brought up the report of the committee on the Sudbury election, as follows:—

"That Frederick Villiers and David Octerlony Dyce Sombre, esquires, were not duly elected Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Sudbury:ߞ

"That the last Election for the Borough of Sudbury was a void Election:

"And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

"House further informed,—That the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions;

"Resolved,—That Frederick Villiers and David Octerlony Dyce Sombre, esquires, were, by their agents, guilty of Bribery at the last Election for the Borough of Sudbury;

" Resolved,—That the Committee are of opinion, from the Evidence given before them, that gross, systematic, and extensive Bribery prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Sudbury; and they also consider it their duty to express to the House their unanimous opinion that the Borough of Sudbury should be disfranchised, and that a new Writ ought not to be issued for the said Borough."

then moved, and on his motion it was ordered,

" That the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee, and of the Evidence taken before the Committee, be laid before this House, and that Mr. Speaker do not issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Sudbury, before Saturday the 7th day of May next."

said, he was requested by the hon. Member for the county of Mayo (Mr. M. Blake) who was at present in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, for not having attended when called upon to be sworn as a member of the Cardigan election committee, to state that the hon. Member had been in Ireland for more than a month, but hearing that his presence was likely to be required in the House, he left Dublin on Monday night, but unfortunately the steam vessel on board of which he was embarked, did not arrive in Liverpool until a quarter of an hour after the departure of the mail train on Tuesday. He therefore did not arrive in London until yesterday evening. Mr. Blake was a young Member, and he trusted that the House, taking ail the circumstances of the case into consideration, would consent to the discharge of his hon. Friend, upon payment of the fees. He concluded by moving that Mark Blake, Esq. be discharged out of the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms on paying his fees.

said, that in consequence of its having been necessary to send a messenger to Ireland, Mr. Blake's fees, upon this occasion, would amount to about 25l. or 30l. This might be considered a sufficient punishment to the hon. Member for his inattention, but if the fees had been merely a nominal sum, he should not have been inclined to accede to the motion. He thought that some regulation should be adopted for compelling Members, who in future might absent themselves when called upon to serve on election committees, to defray the expense which the parties to such petitions might incur in consequence of their absence.

concurred in the suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord. The system of payment of fees operated unequally. In the present case Mr. Blake would have to pay 307. because he happened to live in Carlow. If he had lived near the House he would have had to pay only the ordinary fees, which were inconsiderable in amount.

rose to submit the resolutions of which he had given notice, respecting receiving petitions. After the repeated discussions which the question had undergone, he would not detain the House by many observations. The object of his resolutions was twofold, namely, to open the doors of the House to petitions against taxes proposed for the service of the year, and, at the same time, to prevent that concession from giving rise to any undue interference with the conduct of that public business which was the main duty the House had to perform. The first five of his resolutions were of a formal nature, merely reciting the present practice of the House with respect to the presentation and reception of petitions. The sixth was framed for the purpose of meeting the views of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and those which he himself entertained. He did not anticipate any opposition to the resolutions which he had framed, and which, having been printed with the votes, had doubtless already undergone the consideration of hon. Members. It had been suggested on a former evening, that he had unnecessarily put himself forward with reference to this question, as if he were desirous of sharing the honour, whatever it might be, which properly belonged to his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, for his exertions to obtain from the House an admission of the right of the people to petition against the Income-tax. He could assure the House and his hon. Friend that he had not the most remote intention of doing anything of the sort, and that he freely made over to his hon. Friend all the honour which was due to him. In the course which he had pursued, he had been influenced solely by a sense of respect for that House. He found the question in a state which was likely to exasperate the feelings of Members on both sides of the House, and he thought it one of those occasions, perhaps rare, when an individual possessed of no personal influence and authority, might, by bringing forward a proposition which had nothing to recommend it but its own merit, render a substantial service to the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving the following resolutions:—

"1 That every Member offering to present a petition to the House, not being a petition for a private bill, or relating to a private bill before the House, do confine himself to a statement of the parties from whom it comes, of the number of signatures attached to it, and of the material allegations contained in it, and to the reading of the prayer of such petition.

"2. That every such petition not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House, and which, according to the rules or usual practice of this House can be received, be brought to the Table by the direction of the Speaker, who shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition, but it may be read by the clerk at the Table if required.

"3. That if the petition relate to any subject in respect of which there is any proceeding before the House, or any notice given, it be referred to the committee on public petitions without a question being put.

"4, That if the question relate to any matter or subject which the Member presenting it is desirous of bringing before the House, and if such Member shall state it to be his intention to make a motion thereupon, instead of such petition being referred to the committee on public petitions, such Member may give notice that he will make a motion on some subsequent day, 'That the petition be printed with the votes.'

"5. That, in the ease of a petition complaining of some present personal grievance, for which there may be an urgent necessity for providing an immediate remedy, the matter contained in such petition may be brought into discussion on the presentation thereof.

"6. That, subject to the above regulations, petitions against any resolution or bill imposing duties for the current service of the year, be henceforth received, and the usage under which the House has refused to entertain such petitions be discontinued.

"7. That the said resolutions be made standing orders of this House."

protested against making the resolution which prohibited discussions upon petitions, and which could be enforced only during the present Session, a standing order. He believed the old practice of debating upon petitions was, most advantageous, and hoped it would be again resorted to. The long debates which were now so much complained of were in some degree the result of the abolition of the practice of discussing petitions, for those Members who used to speak on petitions now spoke in debate. It was well known that, at present, the great guns never went off until ten o'clock, and the previous hours were occupied by the minor poets. He would divide the House upon the first resolution,

said, that nothing had fallen from him which could indicate the slightest jealousy, on his part, at the interference of his noble Friend. On the contrary, he felt indebted to his noble Friend, first for the vote which be had given upon a former day in support of his motion, and secondly, for having again brought the subject under the consideration of the House, With respect, how" ever, to the resolutions proposed by his noble Friend, he must say, that he did not altogether approve of the manner in which they had been brought forward, or the terms in which they were couched. The concession which had been wrested from Ministers might have been made in a more gracious manner, in as much as he had never proposed, that petitions against the Income-tax should be treated in a manner different from other petitions. What was the use of proposing a string of resolutions showing what had been the practice already adopted by a large majority during the present Session, when the question of having discussions upon petitions was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock? He was one of the minority who voted with the hon. Member upon that question. The existing resolution was tantamount to a standing order. He now came to the sixth resolution, which embodied the resolution which he had himself proposed the other evening. The sixth resolution of his noble Friend ran thus:—

"That, subject to the above regulations, petitions against any resolution or bill imposing duties for the current service of the year be henceforth received, and the usage under which the House has refused to entertain such petitions be discontinued."

What was the use of the words "subject to the above regulations? "He objected also to the phrase "for the current service of the year," which was quite unnecessary, and would only narrow the concession it once proposed to make. After all he must admit, that this was not much of a feather-bed for the right hon. Baronet, on the contrary, it let him down hard and heavily upon the bare ground. On a former evening, he had voted with his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, and if his hon. Friend went to a division, he should certainly vote with him again,

said, the resolution now proposed was a mere transcript of the resolution agreed to at the beginning of the Session. He wished to know whether a resolution could be put on. their records that was the same in substance as one that already stood there? The distinction between a resolution and a standing order he understood to be this—the one was the law of the Session, and the other was the law of Parliament. Was it competent for him, or for any other hon. Member, to move that a resolution similar in substance to the present be rescinded? [The Speaker: Certainly not.] It might be convenient for the House to treat the petitions of the people in the way it did, but he could not see the necessity of such a usage, nor could the people out of doors see the necessity of the usage. However low the abilities of hon. Members might be, they were sent to that House to speak for their constituents, and felt it their duty to do so. Not being allowed to speak on the presentation of petitions, they spoke during the principal debate, which they would not otherwise do. The right hon. Baronet had already taunted the House twice with there being only forty-four Members in the House while the debate was going on, and from that thin attendance the right hon. Baronet inferred that not much interest was felt in the subject of the debate. The inference was not correct, however; the fact was, that hon. Members absented themselves till the more serious part of the debate commenced. He attributed this inconvenience chiefly to the discontinuance of the old practice of debating on petitions. If petitions were allowed to be presented at another part of the day, they would find that those Members who spoke at a particular period of the evening would then express their opinions on the discussion of the petitions, and leave the evening to the great authorities of the House. He for one would never consent to have this resolution converted into a standing order,

said, after he had fairly avowed that his opinion had been overruled, what occasion could he have for a feather-bed? He did not feel at all uneasy about his fall. He felt it of little importance how the resolutions were worded, and he could assure the House he had not suggested one single modification with a view to break his fall. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the disadvantages attending the practice which now prevailed. He thought that the rule which confined Gentlemen, who did not occupy a prominent political station, to debating on petitions, placed them in a much worse position than they were at present, when they took part in the general debates, The hon. Gentleman complained that the interesting speeches did not commence till a late hour in the evening. In that respect he could not agree with the hon, Gentleman. He had sat there, during the late debate, from the beginning of the evening, and he must say, some of the most interesting speeches which had been made during that debate had been made in that part of the evening. He had heard, for instance, the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds—a speech which displayed great ability, and contained powerful argument against his proposition. He had also heard the gallant Commodore opposite {Sir Charles Napier) make an excellent speech, and he had at the time observed to those who were sitting near him, that he had seldom heard a better speech on the sub- ject, Or heard an hon. Gentleman state his opinions more fairly; and he would be glad to hear the hon. and gallant Commodore more frequently on subjects of that kind. Then there was, on his own side of the House, the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, one of the ablest speeches delivered during the debate. If the hon. Gentleman would only make the experiment of coming down there at an early hour of the evening, he could assure him that he would hear some excellent speeches. [Mr. Aglionby was scarcely absent a single evening.] He thought the hon. Gentleman could not have heard the speeches in question, when he spoke of the debates being without interest in the early part of the evening. Inconvenient, however, as the practice of adjournment was, a return to the old practice of debating on petitions would be still more inconvenient. If the morning was again set apart for the reception of petitions, and hon. Members were allowed to speak on them, the spirit of the debate would evaporate in the morning. The words of the resolution, "for the current service of the year," was perfectly in accordance with the present practice of the House.

said, that if the present resolutions were adopted, the popular party would lose a very valuable privilege, and, under the circumstances, he did not see why any compromise should take place. If the present resolutions were adopted and converted into a standing order, they would be in a far worse position than they were at present with regard to petitions. His hon. Colleague, after his motion was lost on the first night, brought up a petition contrary to the rules of the House, but if these resolutions were passed, and made a standing order, that could not be done any more. No discussion could take place, because the words of the second resolution were, that "No Member should be allowed to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition," and, therefore, no incidental matter could be discussed or noticed, because the Speaker would desire the Member to take his seat, and he would be obliged to do so. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Baronet, who frankly owned that he had not changed his opinion, but was over-ruled, to consent to the motion of his hon. Colleague, and that would be the frank and honest mode of action, and would give satisfaction to all.

agreed with his hon. Friend who had first brought this business before the House, that the first resolution which his hon. Friend had suggested would be the best to adopt, and that it would be quite sufficient. The only difference between the two courses was, that the series of resolutions proposed by the noble Lord would convert into standing orders the present resolutions of the House, which the Speaker enforced during the present Session, and which were binding on the present Parliament. But, although he thought that the resolutions might be liable to some objections, he did not think them of sufficient importance to induce him to offer any opposition to the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Greenock, and the hon. Member for Cockermouth, were for renewing the old practice of speaking on petitions. But he did not agree with them in that particular, and he could not vote against an innovation which he had himself been instrumental in establishing. It appeared to him that a return to the former usage would lead to great inconvenience. Let them suppose a case with respect to the new tariff. Petitions against the tariff could be received; but if the old practice were enforced they might have debates upon the presentation of petitions upon any matter contained in the tariff, and no man could say upon what point the debate of the evening might turn. An hon. Member for Worcester might bring forward the case of gloves—another hon. Member might bring forward the case of boots and shoes—another hon. Member the case of copper and tin ores; at the same time, none of those debates could come to any practical end, nor could any one say at what time the business on the paper would be likely to commence. Even on the day which the right hon. Gentleman might happen to fix upon for the consideration of the tariff, it would be impossible to say, whether the debate would commence before ten or eleven o'clock. In order to remedy that inconvenience, the House had fixed a certain hour at which the presentation of petitions would cease, and the business of the evening begin Well, that got rid of one inconvenience; that of occupying the time of the House till ten or eleven o'clock on petitions. But still there was another inconvenience. So much time was occupied by debates on individual petitions, that many Members found they could not get their petitions presented at all. He could not, therefore, concur with those hon. Members who were for reviving the former practice of the House. He should certainly have wished that the noble Lord had contented himself with the sanction already given to the new rules relative to the presentation of petitions; but as the noble Lord thought that it would be desirable to put that resolution in a more formal shape, he should not oppose the course taken by the noble Lord; and he was, therefore, ready to support the noble Lord, and vote in favour of the resolutions before the House.

said, that he entirely concurred with the noble Lord. If they were to return to the old practice of debating petitions, they would have to bid farewell to Sessions of five, six, or seven months, they would have to sit from the 1st of January to the 31st of December, all day and all night.

said, in explanation, that in adding the words "for the current service of the year," of which the hon. Member for Finsbury had complained, it was his intention to meet the case, which had already occupied much of the attention of the House.

said, that it was clear the addition of the words for "the current service of the year" would narrow the proposition of the noble Lord. The more large the proposal the greater number of petitions it included, and of course narrowing the proposition meant bringing down the number of petitions. There would be a smaller number of petitions presented on questions affecting the revenue. The motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury being lost by one, the noble Lord comes forward with resolutions not confined to the question, whether such petitions be presented or not, but travelling back to a resolution of the House affecting all petitions whatever. The noble Lord and the House had found that petitions must be presented, but they declare that it is inconvenient they should be discussed. The noble Lord came forward to cover the retreat of his friends with a string of resolutions, granting them (the Liberals) the honour of their victory, but depriving them of its substance, thus reversing for Ministers the order of English proceedings, by which it was usual to gain the victory and lose its substance; and following the course of foreign diplomacy by which it was usual to lose the victory and gain the substance thereof. In proving the right of presenting petitions to the House at present, he believed they were only fighting for shadows. If they placed the right hon. Gentleman in a minority to-night, they would gain nothing by it, for the right of petitioning had become a farce, or had passed away.

said, if the right of petitioning had become a farce, it was through having been abused by speeches as utterly useless as that of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The resolutions virtually included every petition that could be offered; and as to the right of speaking on their presentation, why, if the old practice were revived in that respect, the business of the House could never be got through. Nor could the evil be obviated by having, as was sometimes suggested, early sittings; for that only led to a greater evil—the introduction of a great many statements utterly without foundation into the House, when no one was present to hear and contradict them. Petitions now, by the rules of the House, received every attention that could be of practical utility; and when any petition was presented on which it was wished to raise a discussion, a most easy course was open for the attainment of that object. Any change in the practice could only tend to indiscriminate and useless speech making, which would waste the public time as much as did speeches like that just delivered by the hon. and learned Member.

suggested an alteration, to provide, on the one hand, for the reception of petitions on matters not before the House (as to which he thought there was a little ambiguity), and, on the other, for the rejection of petitions, nor irregular in form, but on matters of which the House positively declined to take cognizance.

conceived the proposed amendment would add to the utility of the resolution.

said, although he had a strong feeling that petitions were not done entire justice to, he felt as strongly that it would never do to permit a revival of the old practice of indiscriminate debating on petitions being presented.

was at a loss to see why the House need be involved in a discussion of this nature, when they could get rid of the difficulty by rejecting the first five resolutions. Those resolutions related to the question whether petitions should be debated or not. The other resolutions merely related to the question whether certain petitions should or should not be received? He thought the best course would be to declare that those petitions were to be received according to the rules of the House, and to give up the first five resolutions as superfluous. It was well known that any Member who thought proper might give notice of his intention to bring any particular petition under the consideration of the House; on those occasions there was, generally speaking, a pretty full attendance of Members acquainted with the subject, and this was a mode of dealing with petitions which appeared to him greatly preferable to the practice of suddenly bringing forward petitions at a moment when no person except the Member presenting them knew anything of the matter.

said, this was the resolution to which he and those hon. Gentlemen with whom he generally had the honour to act objected most strongly. The hon. and learned Member for Worcester, to whom the House was indebted for the valuable observations he had made that evening, seemed to be at a loss to understand the reason why these resolutions should be introduced at all; it was a work of supererogation, and could have no other meaning than that the noble Lord and the hon. Gentlemen who supported him would not grant any concession of popular rights without at the same time doing all in their power to restrict those rights. ["Oh ! oh !"] He said that advisedly. Why had these resolutions been introduced if not to do away with those upon which the House had acted before? But why were they to be converted into standing orders Would that add dignity to them? Or was it not intended to make them more binding and stringent? Believing that to be the end in view, he must oppose this last proposition. The noble Lord had dragged the House into a second division on this subject by bringing forward these resolutions, and he believed that their object was, coupled with the last one, to prevent the people exercising some power which the noble Lord and his supporters thought they possessed. The rule upon which the House acted before was found to be sufficient; and he would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether he had ever found any difficulty in keeping hon. Members within proper bounds? He had never seen any instance of an hon. Member, on presenting a petition and exceeding the rule, not stopping on the instant that he was apprised of his mistake by the Speaker. To persist in carrying this proposition would be to show the people that when Ministers were all but beatenߞas beaten they would have been if hon. Members had continued to present petitionsߞthen they would acknowledge the right which the people possessed. Although the right hon. 'Baronet did not give up his opinions, he acknowledged that a majority of only one was insufficient to enable him to carry the question in the long run, and that it would not be just or wise to continue a contest which inconvenienced public business. That feeling was largely expressed by the House, but more extensively still out of doors, by thousands and tens of thou- sands. But why not acknowledge popular rights without fettering them with most obnoxious and unjustifiable conditions? Had a different course been taken the concession would have been gratefully acknowledged out of doors, but it was made in a way which would make it despised. It would be said that they had granted that which they could not withhold, but still they strove to repress the privileges of the people. He believed that many hon. Members who had voted in the majority on the last occasion would not vote in favour of these resolutions being made standing orders, and if many of them expressed a wish to go to a division he would not shrink from the responsibilty of taking one, but he would not suffer his feelings to force him into a useless division.

said, he was inclined to go further than the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, and would move, instead of the motion now before the House, "That the said propositions be made and considered resolutions of this House." If that was not the way to frame his motion, he would put it in any shape which would declare that the propositions already agreed to should be made not standing orders, but resolutions of the House.

intimated, that they had already become resolutions of the House.

said, he thought he should not pursue the course he had declared he would, for it was quite evident to him that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, those who had been in office, and those who were now in office, were united in a wish to put a stop to the petitions of the people being received. He believed it, because he could easily conceive that it would be more convenient to official men to exclude those petitions, as they would then be able to fix the business for their own accommodation, so as to go away early to dinner; and not only that the believed, also, that they were glad to restrict the liberties of the people. The speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland proved it; and he was glad, that the noble Lord had spoken out that night, for if his constituents were of that character, which he supposed them to be, the noble Lord would himself be taken to task for that speech in the, proper place. Were he one of the noble Lord's constituents, he should be glad to have to execute that task, on the public hustings. He was astonished to hear such a speech from an avowed Reformer. He knew to whom they were much indebted for that reform, which was now, it appeared, almost destroyed; and should regret exceedingly, if a noble Lord in another House should get up in his place, and give expression to similar sentiments.

protested against the unfair speech of the hon. Member against the noble Lord during his absence. [Mr. Wallace: I did not know the noble Lord was absent.] The character of the noble Lord stood too high to be affected by such observations, and his regard for public rights was too well known to be disputed.

repeated, that he did not know the noble Lord was absent, or he would not, perhaps, have said what he had said; but he begged to adhere to every word he had said. He would not refrain from repeating his remarks at a proper opportunity.

denied the existence of any such understanding between hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, as that to which the hon. Member for Greenock had alluded. That hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that these resolutions would prevent discussion; and as to gentlemen in office going home to dinner when they pleased, he did not find it so when he was in office, nor did he think the right hon. Gentlemen opposite found it so now.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, relative to what he had always understood to have been the general practice of the House. He confessed, that he ought to apologize to the House for troubling it with so trifling a matter, which he should not do, were not the personal comfort of every Member of the House concerned. During the debate last night, a short time before twelve o'clock, he held some conversation with the hon. Member for Bath, relative to the motion and amendment before the House, and they were asking each other whether, if the first were put from the Chair, they would have an opportunity of coming back and voting on the second, or whether the doors would be closed, so as to prevent them from coming in. He had then been in the House more than three hours, and he left his seat for the purpose of inquiring of the Sergeant-at-Arms what interval would lapse in the divisions. He was not absent more than two or three minutes, when, on his return, he found his seat occupied by an hon. Member, who very abruptly refused to give it up to him. At that time, he did not know that he had left his hat in his place, not under, but upon, the seat; but he had been informed by several hon. Members around him, at a later period of the evening, that his hat was upon his seat. This might appear a trifling and insignificant matter; but if a Member left his place for a minute or two, to go to the vote-office or journal-office, it would cause great inconvenience to have his seat taken from him on every such occasion. Now, his object was to inquire what was the usual practice, and what was the conduct which should govern hon. Members in this matter. He had always understood, that a Member secured a seat by being at prayers, and also by taking possession of a seat, and leaving his hat in it during a momentary absence. He wished to know the rule, in order that the regularity of the House might not be disturbed by an absence of proper conduct on the part of hon. Members. The hon. Member who did this—[Cries of " No, no !"J Yes, I will name him—it was the hon. Member for Leicester.

said, the rule of the House was, that any Member being at prayers had a right to the seat he then occupied, but if he left it and went out of the House any hon. Member might take it, and if it were given up it was as a matter of courtesy, not of right.

was very sorry that what had transpired should have taken up any time of the House. He had not removed the hat of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and until that moment he was not aware that the hat belonged to the hon. Member. A gallant Officer then present took up the hat, and in place of putting it on his head he put it under the seat. The real fact was that the application made by the hon. Member for Fins-bury was made in so peremptory and abrupt a tone that, much contrary to his wishes, he felt himself obliged to refuse compliance with it. He was sorry that the time of the House had been occupied with such a trumpery affair, but the tone used towards him was what he could not put up with.

rose to put the question of which he had given notice to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department—viz., whether in the year 1841, there had been any executions for offences of burglary attended with personal violence, or whether, as in preceding years, sentence of death in such cases had always been commuted for transportation? Since the passing of Lord J. Russell's bills in 1837, by which our criminal code was materially mitigated, although by the strict letter of the law death was still the punishment for the crime of burglary, accompanied by riot or personal violence, yet he believed down to the year 1841, although several convictions for that crime had taken place, that the sentence in every case had been commuted to transportation for life. He wished to know whether the same practice had been continued during the last year.

said, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in his statement of the change which took place in our criminal code in the year 1837, by which the punishment of death was taken away from the crime of burglary, except when accompanied by personal violence. The following was an account of the number of convictions which had taken place since the alteration in the law. In 1838 there were three convictions for the crime of burglary accompanied by personal violence, in each of which the sentence of death was commuted to transportation for life. In 1839 there was one conviction, the sentence being commuted in like manner; in1840 there were thirteen convictions, the sentence in each case being commuted to transportation for life; and in 1841, to which year the hon. Gentleman's question referred, but the returns in respect to which had not yet been presented, there had been more than one conviction, but no execution had taken place for the offence. In short, since the passing of the law there had been no fewer than twenty convictions for this offence, but not one execution.

after presenting a petition from Notting Hill and Kensington, complaining of the want of lights in the metropolitan roads, rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for leave to introduce a bill to enforce the better lighting of the metropolitan roads by the respective parishes through which they pass. He said, that he thought the present bill called for in consequence of railroads having diminished the tolls on the ordinary roads to such an extent that the commissioners had no longer the funds sufficient for repairing and lighting the roads. Accordingly the commissioners, on the 24th of May last, had given notice to the respective parishes that they would not continue to light the roads beyond the 29th of September following. Several parishes had taken the charge on themselves, but there was still a number of parishes in which two-thirds of the ratepayers had not come to the same agreement, and the consequence was that these parishes were left during night in a state of darkness and danger. In his opinion the parishes through which the roads passed, and not the passengers, ought to pay the expense, because the roads added considerably to the value of property in their neighbourhood. Not anticipating any opposition to his motion, he would merely state that he proposed to carry his purpose into effect by applying the pro visions of the act 3rd and 4th William 4th, ch. 90, making it compulsory on those parishes to light the roads according to the provisions of that act, and that the inspectors should be empowered to call on the overseers of the poor to make a rate for that purpose.

asked the hon. Member if he proposed to levy a rate on the several parishes?

Uundoubtedly, under the provisions of the 3rd and 4th William 4th.

said, that the bill in that case would be partly of a public and partly of a private nature, and the hon. Member would therefore have to give the notice required to be given in cases of private bills.

bowed to the decision of the Chair. With the consent of the House he would withdraw his motion, and give the proper notice.

in moving for leave to bring in a bill to empower county and all other coroners to admit of bail in cases of manslaughter, said, that; if the respectability and legal knowledge of coroners were generally not such as to justify the placing of such a responsibility into their hands, it would be a fair ground of objection against his bill; but as their respectability and legal knowledge were such as to justify him in seeking to give them that responsibility, he hoped no opposition would be offered to it. The hon. Member entered into a statement to show the great antiquity and respectability of the office, and the great consideration in which that office was held in former times. With respect to the crime of manslaughter, it consisted of various degrees of criminality. Manslaughter was defined to be the killing of another without malice expressed or implied. A case had come under his notice at the last Bedford Assizes, which he considered one of great hardship. It was the case of an individual who had committed manslaughter on his brother, and who had been in prison for seven months before his trial came on, because the coroner had not the power to release him on bail. Another case of the kind occurred at the Huntingdon Assizes, in which a man had been imprisoned for thirty-two weeks before his trial came on because the corner had not the power to take bail for his appearance. It might be said that there was a remedy for this, either by habeas corpus or certiorari; but his answer to this was, that that course was both inconvenient and expensive. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to introduce a bill to empower county and all other coroners to admit of bail in cases of manslaughter.

said, it was not his intention to oppose the motion of the hon. and gallant Member; but he wished to call the attention of the House to the bill which the hon. Member proposed to introduce, and which involved considerations of great importance. The hon. Gentleman rested the necessity for his measure upon one or two particular cases of great hardship which he had mentioned. He must remind the House, that the offence to which the motion of the hon. Member referred was next in magnitude to a crime of the deepest dye; the distinctions between manslaughter and murder were extremely nice; and great discrimination was frequently required in distinguishing between the two offences. He did not wish to speak disparagingly of the office of coroner, or of the gentlemen by whom that office was held; but he certainty considered it a great advantage, as the law now existed, that the coroner, whose duty it was to sum up to the jury the evidence adduced before him, and who might be influenced by a particular bias, should not have the power of granting or refusing bail in cases in which it might be demanded. As the law now stood, a person charged with murder or manslaughter could not obtain his liberty without hawing his case investigated by its removal by habeas corpus before a judge. He would not now enter into the question; hut he wished it to be understood, that although he did not oppose the introduction of this bill, he was not prepared in its future stages to give it his assent.

said, coroners did not ask for the power which the bill of the right hon. and gallant Member proposed to give them. It would, indeed, be attended with some convenience in a public view; but it would add considerably to the duties of coroners. By an act of William and Mary, coroners had the power of taking bail; but in 1824, when an alteration was made in the law-, this power was inadvertently lost. Leave given.

moved for a return of the Poor-law unions, distinguishing the county of each to which no order has been issued by the commissioners prohibiting out-door relief to able-bodied paupers. In consequence of the silence of Government with respect to the period at which they proposed introducing the Poor-law amendment Bill, and to their intentions as to those place where the Poor-laws were administered under local acts and Gilbert unions, he was desirous of obtaining the returns for which he had moved, in order to show that uniformity of practice had not prevailed in the Poor-law unions. It appeared, that in many unions no order had, been issued prohibiting outdoor reliefs, and therefore there was an end to the assertion, that the laws had been fully; carried out in, those districts, and it was, singular, that there was scarcely an union in Cumberland where the prohibitory order was in force. The Poor-law commissioners had done all in their power to induce the guardians in parishes incorporated under the Gilbert Act voluntarily to dissolve their unions; and it appeared to be the intention of Government to provide in the new, bill for the repeal of that Act. He though, therefore, that the House ought to be put in possession of all possible information on this subject. When he last addressed the House on this question, he had endeavoured to show, that the administration of the Poor-laws in parishes incorporated under the Gilbert Act, as well as in towns possessing local acts, had been extremely efficient; and he thought, that before the Government ventured to propose measures for the dissolution of the Gilbert unions, and for bringing them under the power of the Poor-law Commissioners, some good and valid reasons should be shown for such a change. When this question was formerly before the House, he bad referred to certain transactions that had taken place in the county of Sussex, and had created a great sensation in that part of the country, and which were not likely to induce parishes in which the administration of Poor-laws was conducted under the Gilbert Act to place themselves under the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners. He made his statement on the authority of Mr. Brooker, a gentleman well known in the county of Sussex, and who was now a candidate for the representation of Brighton. An hon. Member (Mr. Darby) said, that he ought to have ascertained the truth of Mr. Brooker's assertions; but, as he gave the House his authority, he thought such a course was unnecessary. The case to which he alluded was that of a man named Smith, 'who had been employed by the guardians of the Eastbourne union in breaking bones for the purpose of making manure; and he might here observe, that he would, on a future occasion, call for an account of the nature and produce of this system. The man Smith had, owing to the unhealthy character of the employment, been reduced to the last stage of illness; and the following was his own evidence on the subject:—

"Whenever there have been any bones, I have been constantly placed in the bone-house. The bone-house is seven or eight feet wide, by fourteen feet long. There was a dreadful smell, when the bones were broken. If I had stopped longer in the bone-house I should not have come out alive. My illness has, no doubt, arisen from it."

Mr. Brooker, in consequence, accused the guardians of the Eastbourne Union of rendering themselves open to the charge of moral and constructive murder; and called upon the guardians, if they thought his imputations libellous, to give him an opportunity of meeting them in a court of justice. Mr. Brooker had instructed him to say, that he was quite prepared to support the assertions contained in his pamphlet, and that if it was deemed desirable to ascertain the truth of the charges he had made against the guardians, he was ready to meet such an investigation. Mr. Brooker said, that the accusation brought against him by an hon. Member of this House, of having grossly libelled the guardians of Eastbourne, was most unjust and uncalled for, as he had distinctly challenged the guardians to afford him an opportunity of proving the truth of the charges he had advanced. Mr. Brooker stated, that he did not wish to retract any of the assertions contained in his pamphlet; and he added—

"I now renew my charge of moral and constructive murder against the Eastbourne guardians,"

expressing his readiness to prove the accusations he had made. Mr. Brooker had addressed a letter to him, dated April 12, in which he stated, that he had just learned that the Poor-law Commissioners had transmitted an order to the guardians of the Eastbourne union, directing that an increased quantity of meat should be allowed to the paupers; and he was happy to think, that his allusion to this case might have led in some measure to the issuing of such an order. He considered, it was necessary that some investigation should be instituted in the Eastbourne case: for, with such instances before them, the inhabitants of parishes under the Gilbert Act would not be very willing to surrender their affairs into the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners. He hoped, that if the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) made any observations on this subject, he would state at what period it was the intention of Government to introduce the Poor-law Amendment Bill. He was aware that considerable time must elapse before the Income-tax and the tariff passed through that House; but, as many hon. Members had given promises to their constituents to support very extensive and important improvements in the Poor-law, he thought it was desirable those hon. Gentlemen should have an early opportunity of redeeming their pledges.

said, that he had recently travelled by coach with the chairman of the Eastbourne board of guardians; and in the course of a conversation respecting the statements made by the ho and gallant Member on a former occasion, the chairman authorised him to say, that the board of guardians were most desirous that a searching inquiry should be instituted into their proceedings. He did not wish to be understood as giving any opinion on the pamphlet of Mr. Brooker; but he thought it was but fair to the guardians that a full investigation should be instituted into their proceedings generally, and especially into the case of W. Smith.

said, it was not his intention to oppose the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, nor would he go into the subject of the unfortunate quarrel which had been brought under the notice of the House. With respect to the question put to him by the hon. and gallant Member, he begged to say, that it was his intention to ask for leave to introduce a bill for continuing the Poor-law commission, with certain amendments, and, as he thought, improvements; but he could not, at the present moment, name the precise time at which he would bring forward the measure. He would, as speedily as he was able, give the gallant Member a more specific answer. He begged to suggest, as an addition to the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, that returns be also made of those unions to which orders have been issued by the commissioners prohibiting outdoor relief to able bodied paupers,

said, that he was very well satisfied with what the right hon. Baronet had just stated. He wished at the same time to observe, that he had made no charge whatever against these Poor-law guardians, but had only made the statement as he had heard it Mr. Brooker had placed the pamphlet he had referred to in his hands, and it appeared to him that if those practices did exist which were complained of, an inquiry should be instituted for the purpose of testing the truth of the whole matter. He had no doubt, that if an inquiry had been instituted, satisfaction would be afforded to all parties who felt themselves aggrieved.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the exercise of church patronage in Scotland. As he understood no opposition would be offered to his motion, he would not with any observations.

could not allow a bill on so important a subject to be introduced in perfect silence. Her Majesty's Government would not offer any opposition to the motion of the hon. Member, but he did not wish it to be supposed that Government were prepared to legislate on this important question. At the same time, when an hon. Member who had bestowed so much attention on the subject, and who was so competent to grapple with its difficulties, tendered a legislative measure to the House on a question in which the feelings of the people of Scotland were so deeply interested, it was not the intention of Government to oppose the introduction of the bill.

said, after what had occurred previous to Easter, he was glad the Government was prepared to consent to the introduction of the bill of the hon. Gentleman.

said, that he took the liberty, inasmuch as there appeared to be only one question upon which any great difference of opinion was likely to arise, of asking the hon. Member for Lambeth, who had given a notice upon this subject, whether he would allow this bill to pass proformâ through a committee, and postpone the discussion that must arise upon his motion to the bringing up of the report. This course he was most anxious to have followed, as it would greatly facilitate the business of the House.

expressed his willingness to accede to the proposition of the noble Lord.

said, he had also given a notice of motion upon the subject, and he was equally willing to meet the noble Lord's wishes.

said, he wished it to be generally known that the bounty on emigration to New South Wales was for the present suspended, partly because the last accounts contained representations that emigration had been over-done this year. A certain number of persons might yearly be absorbed into the population of the colony, but no less than 25,000 persons bad emigrated this year, and the result was, that even of those who had already emigrated there might be considerable difficulty in some of them finding employment.

moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Australia and New Zealand Bill. The noble Lord said, the object of the bill before the House was to regulate the sale of land in the Australian colonies, so that one general principle might be applied to all of these colonies, instead of leaving them in their present state of uncertainty. He had been asked why he did not apply the same doctrine to the Cape of Good Hope? He had stated that there were 34,000,000 of -acres of land at the Cape unappropriated, and had inquired why these were not sold and the proceeds applied to the purposes of emigration. He (Lord Stanley) believed that the total number of acres unoccupied, and belonging to the colony, was between forty and fifty millions. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) did not, however, appear to be aware that there were immense tracts of barren land, which, for want of water, were totally unavailable for the purposes of cultivation, and the fertile land was scattered here and there in small patches. The total quantity of land in the colony was estimated at 83,000,000 of acres, and that of 43,000,000 or 44,000,000 of acres had been appropriated, and of the remainder there were not more than from 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 of acres of fertile land—there being nearly 40,000,000 of acres absolutely unavailable. Now, the attempt to undertake a survey of that land on the same principle as had been applied to Australia would be altogether futile. If such a system were attempted to be put into operation at the Cape, the result would be that the expense of the survey would infinitely more than cover the amount of the value of the land. He believed that the reports of those best competent to form an opinion upon the subject were, that the colony was altogether inapplicable to the purposes of emigration, and it certainly was not the intention of the Government to recommend it, so far as regarded the Cape of Good Hope. With regard to the principle upon which emigration was regulated in the Australian colonies, the House was aware that the Government pledged itself to apply 50 per cent, of the proceeds of the land sales to that purpose; but it certainly was not their intention to give encouragement to those great projects which they heard of every day of raising one or two millions of money by absorbing the whole of the land fund for the next twenty or thirty years, for the purpose of forming at once a great stream of emigration, into the colony. The hon. Gentleman wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to draw any distinction between Protestants and Roman Catholics in their selection of emigrants for the. Australian colonies? Now, he, on behalf of the Government, begged to repudiate such an intention altogether, and so far as he had anything to do with the colonial emigration fund he should never, sanction any such distinction- What he looked to, alone, was the great want of labour, in the colony, and his object would be to select emigrants from that class whose habits of life, health of body, and age, would make them useful and valuable inhabitants of these colonies. He should look to their bodily qualifications and good character, but for one single moment he should never inquire whether the parties were Protestant or Roman Catholic, and repudiated such a principle altogether. With regard to, what had been said by the hon. Gentlemen respecting New Zealand, he should state in a few words, why the governor had not encouraged emigration to, the middle island and Banks' Peninsula. Although the French had made some small settlements in New Zealand, the Crown claimed sovereignty over the entire, and recognised no claim to sovereignty or right on the part of any other power. Some of the settlements had taken place, in the most| irregular and disorderly manner, and, it was that circumstance which had compelled the Government to, take upon itself the sovereignty of the entire colony of New Zealand, for the purpose, of adjusting these claims. The first thing to be done was to investigate these claims and, a, commissioner bad been, accordingly sent out, who was at the present moment engaged in, that investigation, and it was going on most systematically and sedulously. Under these circumstances, it was thought unwise to encourage what had been complained of over and over again, namely, the scattering of the colonists, over a great extent of country, by which their labours would be to a great extent rendered unavailing. It was thought much better to confine the settlement to those districts where the claims had been recognised than to permit the occupation of distant and widely-separated tracts of land, involving the necessity of distinct establishments, and the governor had accordingly directed that the settlement should be confined to the northern and not to the middle island- It was true the New Zealand Company had settled their second colony on the middle island, but it had been done by no means under the directions or at the wish of the Government. With regard to the financial affairs of the colony of South Australia they were at present under the consideration of the Government, and it was his (Lord Stanley's) intention very shortly to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the civil government of the colony, and until that was done, while the question was under the consideration of the Government, he trusted the hon. Member would not press for any further information on the subject. He believed he had answered all the questions of the hon. Gentleman, and he begged to thank him for affording him the opportunity of explaining the views of the Government on the subject.

gave his cordial assent to the second reading of the bill, which was founded on the report of the committee of last year.