who would admit that the address presented to Chief Justice Bushe, on his retirement from the bench in Ireland, by Mr. Dickson, the father of the bar, was agreed. to unanimously by that learned body. It expressed their great admiration for the talent and conduct of the learned judge at a time when no motive of fulsome adulation could be assigned for its presen- tation, and its tenour was such as left nothing to be desired by that venerable person oh his retirement into private life. He was not going to pass an eulogium on Chief Justice Bushe, but if he were not mistaken, he was one of those who had been most distinguished in Ireland in their day—and had stood prominently forward without losing by comparison, with Mr. Grattan, Mr. Curran, Lord Plunket, and others of the greatest eminence. Recollecting this, he could not but regret for the sake of Chief Justice Bushe, that at his advanced age and in his present position, having retired into private life, the noble Lord should have come forward to hold up his conduct as a warning to future judges who were told not to follow his example. With respect to the Lord Pre-dent of the Court of Session, he had not the honour of knowing him, but, he believed, that for thirty-seven years he had been on the bench and for thirty years had presided over that court. Until the present moment, whatever heat of party might have existed in Scotland, he had understood that the integrity of judical conduct of the Lord President had never been for one moment called in question. It had sometimes occurred to his thoughts, when reflecting on the reasons for this motion, that the noble Lord might be anxious to inquire whether the present Government, following former example, had at all entered into negotiations with the learned judge: that the noble Lord might be anxious to ascertain whether the present Government had employed the Solicitor-general of Scotland to negotiate with the Lord President with respect to the amount of retiring allowance. He thought the noble Lord might have been anxious to know whether some expectant Solicitor-general, waiting to be Lord Advocate, had negotiated with the Lord President respecting a clause to be introduced into a bill before Parliament to secure his retiring allowance, upon condition of his immediate resignation; that the Lord Advocate might be made Lord President, and the negotiating Solicitor-general succeed to the post of Lord Advocate. He thought that a supposition of some such proceeding might have aroused the constitutional jealousy of the noble Lord, or that his suspicions might have been excited by his own past experience in office. In thinking that such might have been the motives of the noble Lord, he felt strong in the consciousness of not having been a party to any transaction of that description, and that he could give the most positive negative to any statement of that kind. He could state on the part of the Government that neither directly nor indirectly was any communication made to the Lord President with respect to his retirement from office, or the amount of his compensation. The noble Lord said, it was of the utmost importance that that House should pay attention to the resignations of the judges. And the noble Lord's jealousy was not confined to Scotland. Of course the noble Lord extended his jealousy to Ireland. It was not only a Lord Chief Justice that had retired; they had heard of a Lord Chancellor retiring not upon the accession of a Government to office, but when a government was virtually condemned—condemned by Parliament and the country; and the continued existence of that Government must have been known to the Members of it themselves to be impossible. They were not left to vague surmise as to the circumstances under which the Lord Chancellor had retired from the bench in Ireland. They were not left to suspect whether the Government had offered some inducement to that noble person to retire from the judgment-seat when he was quite competent to continue upon it. There was no doubt upon the matter. It was not to he investigated or inquired into, as with regard to the motives which induced Chief Justice Bushe to resign. The circumstances which induced Lord Plunket to resign were known to all the world, having been stated by Lord Plunket from the judgment-seat, in terms which he would now read to the House. The noble Lord thought it of vast importance, that there should be no indirect communications. Let the House hear what Lord Plunket said with respect to the communications which had been made to him:—

"With regard to the particular circumstances which have occasioned my retirement I wish to say a few words. I think it a duty which I owe to myself, and to the members of the bar, to state, that for my retirement on this occasion I am not in the slightest degree answerable. I have neither directly nor indirectly sanctioned it, and in giving my assent to the proposal which was made to me of retiring, I was governed solely by its having been requested of me—on the ground of public duty?—nothing of the kind—as a personal favour to do so by a person to whom I owe such deep obligations, that an irresistable sense of gratitude made it impossible for me to do anything but what I have done."

Now he (Sir James Graham) simply assured the House and the country, with respect to the Lord President Hope, and the Chief-Justice Bushe, that no member of the Government, no Solicitor-general of Scotland, no Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, had asked either the one or the other to retire from office. The Government never tampered with those learned persons; and they would have scouted such tampering if the Government had dared to attempt it. Their resignations were freely offered —they were accepted by the Government on public grounds, and on public grounds only—they were accepted freely and unconditionally; and the Government had, to the best of their judgment, advised the Crown as to the manner in which those offices should be filled up. He would not, therefore, unless compelled by a vote of that House, consent to a course so unusual, that it would stamp with something like disgrace those venerable persons. He would not consent to the production of those letters. If he could produce those venerable persons themselves, shaken, perhaps, somewhat with age, but strong in conscious integrity, and bright with the hope of honest fame, mingling with still brighter hopes, if lie could so produce them, he knew—such was the generous feeling of that House—that all the angry contentions of party would subside at their presence, and the desire would be unanimous not to curse their retirement with the pangs which a motion like this might inflict. They would be treated with respect and reverence. Even the noble Lord would regret, that in a hasty moment he had been betrayed into making such a motion as this.

said, that he cordially joined in the last wish expressed by the right bon. Baronet. He wished, so far as Scotland was concerned, that they could produce in that House the venerable gentleman who had just retired from the office of Lord President. He should be sorry to be led, in following the right hon. Baronet, to use any expression which could pain that venerable gentleman; but if be did so, it would be from the right hon. Baronet having dwelt so broadly on the cause of his retirement, and having denied, that it was attended with circumstances which could not only justify the suspicions of his noble Friend, but carry out those suspicions into the breast of every man in Scotland. It was perfectly well known by every Scotchman—he saw hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite who knew it well—that the late Lord President had been, for many months before his retirement, incapable of performing his duties. He would ask the Lord Advocate, whom he saw opposite, how often the late Lord President had presided in the Jury Court of Scotland? He would ask, whether, before the late Government, brought forward the motion, which led to their resignation, the Lord President had not, on the assembly of the judges, stated, that his infirmity was on him, and that he must give up to other judges the performance of his duties in the jury courts? Was that the first instance of his having done so? By no means. The right hon. Baronet referred to the bar of Scotland as bearing evidence of the manner in which the Lord President had discharged his duties. It was by the forbearance of that bar, that the learned judge in question had been enabled to hold his position to so advanced a period. Hon. Gentlemen in this country might imagine, that because the Lord President had presided in the Court of Session, without great fault being found with his judgments, without falling into errors of memory, or other errors incident to age, his functions were efficiently performed. But it should be recollected, that in Scotland there were written pleadings and written defences, which the judges took home and formed their judgments upon in the retirement of their chambers; whilst the English judges listented to viva voce pleadings, and gave judgment from their notes, and, therefore, could not discharge their duties so easily as if they had written pleadings to examine. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to another case, which was so notorious, that it was surprising a Gentleman of such high public virtue, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, should have let it slumber so long. He alluded to the case of Lord Corehouse, who retired from the bench about two years ago. During the whole of that period, the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman had slept upon it. He could not plead ignorance of it, for printed papers containing the whole evidence on the subject, had been transmitted to him and others. However, the right hon. Gentleman now accused the late Government of making a bargain for the retirement of Lord Corehouse. What were the facts? Lord Corehouse, in the execution of his duties, was struck with a paralytic stroke, which rendered him incapable, in the opinion of his medical advisers of ever resuming his judicial functions. At that time, when the Government had no prospect of retirement—when there was no appearance of danger in the political horizon— it became a question with Lord Corehouse, whether he should apply for leave of absence from his court, which must have terminated in his resignation, or immediately retire from his judicial functions. The circumstances which weighed with the mind of Lord Corehouse was, that there was a bill then before Parliament regulating the retiring salaries of the judges, and that if lie retired immediately, he would not be likely to come within the provisions of the bill. He wished, by taking advantage of the leave of absence, to prolong his judicial existence, so as to come within those provisions. The question, therefore, arose, whether it were not better that he should retire at once, not to make room for a successor at a time when the power of appointment was in danger of lapsing, but to allow his situation to be at once effectually filled up, and whether, for that purpose, a clause might not be introduced into the bill, so shaped as to give him the benefit of the retiring salary, according to its provisions. He had no hesitation in admitting before the public, to whose judgment he appealed, that he was a party to that transaction. He had compassion on a judge who had served a long time upon the bench—who was struck with an almost fatal disease—whose mind, indeed, was then in such a state that he was hardly fit to be treated with at all, and for the purpose of allaying his feelings, and at the same time of rendering a court efficient whose efficiency had been much questioned, he did assent to the introduction of that clause. The right hon. Baronet had thought it worth while, in order to gain a party cheer over his noble Friend, to misrepresent the whole circumstances as a party political proceeding, but forgot how much obloquy in that case it threw upon himself; for if the transaction was blameworthy, or savoured of an attempt to render impure the channels of justice, why did not the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the charge two years ago? The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He would leave it to the public to judge between the right hon. Gentleman's charge and his answer. He avowed himself openly a party to the transaction, and be ventured to say, that in the impartial judgment of the public, he would stand in a better position with regard to it than the right hon. Gentleman. He had said that the late Lord President of the Court of Session was not in a state to discharge all the duties of his office. He had stated that he could not discharge the duties of one particular court over which he ought to preside. He would go further and say, that that venerable man lingered on the bench till those who knew what he had been pitied what he had become. He would say, likewise, that latterly some of his judgments had excited deep and irrepressible disgust in the public mind of Scotland. He alluded especially to one judgment, in a case, perhaps, the most important that had ever come before a judicial tribunal in Scotland, and on which the Lord President of the Court of Session was called on to give an opinion. It was a case in which the feelings of the people of Scotland were deeply involved —he meant the Strathbogie case. When the learned judge in question had to give judgment in that important case —by which the public mind had been so much excited—he so far allowed his temper to get the better of his discretion —to adopt the most charitable construction —that instead of delivering his judgment with the calmness and dignity which would render it effective in removing the doubts as to the respective powers of the civil and ecclesiastical courts—and at all events tend to allay the angry feelings that had been excited—he compared the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, composed of men who stood high in the affections of the people—using a simile, borrowed from the noble Lord opposite—he called that venerable body "thimble-riggers." He compared the General Assembly, in his judgment, to men who tossed at racecourses, and cried "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." He defied any one to deny, that those terms had been used by that learned judge on the bench. Would any gentleman in Westminster Hall tell him, that if such ribaldry had been made use of by Lord Chief-justice Denman, it would not have met with deep and general disapprobation, to say the least of it? He attributed it to no wish on the part of the Lord President to hurt the feelings of any party in Scotland, but he did say, that so much of temper had mixed itself up with that of judgment, that it had created in Scotland a deeper feeling of indignation, and had done more to widen the breach between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts, than any other circumstance. In Scotland they had a narrow circle, and Were apt to speculate much among themselves about some parties in that circle. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, could set at rest one suspicion, or report. which prevailed there. It was said, that the Lord President Hope had tendered his resignation in 1834 or 1835, during the right hon. Baronet's former administration. He could scarcely credit it. Still, for the sake of the learned Lord's character, he hoped this opportunity would be taken to deny it. There was another circumstance more confirmatory of this statement than mere report, and that was the statement of the learned Lord himself. When remarking on a judgment given by Lord Eldin, than whom there was no greater ornament of the Scottish bench, but whose mind was affected before he retired from Office, the late Lord President observed how much it was to be regretted, that a judge should fall into such a condition, and said, that he at least bad taken steps to ensure, that it should not happen to himself, for he had placed his resignation into hands that would use it whenever his faculties showed symptoms of decay. As his noble Friend had, so did he absolve the executive government from being a party to this transaction. All that they could do, when the resignation was placed in their hands, was to appoint, as a successor, such person as they thought most fit for the situation. He quarrelled not with their appointment; but then he must say, that the circumstances that attended the resignation had occasioned very great conversation in Scotland—it certainly had excited very great suspicion. He was by no means sure, though he was quite ready to acquit the Government of having any hand, act, or part in the resignation—he was not, he said, quite sure, that the right hon. Baronet's defence would allay the suspicion which existed in Scotland.

When he saw the motion Standing on the paper in the name of the noble Lord, he thought it was intended as an impeachment of the conduct of the Government, but that was disclaimed, and it turned out to be nothing more than a miserable attempt to cast reflections upon those who had long served their country in high and most important offices, an attack upon defenceless men—that was the avowed object of the noble Lord, and it was much strengthened by the speech to which the House had just listened. He (Sir W. Rae) was astonished that any man who had resided so long in Scotland as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had, should come forward and pour coals of fire upon the head of a venerable servant of the public, who was about to retire into quiet life: it was a course he did not expect to have seen taken by him. It was the more ungenerous, because the charges were wholly unfounded. The mind of the venerable person whose name had been so often alluded to was as sound as it was ten years ago. [Mr. F. Maule had never stated that his mind was unsound.] He had certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to state, that the mind of the venerable judge was in such a state, that he was incapable of performing his duties. He (Sir W. Rae) said, that such a statement was unfounded in fact, for the Lord President had performed his duties up to the hour in which he had sent his resignation. By an act which he had had the honour of passing through the House, the heads of the courts in Scotland were required to preside in the Jury Courts; that of course was the duty of the Lord President, and he would affirm that that duty he had always performed — every case which properly came before the first division had been tried by the venerable judge. It was true that he was afflicted with a lameness in his limbs, which rendered it a work of difficulty for burn to get up the stairs to his court. He knew also that the venerable judge was afflicted with a degree of deafness. He knew also that he was seventy years of age, and that he had officiated upon the bench for thirty-eight years: all that he knew; but he also knew, that he had always most ably performed his duties. With respect to the judgment upon the Church question, it was not likely that it would be pleasing to the hon. Gentleman, but he and the House were aware that the judges were bound by oath to administer justice to all. As to the words attributed to the venerable judge on that occasion, he would only say that until they had been stated in that House he had never heard of them. But it was to be borne in mind that upon that occasion he was addressing certain persons who had been guilty of a gross breach of the law, and that the duty of reprimanding them had been cast upon him in virtue of his office; and he would say, without fear of contradiction, that a more able address than that delivered by the venerable Lord President had never been heard in the court. Allusions had been made to addresses of the bar to retiring judges. A testimonial of that kind of the most flattering description had been sent to the venerable judge upon his retirement from the faculty of advocates— a body comprising men of the first talent, Of great independence, and of all shades of politics—it was agreed to unanimously, and he would read it to the House.

" Sir,—The dean and faculty of advocates on occasion of your retirement from the Situation of Lord President of the Court of Session, are desirous of expressing their sense of the distinguished ability and integrity with which you have discharged the duties of that high office. During a period of more than thirty years, you have devoted your eminent talents and great attainments, with unwearied and successful assiduity, to the administration of justice. Your judicial character has been adorned by learning and eloquence of no ordinary kind, while the strict impartiality and high principle which have guided your judgments have commanded universal confidence and respect. The faculty feel gratefully bound to acknowledge that they have uniformly experienced at your hands that courtesy and kindness of demeanour which are so necessary to assist the exertions of the advocate, and which, as your example has shown, only confer additional dignity on the judicial station. The faculty trust that this sincere expression of their esteem and veneration for your character may not be unacceptable to you at a time when you are quitting the employments and distinctions of public life, and they earnestly hope that you may enjoy in your retirement the repose and happiness which will be the fit reward of your long labours and your many virtues."

That address was passed not only unanimously but with cordiality. Who, then, would assail the character or a man enjoying such a character from those who knew him best—a man who was now preparing himself for that great change which at his years must soon arrive? With respect to what had been said as to negotiation or bargain with him for the appointment of a successor, he could only say that he had heard of it far the first time that evening. As to the fact of his resignation being placed in the hands of his son, he believed it was true, but that he had watched the mental faculties of his father was also true within his own knowledge, and had it been necessary the resignation would have been tendered without regard to party or personal ad- vantage; the character of the son was secure from calumny from the fact that he had twelve years ago been elected unanimously to the high station of Dean of Faculty. He would only further say, that a more unjust or ungenerous accusation against any public servant he had never heard.

would not have taken any part in this discussion, had he not been appealed to by the right hon. Baronet. He confessed he was of opinion, that this motion had not been brought forward in a manner calculated to insure it as much success as it would have met with, had the noble Lord not omitted another still stronger case that had occ rred in Ireland, of a particular judge, of whom he would say nothing more at present, than that he should bring his case before the House upon notice. The right hon. Baronet had appealed to his testimony in favour of Chief Justice Bushe, insinuating, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, that it would have weight with the House; inasmuch as that learned judge was opposed to his (Mr. O'Connell's) politics. Now Chief Justice Bushe ought not to be opposed to any man in politics. He did not think it was saying much in Chief Justice Bushe's praise to allege, that he was opposed to any man in politics. The right hon. Baronet must have meant since his accession to the bench, for previously that learned gentleman and he agreed perfectly well in politics. [Sir J. Graham: While he was Solicitor-general, from 1805 to 1822?] Yes; he had always been the advocate of the Catholic claims. He began by opposing the union; he was the comrade and rival of the Grattans, the Currans, and the Ponsonbys of that time; superior to them in many qualities, as an orator, he was inferior to them in none. He had the happiest vocabulary he had ever heard; he was an excellent lawyer, and an accomplished gentleman. He was all this; but the Charles Bushe that was then was not the Charles Bushe that had recently resigned his seat upon the bench, since the Tory Ministry had come into power: He did not blame the judge. It was the decay of nature, a beautiful and mighty wreck, but, notwithstanding that, a wreck. He had adhered to the bench, after he had ceased to be useful, with a desperate and unhappy tenacity, until he could procure a successor more congenial to his political sentiments, than he was likely to have obtained, had he resigned a little sooner. He spoke of the matter with regret. For the last four or five years, Chief Justice Bushe did not sit at nisi prius. Although it was his duty, he allowed that duty to devolve upon a junior judge, thereby giving evidence of the consciousness of his own fading powers. Otherwise, why desert his duty? He certainly went circuit, but in Ireland it happened, that judges forfeited a portion of their salary, if they did not. At the Maryborough assizes which lasted five days, he took two of those days to decide a few cases of appeal from the registry, leaving thirty-five cases undecided, while the other business of the assizes was almost entirely undone. He did not impeach the integrity of Chief Justice Bushe. No; he did not allege even that he had shown the slightest partiality in his decision of those registry cases. But he did allege, that his faculties had so forsaken him at the time, that he was incompetent to the discharge of his judicial duties. Everybody had observed that, and his best friends had urged him to resign; but he refused to do so, and held his place, until there was a change of Administration. It was melancholy, that these things should occur, while they showed with how much constitutional jealousy they ought to be viewed. Chief Justice Bushe, by his last act, proved, that he was opposed to him (Mr. O'Connell) in politics, and, therefore, to the popular politics of Ireland. It was an act which bespoke a foregone conclusion. He did not see why there should have been such a clamour of triumph on the other side of the House at the noble Lord's motion, when these facts were unquestioned, and, in his mind, undoubted. Addresses from the bar had been spoken of, but was there, let him ask, any great weight to be given to addresses from the bar? Was there no fellow-feeling on the bench to influence the getting up and signing of those addresses, or was it quite prudent for a barrister in one court, to refuse to be a party to an address to the judge of another? Besides, few would like to assail a man in decrepitude and decay. After all, too, he believed, that the assembly which agreed to compliment was not very numerous, and Mr. Dickson, the father of the bar, was nearly alone. It was with pain he felt himself compelled to say these things. He had not been stingy in his praise of those qualities which had distinguished Chief Justice Bushe as a lawyer and a gentleman, and he deeply lamented that he should form one of those unhappy examples of partisan tenacity to the bench, which prevailed in this country. Another instance of a similar character, a glaring instance, had occurred in Ireland, of which, as it would shortly be the subject of debate in that House, he would say no more; but as regarded this, he conceived that the noble Lord had acted perfectly right in bringing it as a constitutional question under their consideration, and he sincerely hoped, that the discussion which had arisen upon it would have the effect of terrifying or persuading the friends of judges to get them to resign when they were no longer competent to discharge their judicial functions, and above all, to prevent them from continuing in office until the moment when, by resigning, they could afford to a particular political party some political advantage.

said, that after the eulogy which had been passed upon the character of Chief Justice Bushe, he had only to make a very few remarks with reference to what was matter of fact. In all that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said, regarding the eloquence and eminence of Chief Justice Bustle, he fully and cordially coincided, but from what had fallen from him regarding the declining abilities of that learned judge, he totally disagreed. He believed, that until the last circuit which Chief Justice Bushe went, which was the summer circuit of last year, there had been no evidence of his abilities having so far declined as to prevent the due performance of his duties. Then it was, that he himself had become aware, that his health was declining, and then it was, that he intimated to his friends and acquaintances—but without reference to what the political character of the Government was or might be, that in the following term, he would take his seat in the Queen's Bench, for the last time. He was fully convinced, and since he saw the notice of the noble Lord on the paper, he had availed himself of every opportunity of making inquiry on the subject—he was fully convinced, that under any circumstances, Chief Justice Bushe would have sent in his resignation previous to the last term of last year. He was surprised, therefore, at the boldness of the noble Lord in bringing forward a charge of such a nature as his motion implied. He would not retaliate, by referring to the case of Lord Plunket and Lord Campbell; but this he must say, that if public opinion in Ireland was at all indicative of the truth, it would appear that terms had been offered by the late Government to this very individual, Chief Justice Bushe, to induce him to resign. He moreover believed, and he had good reason for believing, that an overture of a similar nature had been made to Judge Johnstone, amounting to offers of appointments for two of his sons. And without meaning to cast any reflection upon the Government of the noble Lord, who had provoked every censure which had fallen from his side of the House on this subject, he must be permitted to say that there never before, under any Administration, had been so great a clearance of the public offices in Ireland as that which had been effected by the late Government during the time they were dragging on a political existence. The police, the stipendiary magistracy, in fact every department of the public service, bore evidence of the exercise of Whig Government patronage to an extent which, he believed, was unparalleled within the memory of any living individual. Under these circumstances he was surprised at the motion of the noble Lord, and he would leave it to the House to say whether he was likely to gain anything by having brought it forward.

in explanation, said he did not allude to the last summer circuit, but to the March circuit, and the circuit before that.

observed that this motion had certainly given rise to a most edifying discussion. It only proved that when certain people, at certain times, and in certain places, fell out and disagreed, then it happened that it allowed others to know what was going on behind the curtain, and to learn something of the motives that actuated political parties. He must own that he was exceedingly puzzled to know what could be the motives of the noble Lord in bringing forward this motion. It was his habit to mark the notices of motion in which he did not take any particular interest, with certain annotations; for instance, some he noted as "fudge," others as "nonsense;" and it was curious that he should have marked the notice of the noble Lord "suicide." Having so marked it, he thought it might have called for his official interference. The noble Lord had brought forward this notice for the purpose of its working as a caution to judges against a repetition of that conduct which he attributed to the judges in question. He himself knew nothing further of the circumstances of these cases than what had been stated to the House that night. He did think that however blameable these parties might have been, yet there were other parties who, for a long series of years, had been guilty of worse conduct in their appointments, with reference to the bench, than the judge in question, even admitting all the allegations made against them to be true. Was it right, he asked, that the judgment seat should he made a political institution? Was it not scandalous to the characture of the Legislature—was it not disgraceful to the intelligence of the nation —was it not a reflection upon he good sense of the country, that the appointments to the judgment seat should be determined by the political character of the parties to be placed upon it? He made no complaint of the last appointments that had occurred in this country—he made no complaint against the existing Administration—they had the example of other Administrations before them. They saw, however, that a change in the Administration led to changes in the highest court in the kingdom. In consequence of the late changes in the Administration there was one judge —the Lord Chancellor—who was universally acknowledged to be an ornament to his profession, who was universally admitted to be a judge who had performed the duties of his office in the most exemplary manner, and yet he was under the necessity of leaving that judgment-seat, to the great detriment of the public service, to make way for a political successor? The practice in this respect was that of former Administrations. But then he said, let not this discussion end without a useful lesson being drawn from it. He trusted that the present Administration, and that the right hon. Baronet who was at the head of the present Administration, would not in future, in the disposal of judicial situations, permit himself to be influenced by political views. Let legal qualifications alone entitle a person to ascend the judgment-seat, so that his decisions, when there, might not be tainted by politics.

considered that the warning given by the hon. Gentleman was not one of which the Government stood in need. He was prepared to defend every appointment that had been made; and he did not think that her Majesty's Government was open to the imputation cast by the hon. Gentleman upon it. The name of Lord Corehouse introduced into this discussion reminded him that the appointment was made by himself. Mr. Cranstoun had been placed upon the judge's bench by him. Mr. Cranstoun had been at the time among the most eminent ornaments of the bar, and that gentleman was selected by him for the judicial bench, solely on account of his professional distinction. He had passed over and disregarded the political claims of men who followed that line of politics to which He himself adhered; and unhesitatingly he sought to avail himself of, and to secure to the public, the valuable services of Mr. Cranstoun. He was equally prepared to defend the appointments to judicial offices that had been made since he came into office. There was the appointment of Mr. Cresswell. No objection, he thought, could be made to that. He thought, and he was sure justly, that none had higher professional claims, and that, too, without any reference to his political connections. That was his opinion, and he found it ratified by the public voice. The present Government had also the disposal of two other appointments in the courts of equity in this country. These two appointments took place under an Act of Parliament of last Session, passed under circumstances that the House would probably bear in mind. There were two judicial offices that were regarded as great prizes—as great distinctions in the profession. The Government was as sensible as the right hon. Gentleman could be of the high judicial and professional services of the late Lord Chancellor. As a judge he was always to be spoken of with the highest respect. And one of the first acts of the Government was to tender one of these situations to Lord Cottenham. The office was tendered to Lord Cottenham. He could quite understand and appreciate the motives from which it was declined. He might, indeed, fairly own, that they could scarcely have expected, according to the ordinary usages of the profession, that Lord Cottenham would have undertaken the duties of the office; but, at the same time, they did not forego the opportunity, if Lord Cottenham would have waived that regard to usage, to show that they attached great value to the continuance of his judicial labours. If their offer had been accepted, it would have made a saving in the public expenditure, and it would have secured to the public the great professional knowledge of that learned Lord. He now asked the hon. Gentleman whether the present Government was properly open to that reproach which he said was applicable to all Governments? He would next proceed to give an explanation as to all he knew of the retirement of the two Gentlemen whose names had been mentioned The noble Lord had acquitted the Government of all blame in those transactions. The noble Lord's motion, then, was directed against the judges themselves. When, then, he heard the bar in each country express unanimously, in their addresses to their judges, the hope that, in retiring into private life, they might enjoy repose and unmitigated happiness for the remainder of their days, it was painful to think that that repose was to be interfered with, and that happiness poisoned, by a debate in the House of Commons which conveyed reflections upon them. He was not himself at all prepared to expect the resignation of his valued friend—Lord Chief Justice Bushe. He had not heard before that his powers were so weakened as to render his continuance in office painful to him; but when it was intimated to him that the Chief Justice's age was seventy-two years—that he had been in the public service for so many years —having filled the office ·of Solicitor-general from 1805 to 1822, and since then on the bench—he thought that that eminent individual having served under an administration which was of the political party to which the noble Lord belonged, he thought that mere circumstance ought to have had some weight with the noble Lord; he thought that the noble Lord might have recollected the lustre that had been shed upon the Irish administration by the united abilities of a Plunket and a Bushe, and these circumstances would, at least, have constituted a reason why the latter should have been exempted from such a proceeding as this. When the Lord Chief Justice expressed a desire to retire, and added that he was seventy-two years old, and had given twenty years' service on the bench, he conceived the request a rational one, and that it might well be complied with, with every consideration for the public economy and the public service. But that was all the transaction. There was no stipulation of any kind. There was no encouragement to him to retire. On the contrary, recollecting the Chief Justice's services and his abilities, he could not but think with the deepest regret that he should not continue on the bench. So far from wishing the Chief Justice to retire, or to benefit by his retirement, it was his desire to secure to the public his services for a longer period. As to an intimation to him not to continue in office, it was one that Chief Justice Bushe would, if made to him, from the dignity and purity of his mind, have repelled with disgust. The age of the Chief Justice was seventy-two years. He had been twenty years on the bench. Could he, then, read that cordial and affectionate address presented to him by the whole bar of Ireland—for it was agreed to at a publicly convened meeting of the profession; could He, then, think that he, who said he was the advocate of "justice to Ireland," should be the first man to throw imputations upon that profession to which he belonged—that he should describe that profession (the bar of Ireland) as one whose address to a retiring judge was to be regarded as mere waste paper—,as that, in which some had the meanness to flatter, and others not the courage to dissent. With respect, also, to the retirement of the Lord President, he was equally ready to enter into an explanation as to all the circumstances connected with it. The appointment of the son was not in the slightest degree inconsistent with the retirement of the father. The son was appointed solely through the application of that rule which the hon. Gentleman contended should be applied rigidly, and according to which he was raised by the bar of Scotland to their most honourable office—the Dean of Faculty. He believed that the bar of Scotland admitted that no more distinguished advocate could be raised to the bench than was Mr. Hope. The hon. Gentleman, however, asked, as a charge against his side, "Did not the Lord President signify a wish to retire in 1834?" He declared to the hon. Gentleman —singular as it might seem—that be had not the slightest recollection of any such propo- sal. At the same time he did not deny that it might have been made. But as to his premeditatedly refusing to accept it, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not the slightest recollection of any such proposal having been made. But suppose it had been made, how utterly inconsistent was the conduct imputed to him on that occasion with the motives which it was alleged influenced him in this case. It was clear that his tenure of office in 1835 was very precarious. After the vote on the Speakership, it was pretty evident what his fate would be. It was not too much to expect that the hon. Gentleman's foresight in 1840 was not less distinct. His confidence in the duration of his administration must then have been somewhat shaken—the brilliancy of the official prospect must then have been somewhat clouded, and he should have thought that the previous transactions of 1839, and the retirement of the Government, because it did not "possess the public confidence," furnished some bitter forebodings. Yet the hon. Gentleman now charged him with not receiving the proposal of the Lord President to retire in 1835. So that the hon. Gentleman's accusation amounts to this, "You had a plausible ground for accepting the retirement of a judge during your administration, which you must have known would be short-lived, but you had the virtue he resist his retirement." If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley) thought that this was the sum of the charge against his Administration, he ought to take his place again on his side of the House. He asked the hon. Gentleman to whose advantage was it that these disclosures had been made? If the hon. Gentleman's conscience was satisfied that the history of these appointments redounded altogether to the credit of his (the Ministerial) side of the House, and not to that of their opponents, he surely must come back to his old position. But supposing he had given the opinion which had been imputed to him, and had said to the Lord President, "You mistake your strength—your infirmities are not what you suppose; your reputation is high, and there is still an interval which you may apply to the public service. My advice to you, as a friend, is not to retire." There was nothing inconsistent in this with the present conduct of his Administration; and if in 1839 he was called upon to reflect upon the advice he had given to the Lord President in 1835 to remain in office, and to devote some portion of his remaining years to the public service, he should have been reconciled to the decision at which he had arrived by hearing the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox Maule) then Under-Secretary of State, burning with official zeal, declare that he was "astonished to hear the statement made with regard to a judge of the Court of Session." [Sir James Graham: Can that be Fox Maule That was the name prefixed to these observations. The hon. Gentleman went on to say," that he had heard for the first time of a distinguished and eminent judge being afflicted with mental incapacity. That his physical powers might be somewhat impaired he could believe, but that his mental faculties were inadequate to the discharge of his duties he was prepared to deny." Did they (the Opposition) not account then for this venerable judge's tenacity of office? When, in 1839, the Under-Secretary of State undertook to answer for all his mental faculties; when he, a Scotchman, conversant with all that occurred in that country — perfectly familiar with all that passed in what he called their "narrow circles"—might not this judge fairly reason in the following way. —" It is true I ought to retire, but such is my gratitude to my fellow-countryman, who has borne testimony to my continued powers, that I shall remain at my post, lest by acting otherwise I should myself be the first to question my competency." And what, after all, was the charge of incapacity which, it appeared, the Minister overlooked? Why, that this able judge used some expression betraying a want of temper in pronouncing his opinion on one of the most important questions ever decided in the courts of Scotland. If removal was to take place on such grounds, the Crown could take no course so fatal to the independence of the judicial character. If every question of retirement were submitted to such an ordeal as was attempted to be thus set up the exalted character of the judges would be materially impaired. He left the whole question to the deliberate voice and judgment of the public. The hon. Member for Finsbury stated that when he came to the notice of the noble Lord, he marked the word "suicide" against it. Notwithstanding all the horror which the crime of suicide was calculated to inspire, there were sometimes circumstances connected with it, such as those in the case of Curtius, which in some measure entitled it to sympathy, when it was committed with a view to promote great public interests. To that species of sympathy, and to all the praise which such conduct was calculated to excite, the noble Lord who brought forward the present motion was entitled. The noble Lord, in his zealous and anxious desire to support the constitutional appointment of the judges, having failed to establish a case agaiost others, with an heroic devotion seldom paralleled, sacrificed himself by the exposure which he made of the practices of his own party.

rose to reply. He said, the question which he had put was a simple one, yet, simple as it was, only one person had made any reply to it during the debate. The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, instead of meeting the question, had adverted to other cases, and stated that he could retort cases upon the other side which were liable to great reproach, but as to anything like a defence of the charge which had been made, none had been attempted, except by one right hon. Gentleman on the opposite side. The statement which he (Lord J. Russell) had made was, that two judges, high upon the bench, who were unfit from infirmity, whether mental or bodily, to continue to hold their offices, yet that they, notwithstanding, still continued to hold them to accommodate the party in the State which was expecting to come into power. The second part of his statement was, that if such were the case, and if those who held judicial appointments continued to retain them for political purposes, looking to the majorities and minorities of that House, with calculations of one, one night, and two another night, holding themselves ready to resign as the occasion might occur, such a course was highly unbecoming, and if persisted in was calculated very much to lower the judicial character in the eyes of the public. As to the first instance, he (Lord J. Russell) had only urged that there was strong ground of suspicion; but much had since been said on that (the Ministerial) side of the House which tended to corroborate and give strength to these suspicions. It was stated that the Lord President found some difficulty in ascending the steps of the Court of Session; that he was in the 79th year of his age; and that he was afflicted with deafness. Were these afflictions sudden visitations? Did they not require a considerable time to be contracted? If so, was it not natural to conclude that the delay which took place with respect to the resignation was caused with a view to the suspected change in the Administration; As to the case of the Lord Chief Justice, all that had been uttered in the course of the debate tended to confirm the suspicions which the period of his resignation was calculated to excite. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin, it was only last summer that the Lord Chief Justice began to be conscious of his infirmities. If the right hon. Gentleman made that statement from a personal knowledge of the fact, it would, of course, remove the suspicion which the resignation had created, and the course pursued by the Lord Chief Justice must be pronounced to be a proper one. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman did not, however, agree with the other statements which had been made in this respect, nor did the statement made by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, appear at all conclusive. Did the present Government mean to assent to the doctrine that it did not misbecome the high and exalted character of a judge of the land to watch the oscillation of political parties in the State, and to resign in favour of one of those parties with a view to supporting it? For his own part he was satisfied that some of the parties appointed to judicial offices by Lords Melbourne and Cottenham would think it otherwise than highly unbecoming to speculate in Ministerial changes dependent upon the majorities of that House. It appeared strongly suspicious that such was not the case in the instances under discussion; and, acting upon the impression, he would persevere in his motion, and endeavour, if possible, to ascertain whether or not these singular coincidences of resignation and change of Ministry occurred, as was alleged, in the common course of events. With respect to the case of Lord Corehouse, as far as he was connected with it, the fact was this:—When the resignation was tendered it was not done absolutely and unconditionally; and the Under Secretary of State was directed to inform his Lordship that the resignation could not be so accepted, and that no promise could be given; that if he was desirous of resigning he might do so, and if he was willing to stay he might stay. As to what had been said of Lord Plunket, the appointment was one totally different. Would any one say, that the office of Lord Chancellor was similar to that of a judge? He would not then enter into the reasons. The fault in the case of Lord Plunket, if there was any, was that he remained too long. Then with respect to the gentleman who succeeded Lord Plunket, it would be admitted that be was a man who held a very high standing in his profession, one eminently versed in a knowledge of the law, and also well acquainted with the political and legal information necessary to give him a high character in that House. Such a man it was who succeeded Lord Plunket at a period when it was very difficult, and a matter of much uncertainty, to surmise what party would be the gainers by the projected dissolution. What were the terms upon which Lord Campbell accepted the Chancellorship of Ireland? The condition was that he would accept it, but without the usual retiring pension; yet such was the man whom the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been so ready to attack. Had Lord Campbell any precedent for the course which he adopted on that occasion? In 1834, Sir Edward Sugden was apppointed to the same office when the Administration was less likely to be permanent, the Government never having had a majority on any question. Sir Edward Sugden held the appointment for four or five—no, for three months. Had he on that occasion made the same condition with respect to it that had been made by Lord Campbell? He had made no charge against the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, because of the appointment of Sir Edward Sugden to the Lord Chancellorship, nor were appointments to that office mixed up with the question then before the House. If the hon. Member for Finsbury, could bring himself to believe that there was nothing to suspect in the coincidence of the resignation, why, then, he would be warranted in accepting the right hon. Baronet's invitation, and going over to the other side of the House. The case was before them. The House would deal with it as it pleased; but for his own part he found it difficult to come to the conclusion that the judges had not delayed their resignations for the purpose of favouring a particular party after they had been unfitted for discharging the duties of their office.