rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move that the bill under consideration, annulling the existing constitution of Newfoundland, be, read a third time that day three months. In so doing, he was not unmindful of the fact, that he gave to the supporters of the bill the vantage ground, as it was much easier at that period of the Session for the Government to gather its strength; but, although the provisions of that bill were unknown to the country generally until after the discussion of the 30th ult., lie did not wish to court success by anything like a surprise, or resort to arts of unworthy retaliation. They, the opponents of the bill, rested their case upon the royal charter granted to the island in 1832 by his late Majesty William 4th., who himself, attached to that noble profession which gave to them the command of the ocean, had personally served in those latitudes, and might; fairly be presumed to have known the circumstances and wants of the population. That Monarch, whose characteristic virtues were kindness of feeling and singleness of intention, had confided to the keeping of hat colony a constitution, broad and liberal in its provisions, and it was for the promoters of that act of disfranchisement to prove, that it had worked ill, hem (Mr. Howard) contended, that the House of Assembly bad applied itself with judgment and with diligence to their legislative functions. They had caused 1,000 miles of road to he laid down; they had erected lighthouses along the coast; by the building of prisons, steps had been taken to guard ands vindicate the law-nor had they been neglectful of the cause of education. Under their jurisdiction the triumphs of cultivation had extended. To no more legitimate purpose, in a primitive state of society, could their labours have been directed— but be would take the liberty of reading an extract from a work, the "Encyclopœdia Britannica," a work certainly not drawn up for party purposes. and which thus describes the condition of the island about 1836 and 1837.

"'The moral aspect of Newfoundland is rather encouraging; considerable unanimity has usually existed amongst the different religious persuasions, consisting of Wesleyans, Roman Catholics, and Congregationalists; the Dissenters being generally more numerous than the Episcopalians, over whom there is an archdeacon. The Catholic church is governed by a bishop. There are several newspapers published in the island, and of late years a taste for literature has been diffusing itself, There are between thirty and forty schools, as well for adult as for children. Ai St. John's there is a commercial society, out of which a chamber of commerce is chosen; there are several benevolent societies, and two benefit societies."

Such from impartial evidence was the state of the island, and no defect in the working of them constitution had been substantiated beyond the fact that the elections had been rather stormily contested, and that some scenes of violence had marked their progress; but that was not, hem presumed, a novel accusation even iii more refined communities But he would now advert to the two most objectionable clauses of the Bill in its amended form as it had passed the committee. In the existing charter no property qualification was exacted, as in Scotland, the best exercise of choice was left to the electors, then, too, the amount of wealth in the island taken into view the qualification required was high, for the islanders lived in a very primitive and patriarchal style and payments, as in the middle ages were mostly in kind; but light were his objections (and of those hon. Members with whom he had the honour to act) to the qualification clause as compared to the 6th clause, which was in principle most objectionable; it went by the fusion of the two Chambers to stifle the popular voice, and reduced nearly to a nullity the right of representation; and would that be a course of legislation likely to forward the interest of the colony and contentment of the governed? Would it hold out inducements to emigration? Would the English, the Anglo-Saxon leave the land of his fathers to live under a system of law less free than his own? No, the whole course of experience proved the reverse. Why then, court an invidious comparison between the freedom of the United States and the form of government of those under the sway of the British sceptre. Many hon. Members whom, he saw opposite, had in 1832 and previously, opposed in this country the enlargement of the franchise proposed to be granted by the Reform Bill, but no hon. Member had since moved to repeal the provisions of that act, and why? because there was a wide difference and a broad distinction between not giving and taking away, and if such were their bearing at home, why in the name of honour and of justice should they adopt a different course towards a distant and unprotected colony—a colony which in the event of war would be, as it had ever been an important point of defence. Let them not poison the fountain of loyalty there by chilling diffidence and suspicion. To the hardy sons of Newfoundland belonged the honour, on the extreme outpost of civilization, of guarding the British flag. The hon. Member concluded by expressing a hope the House would ever regard as its own the interest of the British colonies.

said, that as the bill did not state the precise mode in which remuneration was to be afforded to these officers, he should be glad if any hon. Member would point out what was to be the extent of remuneration, and under what authority it was to be levied? The public would thus be better enabled to judge of the expense that would be incurred by the working of this system. The bill was introduced at so late a period of the Session, that he had had no opportunity of consulting any persons relative to it, except his own immediate constituency. He was inclined to believe that the ex- pense would be increased under this measure, and that in many instances the bankrupt's estate would be divided under disadvantageous circumstances. The fiat should, in all cases, be worked with as much expedition and as cheaply as possible. He made these remarks before, so far as he knew, any appointment of official assignees had been made, and therefore his opposition to that part of the bill could not be attributed to any personal feeling.

was quite sure that his hon. Friend had no other object in view than to make the bill as perfect as it could be made by the labours of the committee. After the ample consideration which this subject had undergone in both Houses of Parliament, he did not think that any hon. Member had a right to complain that he had been taken by surprise. Lord Brougham's Bill, which entirely altered the law upon this subject., had been introduced at a later period of the Session, and yet that bill had been passed. That the new system bad produced great advantages was proved by official documents. In 180 estates, under the new system of proceeding by fiat, the proportion of debts collected was 72½ percent. In 180 estates managed under the old commissions, taking them as they came, without selection, the amount of debts collected was only 38 per cent. The benefit which had been derived in collecting small debts of 1l., and under 2l.—of 2l., and under 5l.—of 5l., and under 10l., was very great. The report on the subject set forth, that the advantage of the present system was made perfectly clear from the fact, that since it was carried into effect, all the debts not exceeding 11. amounted to 2,885l.; of which 2,125l. was actually collected; above 1l., and under 2l" the total was 1,399l.; the sum collected, 1,079l.; above 2l., and under 5l., the total was 1,925l.; the sum collected, 1,618l.; above 5l., and under 10l., the total was 1,139l.; the sum collected, 845l. Thus, out of a gross sum, composed of small debts, amounting to 7,348l., 5,677l. had been collected; being not less than 77 per cent. With respect to the remuneration of official assignees, the hon. arid learned Gentleman read the clause in the existing act, showing that the reward depended upon what the court from time to time might see fit to order. It was generally done by a per centage, as for example, 5 per cent. for debts collected under 100l.; between 100l. and 500l., 2½ per cent., and so on, diminishing according to the larger amount collected. There was no inflexible rule, and it was competent to the court to introduce such new orders as they thought proper. If they proceeded on a certain scale it was impossible to avoid complaints, that occasionally large sums would be paid to the official assignees for comparatively little labour, whilst in other cases they might receive a very trifling sum, although they had had great labour; but the commissioners so endeavoured to adjust their scale as to avoid that inconvenience, and he believed they had succeeded in that by adopting a scale which did, on an average, give a fair remuneration. He trusted that under these circumstances the hon. Member opposite would see that extending the system now adopted within forty miles round London to all parts of the kingdom would be a great boon.

had no hesitation in giving this bill, upon the whole, his decided support. The most valuable part of the alteration that had taken place in the old law, was the appointment of official assignees. As to remuneration, the course adopted hitherto had had the effect, not to give too much, but too limited, a remuneration. If it was required to get respectable persons who could give security to be assignees, remuneration proportioned to the services rendered by those persons must be allowed, otherwise respectable persons could not he obtained. Those persons frequently held large sums of money in their hands, which it was of importance to prevent their detaining in their possession, and to compel them to pay into the bank. To effect that object, a provision would be introduced into the bill to the effect that if the commissioner or judge should find, that the assignee retained in his possession any sum exceeding 200l., beyond forty-eight hours, he should either have to pay, as a penalty, excessive interest on the sum, as was the case under the old Bankruptcy Act, or be subjected to the forfeiture of his office. Thus perfect security could be obtained against the faults of the official assignee. He would state, that during an experience of twenty-five years before the alteration in the law took place, not a bankruptcy estate be- came the subject of investigation that the 1 bankrupt was not ruined. Since the al- teration a great improvement had taken place.

wished this part of the bill to be referred to a select committee. There appeared to him to be no reason why official assignees should be paid more than accountants of the estate.

proposed an amendment to the effect that moneys should be received, not by the official; assignee alone, but jointly with one of the assignees chosen by the creditors.

said, that the reason of this system of official assignees working so well in London was this: that they had also the management of the estate, and were enabled to collect debts, which could not have been got in under the old system. They could not get trade assignees to act in the same way, and what was now proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark was to clog the official assignee by obliging him always to have one of the trade assignees with him when be received money in respect of the bankrupt's estate.

thought there could at least he no inconvenience in limiting the receipts of the official assignee to the amount for which he might have given security. Where sums exceeding that amount were to be paid in, then he should be associated with the trading assignee.

observed, that no human system could supply complete checks. It would be vain to make any attempt to prevent all possible evils, and therefore he should say, that they ought to place some reliance upon the power of the Lord Chancellor and something also upon the influence of publicity; but as to a complete system of checks and prevention, he altogether despaired of seeing them introduced into any legislative measure. In case of any misconduct, the trading assignee might call the official assignee to account, or at least might make such an application to the Court as would answer all the purposes of justice. It was well known that the commissioners readily listened to any well-founded complaint, and he was justified in saying that there did not exist men of higher honour than the commissioners, or better men of business than the official assignees.

contended, that the power ought not to be taken altogether out of the hands of the creditors' assignee. The plan of official assignees had not by any means worked so well as some hon. Members seemed to think. He desired, for example, to ask this question—Had not Mr. Abbott been a defaulter to the extent of 60,0001.? Mr. Clarke was a defaulter to the amount of 10,000l. It was understood to be Mr. Abbott's practice to withhold the funds of the estates with which he was connected till the dividend was on the point of being paid, and owing to such abuses, as well as upon other grounds, he did hold that the present system of official assignees required a very material alteration. He would suppose that the owners of a large manufacturing concern suddenly became insolvent—that a commission of bankruptcy issued—that the creditors' assignee was desirous of working up the stock for the benefit of the estateߞcould he do so where the official assignee had taken possession of the whole property in the manner of a sheriff's officer? He had looked at the matter with most anxious attention; he had listened to all that had been said on both sides, and he must be permitted to say, that the promoters of the bill had not made out a sufficient case. Looking impartially at the measure as it stood, he must declare himself wholly against passing such a bill at such a period of the Session, and for this amongst other reasons—that the House did not possess sufficient knowledge on the subject. If he thought himself entitled to ask for such a thing as a matter of favour, he would request the right hon. Baronet near him to postpone the measure till next Session; and he would beg the right hon. Baronet to recollect, that no one demanded such a measure; neither the commissioners nor the people made any requisition on the subject. If the committee decided to go on he should not persist in moving to restrict the powers proposed to be given. If, however, he should "urge that proposition and be defeated, then he would ask leave to propose that an annual return be made to Parliament, brought down to the 31st day of December in each year, and be presented within two months of the meeting of Parliament, such return to set forth the total amount of monies received by assignees to bankrupts' estates, distinguishing the amount received for each estate, and the balance in hand on account of' each, as well as the total balance; those several accounts to be signed by the Accountant-general of the court,

said, he was surprised at the appeal which had been made to him. It must, of course, be in the recollection of hon. Members, that before the House resolved itself into a committee, the question of postponement had been very seriously discussed and decided in the negative. He did not undervalue the objections which had been made to the measure, but he did not think that a more effectual remedy for the acknowledged evils of the law could at this moment be adopted; nevertheless, he did not disguise from himself that the bill when passed into a law would meet with some opposition, and that opposition would be still more difficult to deal with if directed against a postponed measure, rather than against one not passed into a law. There was a very large amount of local influence which could be called into activity against it—there were 700 commissioners, all members of the legal profession, who, with their friends, would array all their power against the measure; and, considering it to be the best that under present circumstances could be carried, he must adhere to the determination which he had already expressed of not consenting to its postponement. In confirmation of the views of those who were engaged in promoting the bill, he should, with the permission of the House, read to them an opinion expressed by Lord Eldon more than forty years ago. It was reported in these words:ߞ

" Upon this subject his Lordship observed, with warmth, that the abuse of the bankrupt law was a disgrace to the country, and that it would be better at once to repeal all the statutes than to suffer them to be applied to such purposes. There is no mercy to the estate—nothing is less thought of than the object of the commission. As they are frequently conducted in the country they are little more than stock in trade for the commissioners, the assignees, and the solicitor. Instead of solicitors attending to their duty, as ministers of the court, for they are so, commissions of bankruptcy are treated as matters of traffic. A taking out the commission, B. and C. to be his commissioners. They are considered as stock in trade, and calculations are made how many commissions can be bought into the partnership. Unless the court holds a strong hand over bankruptcy, particularly as administered in the country, it is itself accessory to as great a nuisance as any known in the land, and known to pass under the forms of its law."

Upon this he should observe, that those who opposed the bill were bound to show, that since the year 1801, when Lord Eldon delivered the opinion which he had just read, a material change had taken place in the practice of which that noble and learned person so justly complained. There certainly had been a change in the metropolitan district, and the effect of the present measure would be to extend the metropolitan system to the provincial districts; and from the information that he had received from various quarters of high authority, he thought himself justified in saying that the great commercial community of London were decidedly favourable to the proposed system. He recently had the honour of meeting a deputation at which three metropolitan Members were present, on which occasion he took the liberty of asking them whether on the whole they thought that the experiment of the official assignees had been successful or other. wise? They stated, that at first: there had been a good deal of suspicion entertained with respect to the official assignees, but the system gradually advanced in public estimation, The public knew that the assignees were under the strong hand of the Lord Chancellor, and it was well known that the least irregularity was visited with immediate correction. For these reasons, he must be allowed to say, he thought that the promoters of the bill would act a most unworthy part if they did not proceed with and bring to maturity a measure which had the support of the great commercial communities, and which had received the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, and of the Master of the Rolls.

stated, that, one of the objects which he had in view was to render the creditors assignee a check upon the official assignee. During the existence of the law there had been three defaulters. The bill under the consideration of the House did not contain a single clause to protect the estate of the bankrupt from frauds of a similar character. If the estate were protected, he should be satisfied. He proposed that the trade assignee should also sign the receipt, and thus a greater security would be afforded against a mal-appropriation of the property.

could not see what objection could be urged against the adoption of the proposition. Could it not be provided, that in all cases where a sum of money was held beyond the amount of the security, one of the trade assignees should be associated with the other, and thus afford a security against the commission of fraud? He did not wish to make any alteration in the portion of the bill relating to official assignees, but he thought that when the official assignees had possession of a larger sum than that for which they had given security, a control ought to be exercised over them in order to prevent the occurrence of cases similar to that of Abbott.

referred to a case which had come before the Lord Chancellor very recently. Out of five commissioners named, one had been selected to move the fiat—his name had since very properly been left out—three were creditors to the estate, and one was a debtor.

said, that the hon. Member for Lambeth had not been more happy in his selection of cases than had been the right hon. Baronet himself. The hon. Member for Lambeth cited his case, and in the face of that gave his support to the bill. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the opinion of Lord Eldon on the state of the bankrupt laws. That opinion was, he believed, delivered in 1801. So little did the right hon. Baronet know of the question, that he was obliged to refer to the opinion of Lord Eldon to strengthen his argument on the subject. He thought that it was not right to press a matter of so much importance at so late a period of the Session, particularly as the hon. Member for Leeds and other hon. Members connected with mercantile matters, had expressed an opinion in favour of the postponement of the bill. It appeared as if the bill had been brought forward at that advanced period, and hurried through the House with the view of preventing the 700 commissioners from having an opportunity of stating their views on the measure before the House. He considered the objections which had been urged against the clause to be well founded. What they said was this—Do not invest all the power over the property of the bankrupt in the hands of the official assignee.

said, that though he should be happy to see the bill postponed until next Session, he did not concur in the objections urged against this particular clause by the hon. Member who had preceded him. He would address himself, therefore, to the particular clause which they were considering when the hon. Mem- ber for Leeds led the discussion into the general question, whether the bill should pass or not. The objections urged against this clause were founded on great and essential mistakes. Most of those objections which his hon. Friend had pointed out might easily be remedied. The hon. Member for Leeds said, that the official assignee took possession of the estate immediately, and that there was not sufficient control or security for the creditor. In order to form a judgment on this matter, it would be necessary to compare the present state of things with that which existed previously. The mode of working a commission in London and the country before the new arrangement was this:—The warrant was directed to a person called a messenger. In the country, generally, the messenger was the sheriff's bailiff. In London there were certain persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor, generally persons of no property; the property was seized by a man employed for 5s. a-day, and so the estate remained until the second public meeting, when the assignee was appointed. There was an exception, where a trade had to be carried on, or where there was an extent on the part of the Crown. On these occasions an application was made for the appointment of an official assignee. Therefore you had to compare the responsibility of the bailiff, who had given no security to the creditors, with the official assignee appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and who had to give security. No comparison could be instituted between the two persons. The duty of the official assignee began with the issuing of the commission. So much for the first stage. What was the second? The hon. Member for Leeds said, " Suppose you wish to redeem property, see what advantage you deprive the estate of by not allowing the trade assignee to interfere." The rule now prevailing in London with regard to official assignees was this:— There were orders made by the commissioner that the official assignee should not retain more than 100l. in his hands, balance of a particular estate, and the aggregate amount of his balances on all the estates to which he was assignee could not be more than 1,000l.; the rest ought to be paid in in the name of the Accountant-general in Bankruptcy. The hon. Member for Leeds said, suppose you wanted to redeem property? He thought that there was not the slightest difficulty in doing so. Let them suppose the condition of property before the appointment of assignees—there was no one to represent the estate at all who could advance the money. The only mode would be by a general meeting of creditors, who must advance the money out of their own pockets, that was, if it occurred before the appointment of assignees. Under the bill, as it stood, there would be quite as much facility in obtaining funds to carry on trade, to redeem pledges, or to do anything for the benefit of the estate, as there was now under the present system. Supposing it were necessary that 1,000l. of the funds which had been realised were wanted to pay dock dues, so that certain goods might be entered, the assignees would call a meeting by advertisement in the Gazette —they would, at that meeting, receive authority from the body of the creditors—that authority would be laid before the commissioner, and the matter would be at once done. So that, in fact, all the bill would do would be to prevent the misapplication of the funds, while every facility was given to apply them for the benefit of the estate. Then, with respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Southwark, it would be admitted, that under the old system, the assignees being themselves deeply engaged in trade, did not spend their time in attempting to get in small or difficult accounts; they were generally left to themselves, and, in many cases, the money which they did succeed in collecting they paid in to their own account at their bankers, and traded on the credit it gave them, and sometimes years passed over without any dividend being declared. The bill provided for the appointment of official assignees, who might in the collection of money proceed without the concurrence of the trade assignees, and by their means the debts would be better looked after and sooner collected to be divided amongst the creditors of the estate. The bill, however, expressly gave the trade assignees alone the power of saying how, when, and in what manner the effects belonging to an estate should be converted; but money once collected was locked up in the hands of the Accountant-general in Bankruptcy, where it lay till it was required. All that the bill provided was greater security against the mis-application of the funds, and surely that was not an object likely to be objectionable to those engaged in trade and liable to suffer from bankruptcies. The object of the clause under discussion was to provide the means for as large and as early a dividend as possible, and, in his opinion, it would be effectual to that end. It might be asked why the present provisions were not extended to the country when the new system was first introduced? He remembered very well what was the reason given by those who introduced it; they were anxious to try the system in London first. The official assignees were obliged to keep their books in a clear and accurate manner; those books were at all times open to the inspection of the trade assignees; therefore, if the latter did their duty, the system provided for a diminution in the expense of working the commission, the certainty of the debts being collected, and a greatly increased security for all the funds realized; and he said that, notwithstanding the defalcation of the three individuals who had been alluded to, those defalcations arose from matters which might easily be controlled. Why should not the system work as well in the country as in London? He had always taken a deep interest in the bill, and when it was before the House on the first occasion, he was aware that much suspicion existed in the minds of eminent men, both professional and mercantile, with regard to the appointment of official assignees. He had of late made inquiries on the subject, and he knew that that prejudice had been entirely dissipated. He highly approved of the system, he thought it would prove of great utility in the country as well as in London, and although lie could have wished that the bill had been more maturely considered, still, as the bill was to pass in the present Session, he would give the clause his earnest support.

thought the bill would prove the means of much saving to estates, and a benefit to the country. The official assignee system had proved most useful in London, and he should certainly vote for its extension.

said, there was no doubt the trade assignees would still be possessed of considerable powers even if the bill passed, but why should they be deprived of the power to perform the last act? Why take from them the control of the funds? Why should they not in all things act conjointly with the official assignees? He, as the representative of a large manufacturing and mercantile community, felt himself compelled to give his support to the amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark. He thought it most desirable that a trade assignee should be appointed, who might exercise some check upon the acts of the official assignee.

wished to state, that his object was that trade assignees should be appointed, who might act as a check upon the official assignees with respect to the sums of money received. He would be quite content if, in each case, one trade assignee was appointed. After what had taken place, he could not, with confidence, intrust the receipt of money to the official assignees alone, and he thought they ought to be accountable to responsible parties. It had been stated that, within a short period, two instances of improper conduct had occurred on the part of official assignees: but he believed the fact was, that three such cases had occurred. He might state that, in one instance, an official assignee was appointed, who, at the time of his appointment was known to be insolvent, and who had judgment debts hanging over him; and he believed that individual had not been in office six months before he defrauded several estates of the money placed in his hands. He thought, after such occurrences, they ought not to legislate without requiring something like reasonable security for the future. He considered that no official assignee ought to be allowed to receive money, unless the name of a trade assignee was appended to the receipt.

said, he wished to know upon what statistics it was proposed that the number of the commissioners should be confined to ten. He did not see when Manchester alone would give occupation to three courts, how ten could perform the duties.

said, that perhaps the number was less than might be required. The number of commissioners in London was six, and they performed the duties for forty miles round London; but the Lord Chancellor having communicated with those commissioners, they took upon themselves to discharge the duties for 100 miles around the metropolis. This would include Brighton and many other large towns. If six commissioners were sufficient for the metropolis and 100 miles around, and the commissioners, after ten years' experience, were content to undertake the additional duty which would be thrown upon them, he thought that ten might, perhaps, be capable of doing the remaining business. He had, however, no objection that they should be increased to twelve.

said, that if persons living at 100 miles from London were obliged to come up to the metropolis to prove small debts, it was another objection against the bill, because it was tantamount to a denial of justice.

then proposed to amend the clause, by substituting the number twelve for ten.

said, it was evident that the bill had been brought into the House in such a state that the right hon. Baronet did not himself know how many persons would be necessary to work the measure he proposed. There was nothing on the face of the bill to show whether it was to be worked by a central board or by circuits. He thought it was too bad to bring forward such a bill as the present at so late a period of the Session. The responsibility of the alterations proposed in the measure by the right hon. Gentleman must not rest upon him; he would not be responsible for the insertion of the words ten, twelve, twenty, or two hundred. He believed the bill was nothing but a job, and it had been brought forward at the present late period of the Session, in order that it should not incur formidable opposition.

said, that the hon. and learned Member certainly over-estimated the value which he attached to either the suggestion or the censure of the hon. and learned Gentleman. As to the bill being a job, he was willing to leave it to the country to decide whether that was the character of a measure with such limited patronage. He believed the country would not accuse the present Government with being guilty of jobbing by countenancing the present bill. The Government had determined to support the Insolvency Bill; that bill, as well as the present, imposed fresh duties, and he was afraid, therefore, that ten commissioners might not be sufficient, and therefore it was, that he proposed to insert not less than twelve commissioners.

was sure the objects of the measure could not be worked by the present number of commissioners; but he thought they might try if ten were not sufficient before twelve were appointed.,

proposed to insert the words " not exceeding twelve," but he could assure the hon. Member that an attempt would be made with ten, to see how the measure would work.

observed, that as to the Insolvency Bill, he did not believe it would pass this Session. Disclaiming again being any party to the bill, he would not divide after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet.

objected to this clause, upon the ground that it gave power to the local commissioners to make orders and regulations which heretofore could only be issued by the Lord Chancellor, or the Court of Review.

entertained a strong and decided objection to this clause. He conceived that the proposed salary of 2,000l. a-year to each of the London commissioners, and of 1,800l. to each of the country commissioners, was infinitely too high. Such an amount of salary was not necessary to secure the degree of talent requisite for the proper discharge of the duties which these commissioners would be called upon to perform. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would consent to a reduction of these salaries.

defended the clause. The object of it was to secure the best services which could be got, and the payment of high salaries was to be justified on the ground that persons qualified for the situation would have to sacrifice their professional income by accepting the situation.

thought that 1,500l. should be inserted instead of 1,800l. When they came to the proper part of the clause, he would propose an amendment to that effect.

thought 2,000l. a-year too high a salary for the town commissioners. He begged to propose as an amendment, that 1,800l. be substituted for 2,000l.

did not think the salaries at all inadequate for the services which the commissioners would have to perform. The increase of business which the bill would cast upon the town commissioners fully entitled them to the additional amount of 500l. a-year.

amendment withdrawn.

proposed as an amendment, in line 7, that 1,500l. be inserted instead of 1,800l., as the salary of the country commissioners.

thought it would be better if the salaries were allowed to remain as proposed in the bill.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to a subject which had caused much uneasiness in the city—he referred to the Income-tax. It was generally understood by those who had to pay in this country the dividends on foreign loans, that by the Assessed Tax Act, No. 2, they must deduct even from the dividends payable to persons residing in foreign countries, the income-tax of 3 per cent. This was thought to be a great injustice and hardship, not only by foreigners, but also by the heads of houses in London, and he could not conceive that any such deduction could be intended. He would ask whether it were to be made?

said, that this deduction was altogether an error. The Assessed Tax Act, No. 2, gave no power to levy a duty upon property which was not made subject by the previous act. He had had many communications upon the subject to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted, and the view he had taken of the matter was, that there was no power of deducting the property-tax from the dividends of foreign funds payable in this country, if paid to foreigners residing out of this country, and that the act applied only to the case of dividends of foreign funds payable to people residing in this country.

remarked that it was important that the Boroughs Incorporation Bill should pass as early as possible. He therefore moved that the report be now read. The report brought up and read, and, on the motion that it be received,

had to announce that in the interval since Saturday last a clause had been framed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general, which he hoped would remove the objections entertained by certain parties against the measure, and he had further hoped to have been able to congratulate the House as to the unanimity prevailing with respect to it. He was aware that Gentlemen from Bolton were in London to oppose the bill, but had hoped their petition would not have been presented. These gentlemen were certainly rather late in the steps they had taken. It was exceedingly desirable that the question should be set at rest, and uncertainty put an end to. He should, therefore, feel it his duty to move that the bill be proceeded with, and the introduction of the clause framed by his hon. and learned Friend.

thanked and congratulated the right hon. Baronet. The bill was a great improvement, and would be productive of the best fruit.

also thanked the right hon. Baronet for keeping not only the letter, but the spirit of the arrangement entered into, and he expressed his surprise that, at this period of the bill, eight people from Bolton should throw any impediment in the way Report received, the Standing Orders were suspended, and the bill ordered to be read a third time.

said, he was extremely glad at the satisfactory issue which had been arrived at upon the question of compensation, which was the only part of the bill he had anything to do with. It was right he should say thus much, as he had learned that his conduct had been misunderstood at Birmingham, and it was reported that he had given up the bill on condition that the Government should bring in one to confirm the charter. It was in the recollection of the House that he had nothing to do with any such arrangement; on the contrary, he said, that the confirmation of the charter of Birmingham was nothing to him, but he had taken up the question of compensation to certain officers upon general principles, and he had nothing to say to the charter; since then he had had a communication made to him by influential persons in Birmingham, that they were not satisfied to have this charter, but he had nothing to add upon that subject, except that he had expressed their opinions in the proper quarter.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), which he had postponed from Friday at his request. The question related to a matter which appeared to him to be of the deepest importance, as it involved not only the honour and credit of this country, but also the safety of a large portion of British dominions near the Indus. The last mail from India brought conflicting reports of the orders said to have been issued by the Governor-general of India, with respect to the British troops west of the Indus. One account stated that orders had been sent by the Governor-general for the immediate return of these troops. Another account stated that there had been sonic misunderstanding as to these orders, and that this had been corrected by the mode in which Sir Jasper Nicholls had interpreted those orders. The question he wished to ask was, whether orders to withdraw the British troops from the country west of the Indus Thad or had not been issued by the Governor-general, and he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Baronet would be able to state that there was not the slightest foundation for the report.

always wished to give as much information to the House, as well with respect to diplomatic acts, as to military operations, as was consistent with his public duty, but at the same time he had ever withheld information, the communication of which was likely to be prejudicial to the public interest. The House was sure that any information which he might give would be conveyed to India in six or seven weeks, and it was therefore necessary to use some reserve to prevent prejudice to the public interests. At this moment the neighbourhoods of Candahar and Jellalabad might be the scenes of military operations. The death of Shah Soojah had placed this country in a new position to what it was under their treaty of Lord Auckland, and our position with respect to the court of Lahore was at this moment the subject of consideration with the Indian Government. He would, therefore, only state the fact that, at the present moment, the British force occupied Candahar; at the present moment, he believed, too, that it also occupied Jellalabad; and he did not apprehend an immediate withdrawal from the occupation of either situation. This was all the information which he thought it consistent with his public duty to give, and he was sure the House would not press him for anything more, but wait and see the accounts which the next mail might bring over.

understood that the Chairman and other Members of the Ipswich committee did not intend, to give any opposition to the issue of the' writ for Ipswich, and he should best discharge his own duty, and consult the convenience of the 'house, 'by retraining from making any observations on the evidence given before the committee. Neither would he be tempted to alter his course by the notice of the bill given by the hon. Member for Finsbury; for he felt considerable confidence that the hon. Member would not press his bill; when he reflected on the effect it would have, not only in disfranchising these persons, but also in defeating the issue of the writ for Ipswich, he would see that he had not a case which would stand for one moment. He also felt that the hon. Member would feel considerable difficulty in persisting with his bill without the consent of the Members of the committee; and he was sure that nothing would induce them to do, in an indirect way, what they did not do directly. Expressing a hope that the hon. Gentlemen who were now candidates for the seats would obtain the object of their ambition with as unstained honour, and as unblemished integrity, as the Gentlemen who had lost them—he would conclude by reserving to himself the right, if the hon. Gentleman should move his amendment, of referring to the evidence, which he thought would justify the division in the committee. He moved that the Speaker do issue his writ for a new election for the borough of Ipswich.

at that stage of the proceedings, wished merely to correct one expression of the hon. Member. The hon. Member had certainly asked him in the lobby whether he meant to oppose the issue of the writ, and he said certainly not; the instructions of the committee did not go to that extent; but he had as certainly stated in the same place, if not to the hon. Member, to others, that he meant to support the bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Finsbury, although individually he would make no motion. He stated this, in case the hon. Member wished to add anything to his former remarks.

said, it certainly was his object to defeat the issue of the writ, and at the present moment. The hon. Member had expressed a hope that he would not persevere with his bill, believing, as he said, that he could make out no case to prevent the issuing of the writ, or incapacitating the persons named in the bill from voting. He assured the House, however, that unless he thought he could make out a case, he would not have brought I "forward his amendment. if her Majesty's Ministers and the House wished to satisfy the public that they were in earnest in their virtuous indignation against the crime of bribery, or in the professions of horror at that crime which had been made during the last two or three months, he thought he should be able to make out such a case that they would not allow this writ to issue. What was the state of the borough of Ipswich? What had been its state since the Reform Bill, or at least since the years 1834 or 1835, when there was a general election. During the last seven years, or little more, there had been five elections for the borough of Ipswich, and those five elections had produced five petitions. The first of these was at the general election at the close of the year 1835. Bribery and corruption were alleged in a petition to have taken place at the election of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, and both those individuals were unseated on the charge of bribery. At that time one of the individuals whom he proposed to incapacitate first appeared—he meant Arthur Bott Cook, who was reported to have been guilty of bribery, and to have absconded to avoid the service of the Speaker's warrant.. Another petition was presented after the general election of 1837 against the return of his hon. Friend, Mr. Tufnell, and that Gentleman was unseated, not for bribery, but on a scrutiny. Then, his lion. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson) resigned his seat in 1839, and Sir T. Cochrane was returned. At that time' a petition was presented complaining of gross bribery, but it was not prosecuted because a general impression prevailed that there would be an early dissolution of Parliament. Then came the general election of 1841. After that election a petition was presented against the return of Mr. Wason and Mr. Rennie. That petition was tried in April last, and both those Gentlemen were unseated, being declared guilty of bribery by their agents, though not with their cognizance. The committee reported on the 25th of April to the House:—

" That this committee are of opinion, from the evidence given before them, that extensive bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Ipswich, and that the issuing of a new writ for the said borough ought to be suspended until the said evidence shall have been taken into consideration by the House."

That evidence was printed and taken into consideration by the House. Several discussions took place, and it would be recollected that the House decided the writ should issue. He now came to the last election, at which the Earl of Desart and Mr. Gladstone were returned. Those two Members were also unseated, their agents having been found guilty of bribery, though without the cognizance of either. If any hon. Gentleman would take the trouble of reading the evidence, he would find the full proofs, but he would not read any extracts, or refer to it further than to state the names of the individuals concerned in the bribers' at the last election. Amongst them he found some of the same individuals who had not only been reported, but convicted of bribery on former occasions before other committees. They were not all new delinquents. The individuals reported by the last committee were those who had been bribed, and the evidence showed the gentlemen who were the bribers. The most prominent amongst them was Arthur Bott Cook, the same individual who was reported in 1835, and the same man with respect to whom it was

"Resolved by Ipswich committee, on 10th July, 1835, that Arthur Bott Cook, John Bury Dassent, John Pilgrim, and others, were guilty of bribery at the said election."

Arthur Bott Cook was one of the men who caused the miscarriage of the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman, who were unseated this Session. The evidence showed that he bribed Richard Bishop with 8l., William Pack, jun., with 10s. to his wife. [Cheers.] Hon. Members wished it was 10l., he supposed. Mr. Cook also bribed Amos Goodchild with a promise of 5l. to pay his rent. He thought, therefore, that Arthur Bott Cook, who was guilty of bribery in 1835, and reported to the House, and who had repeated the same offence in 1842, was an individual whom the House ought to visit with some reprobation and disfranchisement. What could be more absurd than that Mr. Wason and Mr. Rennie, Lord Desart and Mr. Gladstone, four individuals, should be incapacitated from sitting in the present Parliament, in consequence of the acts of their agents, and yet that the individuals who unseated these four Members should be allowed to pursue their course uncensured? Did they not think it a great enormity, and a great injustice, to unseat these Members unless they took some notice of the individuals who did it? Then came Mr. Henry Gallant Bristo, who in 1835 was concerned in the election, but who was not reported to the House. He was proved before the last committee to have bribed Henry Graves, by employment of his boy, aged 13, as messenger, at 30s. a week, when he only earned 2s., John Downing, by a release from a security of 25l.; Thomas Bowman, with 30s., for not playing in the band; and Robert Pack, to whose son he would only give 7s. 6d. as messenger, because the father would not vote. Next came Charles Steward, who raised die bribe of Richard Bishop from 71. to 8l., besides writing letters to out voters, promising payment of expenses, and then paying them exorbitant sums at Deck's rooms. Then there was another old offender bribed by Arthur Bott Cook. He had been bribed by Thornbury with 15l. at the election in 1841, to vote for Wason and Rennie, and gave evidence before the committee that unseated them. At the last election he was bribed by A. B. Cook, with promise of 5l. for rent; and a third of the class of old offenders, William Brown, a tinman, who was bribed by Mr. Sampson to vote for Wason and Rennie with 15l., and gave evidence before the committee that unseated them, and at the last election was bribed with 4l. 10s., under pretence of travelling expenses, 10s. paid by Mr. Jackaman, and 4l. at Deck's Room, by Stewart and Brisot. So that the same men who gave evidence in April of their acts in 1842, so as to unseat Messrs. Wason and Rennie, having voted for them, went over to the other side in June, voted for the Tories, gave evidence again, and thus succeeded in unseating four Members. The names of John Downing, Richard Bishop, and the others to be found in his bill, were all in the evidence to which he might refer, making altogether twenty-one names, whom he thought ought to be incapacitated from voting at any election of Members to serve in Parliament. It might be that there were some names that ought to be included, and that some cases might require separate consideration. There might be some circumstances accompany those acts which might demand an exemption, to be considered when the bill went into committee in that House, or up stairs; and he would be quite willing that names should be expunged or added in committee. The question really was, whether the House would consent to issue the writ till it had dealt with those individuals who at the last four or five elections, had shown themselves ready to commit bribery if they could find the opportunity—whether they were to repeat their corrupt practices without condemnation? He was not acting without precedent in the course he proposed. In the borough of New Shoreham, in the year 1771, a society existed solely for the purpose of selling the borough to the highest bidder, called the Christian club. In consequence of the benevolent and charitable objects they had in view they gave themselves this title. A bill passed the House of Commons in three or four days, and afterwards passed into the act of 11th George 3rd, c. 55—

" An act to incapacitate John Burnett, &c.,(in all 68), from voting at elections to serve in Parliament, and for the preventing bribery and corruption in the election of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of New Shoreham, in the county of Sussex."

It recited that a corrupt society, called the Christian Club existed; in order to prevent such unlawful practices for the future, and that the borough be from thenceforth duly represented in Parliament, it was enacted that the said John Burnett, &c., be and by virtue of this act are thenceforth incapacitated and disabled from giving any vote at any election for the choosing a Member or Members to serve in Parliament. This bill then provided for the extension of the right of voting to the Rape of Bramber, and concluded with this clause:ߞ

" And be it further enacted, that this act shall be publicly read at every election for the said borough of New Shoreham immediately after the acts directed by any act of Parliament to be read thereat, and before the persons present shall proceed to make such election."

It appeared that a majority of the electors belonged to this club, formed under the pretence of performing acts of charity and benevolence. Surely it would be said nothing could be more proper than these charities, or less likely to lead to disfranchisement; but, "It appeared from the defence made by the officer, that a majority of the freemen of that borough had formed themselves into a society, under the name of the Christian Club; the apparent ends of which institution were to promote acts of charity and benevolence, and to answer such other purposes as were suitable to the import of its name. Under this sanction of piety and religion, and the cover of occasional acts of charity, they profaned that sacred name, by making it a cloak for carrying on the worst purposes; of making a traffic of their oaths and con-sciences, and setting their borough to sale to the highest bidder; while the rest of the freemen were deprived of every legal benefit from their votes." It appeared that the club consisted of sixty-eight Members, five of whom, previous to an election, were appointed a committee to treat with the candidates. They contracted with the candidates, and when they had done so, these five individuals did not vote, but only told the others how they should act. The others knew when the club met by the hoisting of a flag, and on the occasion on which they were found out, there was a report of the death of the member, Sir C. Cornish. The flag was hoisted—he was not dead; they were prevented from carrying their object into effect, but the consequence was that this bill was brought in, incapacitating sixty-eight by name, from ever voting in the election of Members of Parliament,

" Many doubts arose as to the mode of the punishment. It w as proposed to d is franchise the borough; this, however, was thought too dangerous a precedent; others thought that the culprit' should be left to the punishment of the law; but though there was a clear conviction of their guilt, it was a matter of such a nature, as made the establishment of legal evidence very difficult; and if they escaped without some signal mark of reprobation, it would he an encouragement to the most barefaced corruption, when the whole kingdom saw that it could be done with impunity."

He believed, that it was only within the last few years that the last of these individuals was dead. This was one precedent. He had also another, in the case of East Retford, in 1828, when a bill was brought in to incapacitate certain persons therein mentioned, from voting at elections of Members to serve in Parliament. Sixteen were disqualified, and the act recited that-

" Whereas a long established and notorious custom has prevailed in the borough of East Retford."

The writ was suspended, and the bill passed the Commons, though it was thrown out in the Lords. He only mentioned the case to show that the I louse of Commons always entertained the principle of these bills. He had the authority of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, that the adoption of measures against individuals was the proper course to be taken. On the 26th of June, on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire, the right hon. Baronet said thatߞ

" He thought it would be a dangerous doctrine to promulgate, that those who received bribes should pass without animadversion Where there was a constituency of 3,000 or 4,000 persons, among whom gross bribery was proved to have taken place, he thought if the House selected three or four instances, it would be a just punishment to the individuals and a useful example to constituencies in general."

And subsequently, the same night, on Colonel Rushbrooke's successful motion to issue the Ipswich writ, the right lion. Baronet said—

"He did not see sufficient reason for resisting the issue of this writ. He wished to punish individual voters who might be proved guilty of bribery, but he thought it would be unjust to punish the whole constituency of a borough, for the Crime of a portion of them,"

That was precisely his case; he did not wish the whole constituency to be punished, but he desired to see individuals who had been guilty of offences meet with the just punishment due. to their conduct. But what was the language of the right hon. Baronet in the last Session of Parliament.? On the 6th October, 1841, he saidߞ

" Some of the worst cases which I have heard of, took place in the large towns. In some places, the extent of bribery and corruption was enormous. It would be invidious to name particular places, but I believe that the "metropolitan towns of certain counties might be named. If certain election petitions which have been presented should be persevered in, and which I hope will be the case, it will show that some of the worst cases of bribery have occurred in large towns. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than to see the cases of those large towns taken no by the House, and that signal examples should be made of those places by disfranchising their constituencies, whether they were small or large towns, in which those corrupt practices occurred."

Surely, then, when one borough had been reported twice in six months, it was time that some steps should be taken to. wards inflicting punishment. Had not Ipswich maintained a character notorious for corruption during the last six or seven years? What was the evidence of Sir Thomas Cochrane on this point? He had written a letter in reference to the borough which had lately been published, and was as followsߞ

was ready to confess that he had originally intended to support the motion of the hon. Member, but he thought, after reading the evidence upon which his motion was founded, which he had gone through most carefully, that it did not authorize the conclusion which had been arrived at by the hon. Member. He was somewhat acquainted with the borough of Ipswich, having sat on a committee for seven weeks in the year 1837, of which the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire was chairman, and he must remark that Mr. Bristo to whom the hon. Member had alluded, was not concerned in the transactions of 1835, for at that time he was the returning officer. In reference to the case of Arthur Bott Cook, he thought that it stood on very different grounds, and having looked through the evidence, he was persuaded that it did not afford grounds for his future disqualification. He had come to the same conclusion upon the case of Amos Goodchild, and indeed the only case of direct bribery which he could discover was that of Downing. He could not help thinking, however, that this was not an opportunity for the introduction of a measure like the present; for he thought that after the case of Mr. Rigby Wason had been permitted to pass, he having only been brought into Parliament at an expense of 3,000l., that of Lord Desart, who had spent only 450l. should not be opened. He agreed that these were cases to be referred to select committees, and he begged to give notice that early next Session he should take an opportunity of moving to refer the evidence in the Sudbury case to a committee, and on the report of that committee he should ask for a legislative enactment. But viewing this as a partial case, he could not vote in favour of the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

thought that this was a case which called for the expression of an opinion by every independent Member of that House, for be thought that there never had been a more wanton decision arrived at than that which had been come to by the committee in the Ipswich case. He saw nothing in the evidence to support the inference drawn in the case of Arthur Bott Cook. He knew that that was looked upon as a strong case by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and it was asked why was not Cook called before the committee? But he contended that it would have been the very height of injustice for the legal adviser of the sitting members to have called that person, because on his first entering the committee-room he could see that his case was prejudged. He maintained that the first division that took place showed the feeling and bias of the committee. They differed from any other election committee that had sat this Session as to their proceedings. The question was as to agents being present, and the hon. Member for Coventry moved that two persons locally connected with the borough should be allowed to be present on each side. The committee divided, when the numbers were four and three, so that the question was carried by the casting voice of the chairman. This division alone was sufficient to testify to the agents and counsel for the sitting Member that it was useless to go to further expense to defend the return. What was the chief case of bribery? Was it not that of W. Blythe, a free shipwright, who had received 30s. for coming from Harwich to Ipswich to vote, and who had to pay all the expenses of going and returning, as well as losing a day's work, and who had been turned away by his patriotic Whig master for having voted in the way in which he did? He was askedߞ

" Did you know before you voted that you would be paid for loss of time?—No, I did not, but I expected. Before you went to vote you expected to be paid for loss of time? —I knew I could not afford to lose my timeߞI have a large family—daily labour to me is only daily bread; I could not lose my time."

If this was the case—if a trifling remuneration of this kind was to be withheld—was it not an argument for raising the franchise? Was it not, in point of fact, saying, that no man should have the franchise who could not afford to lose a day's work to exercise it? He did not think that it was an unreasonable charge, and he did not conceive that the committee was justified in coming to the conclusion that this was a case of bribery. According to his notion of the matter—and he had studied bribery very much—bribery involved the making some offer of a place, or giving some emolument to influence a man's vote. He was satisfied, that by such decisions as the committee had arrived at, they held out an inducement to bribery by prejudging the case. Lord Desert and Mr. Gladstone might as well have spent 25,000l. as 200l., if such objections to cases as were adduced were to be held to be bribery. He admitted, that in principle it was an act of corruption to give even small sums at elections, but he believed that the small amount that had been expended at this election had not been given for the purpose of influencing the voters or anything of the kind. Were these twenty paltry cases which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Finsbury to be held sufficient to justify the proposition that he had made? For his own part, he did not believe any fair or candid man could justify the passing of such a bill as that which was adopted in the Shoreham case, where the great majo- rity of the voters had taken bribes. The hon. Member, although he stated that twenty cases of bribery had taken place at the last election, in his motion only makes an allegation of twelve cases. He denied that corruption had taken place at the last election for Ipswich, and contended, that the report of the committee was most unfair, and he was sure that but for that late period of the Session, when hon. Members had not time to read such a lengthened volume, that. the almost universal feeling of the House would be with hint. He was satisfied, that if lion. Members would read the report and the evidence, they would say, that it did not justify the resolutions come to by the committee, and that the majority of that body had prejudged the case before they heard the evidence. He did not wish to say anything personal in that House, bat he must observe, that if he was petitioned against, and the hon. Member, the chairman of this committee was elected to preside in his case, he would retire from the contest, and would not throw away any money. He contended that this was a case that touched all Members who sat for cities or boroughs, and that it would be impossible for any man returned for a borough to defend his seat if decisions like the present were come to, and more especially when bills like those that Gently passed the House had been adopted. For his own part, Ice was most anxious to take out of the jurisdiction of the House the trial of all election cases, and the bill which had just passed was an additional reason in his mind for doing so. If persons' property and character were to be at stake who he presented boroughs—for the House might depend upon it that petitions would he presented in nearly all such cases—it was of the utmost importance that the election petitions should be tried by a tribunal which possessed the confidence of the House, which die present did not. It was of the utmost consequence that there should be an impartial tribunal, and he was perfectly prepared to repeat, tinder similar circumstances, all that he had said that night as to the decisions of the committee in this case. lie had read the evidence with the greatest attention, and he was utterly at a loss to understand on what ground the committee could come to the conclusion that bribery had taken place. He supposed that it would be said on the other side that bribery had taken place in the case of Amos Goodchild by Mr. Arthur Bott Cook, but it appeared that all that that person had said was that " That was right," and I then saw no proof of paying money on his part. He confessed that he did not understand t he case of Downing, but it appeared to involve some legal question as to the release from some security by Mr. Bristo. He would ask, however, what proof could be adduced, for he confessed that he could not conceive of there being agency on the parts of Mr. Bristo or Mr. Cook. Mr. Hunt, the legal agent for the sitting Members, distinctly denied that they were agents. He was askedߞ

" Did you give any authority, direct or indirect, or in any manner whatever, to Mr. Bristo to act for you in the management of the election?—Certainly not.

" I repeat the same question with regard to Mr. Cook?—Certainly not, unless it may be supposed that in communicating with them upon their canvass, or giving them any list, that might be considered a direction."

He was subsequently askedߞ

" Was the communication with Mr. Bristo In the least degree upon the footing of a subagent?—Certainly not; I should have repudiated that immediately, if I had heard it suggested."

He would not trespass further on the time of the House, but should give his cordial support to the motion of his hon. Friend.

had never heard a speech with more regret than that which he had just listened to from the hon. Gentleman. It might be very well to take the jurisdiction of election petitions from the House, but as long as the committee was the tribunal to which the decision was left he thought that they might safely leave the matter to its decision. He sincerely hoped that the hon. Member, in his cooler moments, if he had any such, would reflect on the language that he had used, and he had little doubt but that he would regret the terms that he had used. It had often been said that a person who charged all others around him with corruption, generally arrived at the conclusion from the observations of his own conduct. The hon. Gentleman said, that the committee, being judges in this case, had prejudged the matter. The hon. Gentleman stated that he had had some experience in the proceedings of election committees, and if he (Mr. O'Connell) was not very much mistaken, he was interested in one before Which some matters of a curious nature came out. Now, upon what evidence the hon. Gentleman arrived at such a conclusion he was at a loss to conceive, The hon. Member said that the reason why Mr. Bristo and Mr. Arthur Bott Cook was examined, was, that the counsel and agents had no confidence in the decision of the committee, after it had prejudged the case by its first decision, and the proof of this broad assertion was, that the committee had come to the conclusion as to whether one or two persons on each side locally connected with the place, should remain in the room during the examination of witnesses. Now the hon. Member for Finsbury had pointed out cases where similar conclusions had been come to by election committees without any complaint having been made. He was sure, on reflection, that the hon. Member opposite would regret the charge that he had that night made as much as any Members who had heard it. The hon. Member had made some allusions as to the supposed reasons why Mr. Cook had not been examined; now, that person himself had stated in his declaration that the reason why he was riot examined *as, because he was prevented by the legal advisers of the late Members. Now he was well aware of the ability and learning of the legal advisers of the late Members, and the hon. Member might depend upon it that they had arrived at a sound conclusion, when they thought it safe not to examine Mr. Cook. The hon, Member complained that the names of the persons who had been charged with bribery at the last election in the resolution of the committee had not been struck off the poll; now, the hon. Member must be aware, on reflection, that this could not be done, as no scrutiny had been prayed. In the present case, as regarded this resolution, the committee had completely followed the Sudbury case. He hoped, for the sake of the character of the House, that charges such as had that night been made would not be made in the reckless way in which the hon. Member had indulged.

said, that after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Lewes, he felt called upon to shy a few words, with the view of showing that the proceedings of the committee had been grossly maligned by the hon. Member. In discharge of the duty which devolved upon him, as chairman of the election committee, and in vindication of its proceedings, he would appeal to the judgment of the House; but he would nut appeal to the judicial opinion of the hon. Member, for he differed from him entirely as to what were the duties of those who sat on these committees—as to the correctness of the course which had been pursued by that tribunal, after he had shortly narrated the proceedings that took place before it. He confessed unhesitatingly that he felt himself in a painful situation in presiding over that committee, for one of the parties interested in the case was one of his oldest friends—he alluded to Mr. Gladstone; but a sense of duty alone actuated him in the course which he had felt called upon to pursue during that inquiry; and if it had been the case of his own brother, he should have come to the same conclusion in every instance that he had come to on the committee. The hon. Member had said that the decisions of the committee were monstrous. This was easily said, but it was not easily proved. After nine (lays' careful investigation of this case, he would appeal to his then lion. Colleagues on that committee who sat opposite, as to whether anything that occurred before them could justify so unfounded a charge as that which the hon. Gentleman had chosen to make? The hon. Member for Wallingford, and the hon. Member for Lewes, both stated that the cases which were stated in the report did not amount to bribery or treating. Now, the committee who had heard the evidence, and had carefully considered it, came to a different conclusion from those hon. Gentlemen, for they were unanimous with respect to treating having been carried on to a great extent at the last election, and also as to the are., valence of bribery. The only point on which there was a difference of opinion was, not as to actual agency, but as to the degree of responsibility of the principals for the conduct of their agents. The whole argument of counsel for the sitting Members was, to show that there was no direct agency, for there appeared to be no doubt as to bribery having been committed. This was a strong ground for the committee to arrive at a conclusion, sitting as it was, as a tribunal to do justice to the several parties. The cases were fully gone into before the committee, and the whole particulars of the case were fully detailed in the evidence. He would have asked the hon. Member to enlighten his mind by reading the evidence on the subject, but after the monstrous assertions and exaggerations which he had been guilty of, he feared nothing could enlighten such a mind. He had no wish to detain the House, but he felt called upon, in justice to the committee, to advert to some of the cases. He thought that, by reading the evidence with respect to most of them, they would speak for themselves. The hon. Member took care to give the go-by to the chief case, for he declared that he did not understand that most flagitious case of Downing. If the decision that had been come to with respect to bribery were wrong, the whole committee were wrong, and the chairman should not again be made the subject of charge, and be visited with the displeasure of the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the case of Goodchild was capable of explanation; but it was clear that this explanation was an afterthought of Mr. Arthur Bott Cook, and which he had put into his declaration. If the case was capable of this defence, why was not Mr. Cook put into the witness box? The hon. Member had expressed his surprise that the counsel for the sitting Member had not produced this person. He would tell the hon. Member why they did not do so—the legal advisers of the sitting Members did not do so because they believed that Mr. Cook would speak the truth, and the whole truth. He had intended to take no part in the proceeding, but as chairman of the committee, which had been so often adverted to, he trusted that L should be allowed to trespass on the time of the House for a short time longer. The hon. Gentleman asked, how they could connect Goodchild with Cook, after the statement in the declaration of the latter? His reply was, that Cook met Goodchild at breakfast at the Waggon and Horses, where the latter had the promise of 5l.; and he states, in his evidence,—

"We were all going off, but Mr. Arthur Bott Cook called out to Gooding that everything was right and he took hold of my arm, and we went out together to the poll."

The witness then described that he received 5l., with which he paid off his arrear of rent. If this statement was false, 1 why did not Mr. Cook go into the witness box to contradict it? The hon. Member for Wallingford admitted, that the case of Richard Bishop was rather odd, as he took 8l. for the detention of his vessel, when it appeared that it was not detained. Now, this case also was managed, and the money was paid by Mr. Cook. Again, it was proved, that Mr. Cook paid 20l. for a breakfast at one public-house for voters on the day of polling. The whole question turned upon agency. Now, there was the case of Henry Graves, to which the hon. Member had referred. Why, in the case of this person it was proved in evidence that he had applied to Mr. Bristo for 30s., in return for his vote; and it was shown, that 30s. was actually paid by Mr. Bristo to Graves's son. And there was the case of Bligh, which was very much the same. He (Mr. Stewart) did not know what magnificent ideas the hon. Gentleman might have on the subject of bribes; but this he knew, that the law which the committee had to guide their conduct, made no distinction between a bribe of 5s: and a bribe of 50l., looking upon the one as equally a bribe with the other—as equally an attempt to corrupt. Mr. Stewart stated, that he had paid twenty voters from Harwich and that neighbourhood 27s. each—no very great sum, perhaps, according to the magnificent notions, in this respect, of the hon. Member for Lewes. But take one case. Bligh, a voter from Harwich, received, not 27s., but 30s.; what for? His fare to Ipswich was 6d., his fare back to Harwich, 6d.; and being a teetotaller, all his other expenses were 6d. at a coffee-house. What was the difference between this amount and 30s. given for? There were many such cases which had not been at all denied on the other side; and he would put it to the House and to the right hon. Baronet who had acted in so straightforward a manner in the attempt which had been made to put an end to bribery, whether the case of Ipswich was not one to which the act most unequivocally applied? There was Thomas Bowman, the individual whom Mr. Austin had denounced as utterly unfit to be entrusted with the franchise; this Thomas Bowman received 30s., not for playing, but for being engaged on the band, while Mr. Howgego received 30s. for playing for half an hour. If this were not bribery, it looked very like it. The House must not be misled by the small amount of the sums paid. The same purposes for which thousands upon thousands had been expended at Notting- ham and Lewes, had been effected in Ipswich, cowed and fearful after its so recent conviction, for shillings. He was quite ready to admit, that there had been no evidence to inculpate the late Members for Ipswich, but certain he was, that no man could read the statute of George 2nd, and the evidence before the Ipswich committee, with a fair and impartial attention, and say the men charged with bribery had not been guilty of it; and, admitting this, he would ask how could they get rid of the liability of principals, on the ground of the culpability of agents? No man was mad enough to give a direct commission of agency to persons in matters of this kind. The fact must be arrived at by inference and corroborative evidence; and as to Bristo, the evidence showed that he was actively engaged as agent; attending committee-rooms, issuing circulars, engaging men, canvassing, and so on. The hon. Member for Longford, and the hon. Member for Bedford would, doubtless, not fail to state to the House their impression on these points, as they had stated to the committee. Mr. Stewart, it was admitted, was an agent; and it was admitted that he had done certain things; but then, it was contended he was a special messenger, who had exceeded his instructions, and therefore his principal was not liable for his improper proceedings. He would repeat, that no man who read the act and the evidence fairly and impartially, would say, that the committee had come to its decision unjustifiably. He could safely say, that he had decided upon every point most conscientiously and impartially, without prejudging any man or any circumstances, and he was well convinced, that there was no court of justice that would not say the finding of the committee was strictly just and legal. It was not denied, indeed, that bribery had been committed, and as to treating, that worst species of bribery, as the right hon. Baronet opposite had designated it, it had been practised at Ipswich to a very great extent. No fewer than twelve or fourteen houses had been thrown open, under the presiding care of Mr. Howgego; and, among the other items brought before the committee, was one for a horse and cart, a mysterious item which even Mr. Charles Stewart could not give a reason for, though he did not quite think it was kept at work for the purpose of carrying about the drunken voters. One bill was 20l. for breakfasts, and all the witnesses stated, that these fourteen houses and many more, were thrown open, not merely on the day of election, but on the day of nomination, and that they were full of persons who were eating and drinking, and paying nothing for it. It was perfectly clear, that Bristo, Stewart, and Cook, had acted as agents, and the whole evidence had shown this, as well as that bribery had been committed, and it was therefore most preposterous that he should be maligned in this unprecedented manner, for having done his duty as chairman of the committee. The hon. Member opposite seemed to regard with very scornful eyes the small amount of the bribery in this case, but he made no reference to the Evesham case, wherein Mr. Peter Borthwick had been convicted of bribery, personally, and not through his agents, on the ground of one silver snuff box and an undertaking to pay a small amount of rent. He would repeat that he had never, throughout the whole course of the committee, made a suggestion, or given a decision but from the most conscientious and impartial motives; and he could say this the more safely, because he could say at the same time most truly, that it had been with deep personal regret he had found himself compelled to cooperate in a measure which unseated his old friend Mr. Gladstone. Thanking the House for the kind attention they had afforded him, be would conclude with pointing out to them that their votes now would be a direct test of the sincerity of their professed desire to put an end to bribery. Let it be recollected, that since 1820, there had been nine petitions against returns for Ipswich, and that in seven out of these cases the sitting Members had been unseated. He trusted, that the House would not, by their decision that night, set the old practitioners of Ipswich at their nefarious tricks again. If they did, they might rest assured that they would be lending a marked sanction to the suspicion and disfavour in which the prevalence of bribery and corruption had involved that House in the opinion of the public.

said, that he stated in the committee and he still believed that in the particular case of John Downing there had been a corrupt contract entered into, and he was of opinion that the evidence proved, without doubt, that Bristo was the person who entered into that contract. With respect to treating, there could be no doubt that 6d. and 3s. tickets were issued; and that breakfasts were also given to a large number of voters. There was evidence, likewise, to prove that the then sitting Members had done everything in their power to prevent those breakfasts being given, and had desired their agents not to allow them. The whole question, as the hon. Member said, appeared to turn on the agency. There was no proof, to his mind, of the agency of Bristo and Cook; but he was ready to admit that the agency of Steward had been most clearly established. Still, the reason why he disagreed from the hon. Chairman of the committee was, because he did not consider the payments made by Steward illegal payments, at least, there was la doubt on the point. He could not but regret that so much personality had been indulged in on the present occasion. However party feeling might guide hon. Gentlemen, he did not think there was sufficient reason for the strong expression of feeling which he had heard that evening. He claimed for himself the right which he allowed to others, of forming his opinion according to the evidence before him; and he would not impugn the decision of the committee on the ground that it had been come to from improper motives. He was opposed to the proposed bill. The hon. Member said he would not disfranchise the borough, but his whole argument tended more to that end than to the disfranchisement of particular individuals. Neither could he agree to Steward being included in the list of disfranchisement. As to Good-child, Brown, and several others, he should certainly be glad to see the whole of that race swept away from the constituency.

felt bound to say, that the hon. chairman of the committee placed every case fairly and properly before it, and did not attempt to exercise any influence unbecoming a chairman. At the same time it would be recollected that the committee divided three to four, and the chairman's voice was the casting vote. He did not impugn the motives of the hon. Member, for he was fully convinced that. the hon. Member gave his vote as conscientiously as he (Mr. Lefroy) did. The votes in the committee were most satisfactorily given, because every individual Member expressed his opinions. He felt that the hon. chairman had not altogether stated the sentiments which he (Mr. Le- froy) expressed before the committee. Without going into the evidence, he admitted before the committee, that according to the strict reading of the act, there were individual cases of what might be denominated bribery, and still more cases of treating; but he felt it necessary to consider the hands through which the money passed. He believed that Mr. Hunt was the appointed agent of Lord Desert and Mr. Gladstone, but there was not a shadow of evidence to fix the agency on Bristo and Cobbold. There was no doubt that Steward was, to a certain extent, an agent; but he was a special agent, constituted for a particular purpose, and could not bind his principal by any act which exceeded his authority. Lord Chief Justice Abbott had told a jury that where an agent appointed for the purpose of canvassing promised money without the knowledge and approbation of his principals, they were not bound by his acts. On these grounds he fairly and candidly admitted that he did state in the committee that he could not think a resolution could be justified which should go to the extent of depriving the Members of their seats. The proposition now before the House was, in his opinion, altogether unnecessary. If these parties had been guilty of bribery, they might be indicted, and thus deprived of their power to vote again. Why should a bill be brought forward to accomplish irregularly that which the ordinary course of the law could easily reach?

as one of the committee, vindicated its decisions from the unjustifiable attacks which had been made upon them by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. The imputations which had been cast on their motives and conduct were altogether without foundation, and quite unwarrantable. Not only treating, but bribery had prevailed at the last election for Ipswich, and, as agency had in his opinion also been established, the committee could not do otherwise than unseat the Members.

said, the question which the House had now to discuss was not whether the parties named in the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury ought to be disfranchised or prosecuted. That might be proper or not; but what had the disfranchising of these persons to do with the issuing of the writ? Would the hon. Member for Finsbury oppose the issuing of the writ? [Mr. T. Duncombe said, " Until the bill passes."] Well, but if the hon. Member would agree to issue it then, he said it ought to be issued now. He thought it would be very great injustice that the whole of a constituency consisting of 1,200 or 1,400 persons should be debarred from the exercise of their rights because twenty-one of their number were suspected to have been guilty of corruption; unless for the purpose of disfranchising the borough, or amending the law of representation, the writ ought not to be refused. He had heard much of the present discussion with pain, for he deprecated the imputation of improper motives which had been thrown on the committee. He thought the House ought always to receive the reports of its committees with respect; he, for one, had always been disposed to pay all respect and deference to the decisions of tribunals and the verdicts of injuries, even where he might question the accuracy of the judgment. With respect to the culpability of individuals, there were one or two cases of bribery detailed in the report of the committee which might go before a jury; but there was by no means a case of bribery against all the persons included in the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to the case of Fuller, and went through the evidence to show that it could not be considered an instance of bribery, as it appeared that no more had been allowed than should be construed into fair expenses. There was another case, in which a man had been allowed 30s. for three days, and that person voted in opposition to his master, by whom he was dismissed for so doing, and knowing at the time of recording his vote that his dismissal would be the consequence. That surely could not be considered a case of bribery, more especially when it appeared in evidence that the man spent more than he had received. There was also the case of Hines, whose wife it was alleged had received 3l. for the hire of a bedstead, but then it was not shewn that Hines himself was aware of the transaction. There were five or six other cases similar to this, in which the charge of corruption might perhaps have been brought home had the committee sifted the question to the bottom, but that had not been done, and the charge could not therefore be considered as stablished. He did not consider that the case alleged against these individual voters by the hon. Member for Finsbury, even if proved, would justify the disfranchisement of the whole constituency of Ipswich, and he therefore should vote most cordially for the motion of the hon. Member for Longford.

thought if the committee wanted any excuse for their proceedings, they would best find it in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, in his capacity of chairman of the committee, deserved, in his opinion, the thanks of the House and the public for the manner in which he had exposed the miserable pretexts of one sort or other under which bribery was attempted to be cloaked. With regard to the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he must say, that he did not approve of motions for the suspension of writs, unless that suspension were necessary with a view to ulterior objects. In the present case it was sought to disfranchise a whole constituency, because of the faults of a few aߞproceeding to which he was adverse, because he thought that the vengeance of Parliament ought rather to be directed towards those who gave bribes than towards those who took them. He objected also on the ground that it was unfair to punish all for the faults of a few. It appeared that since the Reform Bill Ipswich had more frequently than almost any other place had its representatives unseated for bribery; but it also appeared that in no instance had it been shown that any large portion of the constituency were bribed. The largest number of persons accused of bribery at Ipswich appeared to have been about seventy, and of these not more than thirty, as far as he could judge from those best acquainted with the place, had been proved to be guilty.

said, undoubtedly there was a leaning in his mind in favour of decisions of committees; and when he heard so much said about the dissatisfaction generally expressed respecting those decisions, he was persuaded that any other tribunal that might be selected for the trial of election petitions would be equally exposed to complaints. He was convinced that the relinquishing the jurisdiction over contested elections—virtually declaring, that the House of Commons would not trust its Members even under the sanction of oaths to administer justice—would be a fatal blow to the authority of the House. What other tribunal could be framed? What rules should it adopt? How were the judges to be appointed? Where was the judge to be found who would be free from all suspicion, uninvolved in questions such as, " What Minister appointed him? or what way used he to vote?" and so on. If they were appointed by the Government, what would the Opposition say? If by the House, what would the minority say? Were strict rules of law to be adopted respecting evidence? If so, there need be no apprehension of peculiarly severe reports. If there were a latitude of judgment, the reproaches that were now circulated would be repeated against the " new tribunal," whatever it was. It might be all well for some who, being Members of the house of Lords, felt some little jealousy of the Commons' jurisdiction—it might be well for them to talk of the Commons giving up the jurisdiction over the returns of their own Members, which the Upper House would retain. But, for his own part, he earnestly deprecated the withdrawal from the House of this jurisdiction; and, with that feeling, he was disposed to receive with respect and credit the report of every committee. Admitting, however, the whole case made in the report, allowing that out of a constituency of 1,600, some thirty were bribed, the question yet remained whether the rights of the entire constituency should be suspended, and that question be answered in the negative. In the cases of Nottingham and Southampton, where some extent of bribery had certainly been proved, the writs had nevertheless been issued. Yet if he were asked, if in Nottingham, for instance, there were thirty persons susceptible of electioneering corruption, he should be bound to confess his belief that not merely thirty, but perhaps many more, would be willing to accept bribes offered in a proper and becoming way. But it would be monstrous to disfranchise a borough for the faults of a few. The inflicting of these pains and penalties on entire constituencies ought not to be resorted to in such cases. Neither did he recommend delay for the purposes of inquiry. If they were not to issue the writ until they could inquire next year into the imputed bribery, what vexation would be occasioned! In saying this, however, let him not be misunderstood as in any way de- fending corruption. The two Members who were unseated were, he firmly believed, as honourable men as ever sat in that House, and he did not, for one moment, suspect them of the foul design of going down to Ipswich with the determination of corrupting the electors. Such being his estimation of them, he felt more than ordinary indignation at the conduct of those parties who had made them their victims. He felt that his hon. Friends had been sacrificed by the wickedness of others; and he must say, that if it had been carried that his learned Friend the Attorney-general should prosecute those parties, he should, on his own part, have offered no objection to such a proposition. Upon the whole, however, seeing the warning those local corruptionists had received—seeing that there were but twelve persons whose conduct was impugned, and that the public would scarcely admit that the rights of 1,500 should be sacrificed for the faults of those twelve, and seeing, too, that the chairman of the committee himself was not prepared, as he understood, to vote for the suspension of the writ,—he could not consent to defeat the writ by taking the course proposed, and he should, therefore, vote for the original motion, under the conviction that the writ ought to be issued. Another consideration which induced him so to vote was, that he firmly believed, after the experience and the warning the public had had, no candidate would again trust himself in Ipswich without the most distinct understanding that freedom of election should be preserved. The last election was, decidedly, more pure than most of its precursors. Subsequent proceedings would have operated as a salutary lesson, and it was, he repeated, his firm belief that they would shortly be found to have had their full and beneficial effect.

said, that having been for a short time one of the representatives of this unfortunate town, he might, perhaps, be permitted to express his belief that a more honourable and upright set of men than the majority of the electors on both sides did not exist in any constituency. The fault of Ipswich was that there was a small body of corrupt electors, unfortunately sufficient to turn the scale, and unless some of them were disfranchised, he greatly feared that they would be as distant from purity of election in Ipswich as ever they were.

asked permission to bring in a bill without notice, under rather peculiar circumstances. A bill had been sent from the House of Lords repealing so much of the act that was passed in 1839 as enabled our ships of war to seize Portuguese vessels concerned in carrying on the slave-trade. At the time the bill was introduced the Government had the most confident expectation of receiving a ratification of the treaty lately concluded with Portugal, under which she undertook to effect that which had been the subject of former negotiation and to declare the carrying on of the slave trade to be an act of piracy. The ratification not having arrived as was expected, an act was brought in giving her Majesty in Council the power of suspending that part of the law to which he had referred; subsequently, however, the ratification of the treaty had been received; Portugal had fulfilled all her stipulations; and the bill which he now proposed, instead of giving her Majesty the power to suspend that part of the law, was to repeal it.