seeing the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, wished to ask him a question which deeply affected the West Indian interests, and more especially the inhabitants of the island of Antigua. At a large meeting which took place on Saturday last, he was requested to put a question to the noble Lord, in consequence of the very awful calamity which had recently befallen those islands. The question he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether or not it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to make an advance on a loan to the proprietors of the island of Antigua who had suffered so severely by the late earthquake, and also whether it were the intention of the Government to advance, not as a loan, but as a grant, a sum of money for the purpose of rebuilding the cathedral and all the public buildings of Antigua, which had been levelled to the dust by the late severe visitation?

said, that in answer to the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman, he begged to say that on Thursday last the Government for the first time received information, and that not in a detailed manner, of the dreadful visitation which had come upon the West India colonies. It appeared that the event took place on the 8th of February, and the last accounts which had been received from the West Indies were dated the 10th and 13th of the same month; it must be, therefore quite clear to the House, that the accounts as yet received must be very imperfect as to the extent of the distress and loss occasioned by this calamity. At the same time, he had no reason to believe that the account which his hon. Friend (Mr. Mackinnon) had received of the event was at all exaggerated. By the interpo- sition of Providence, the loss of life had been very small, but the House must be prepared to learn that there had been an extremely large amount of damage sustained, both of public and private property. It was satisfactory to know, that throughout the colonies of Antigua, St. Kitt's, Montserrat, and Nevis, from which accounts had been received, the best possible spirit prevailed among all classes of the population, and that in Antigua, where the distress had been most severe and the damage great, all classes were exerting themselves in the most praiseworthy manner, and co-operating, not only for the prevention of riot and disorder, but in providing such temporary remedies as could be applied to a calamity which was peculiarly aggravated, because falling on the machinery of the colony when the crops were about to be manufactured. He felt he ought not to omit this opportunity of adding, that in a despatch he had received from the Governor, Sir C. Fitzroy, and which he had the commands of her Majesty to lay on the Table, testimony was borne highly creditable to the labouring population of the islands, not only with regard to their abstinence from all plunder and riot, but, although material sufferers themselves, all of the most respectable among them had associated together, and bound themselves by a voluntary agreement, notwithstanding the extraordinary demand for labour, not to ask or accept anything above the ordinary average amount of wages in the colony. With regard to the questions which had been asked, he did not know that he could give any definite answer at the present moment. At the same time, he could feel but little doubt that when the details of the calamity should be received in this country it would be his duty to ask the House for some assistance, in the way of loan, in order to enable the colony to sustain the heavy calamity with which it had been visited. Of course, with regard both to the amount and the conditions of that loan it would be premature in him, as it would be impossible now, to make any statement to the House. He would only say, that if any assistance should be asked, it would be not in the shape of a grant but of a loan, to enable the colony to sustain its credit at the present crisis of affairs.

asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he should have any objection to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the law affecting aliens residing in this country?

said, that with reference to the expediency of such an inquiry, he certainly should have no objection to the appointment of a committee, to be limited to a certain extent. He was not prepared to submit to a Select Committee the constitutional question whether or not it would be expedient to repeal so much of the Act of Settlement as precluded the right of aliens sitting in Parliament or in the Privy Council. Under that limitation he had no objection to submit to a committee the question whether it was expedient to grant the rights of naturalization, by act of Parliament or by letters patent, to be granted by her Majesty, under the responsibility of her Majesty's Privy Council.

asked whether it were true, that the Portuguese government had offered to allow the introduction of our cotton manufactures at a certain ad valorem duty, provided we admitted their wines at the same ad valorem duty? He also wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the treasury, could now give any explanation as to the state of our commercial negotiations with Spain?

replied, that communications had passed between this Government and the Spanish and Portuguese governments, with the view of promoting the in crease of commercial intercourse; but, those communications not having been brought finally to a close, it was not at all consistent with his duty to state the effect of any of the proposals that had been made.

wished to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It had been the custom of some of the colonial governments to issue bounty orders for the encouragement of emigration. These orders had been recently suspended, and he wished to ask whether it was intended, that these orders should be renewed or permanently discontinued?

was understood to say, that this was a matter more particularly resting with the colonial governments themselves, and that recent experience had led them to doubt, whether they should not introduce some important modifications into the present system. An inquiry had been instituted into the subject, but the result was not yet known.

had understood that some modification of the system was to be introduced.

; According to the last accounts he understood, that a great difference of opinion existed upon the subject.

said, before the motion was put for going into committee of supply, he desired, for his own justification, to set himself right with the House and the public generally, with respect to some statement which he made during the debate on the Ordnance estimates. In the discussion on the Bolton Barracks it was stated, that the measure had received the approbation of all parties, and that the Government had, in fact, been requested to station troops and erect barracks in that locality. When the question was entertained, in November, 1841, the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, wrote to the mayor of Bolton a most temperate and appropriate letter upon the subject. The magistrates of Bolton, however, on receiving this communication, called together the principal rate-payers of the town, and resolutions were adopted, which showed that they were decidedly opposed to the erection of barracks. The hot. Member then read the resolutions. The resolutions stated, that the conduct of the inhabitants, under their unexampled privations, had been such as to show, that no military force was necessary; that the rate-payers viewed in the movement an alarming indication of the intention of Government to bring the country under a system of military despotism, having for its object the maintenance of an abuse; and that they were of opinion, that it was not desirable to assist in any arrangements having for their object the making Bolton a military station. He would not intrude any longer upon the House, as he thought he had said enough to show that he was justified in stating what he had done, that public opinion in Bolton was unfriendly to the erection of the barracks.

wished to make a few remarks in reference to what had fallen from his hon. Friend and Colleague. The meeting to which his hon. Colleague alluded had certainly taken place, but there were only nineteen individuals present, and many of these held extreme opinions. From what took place immediately after the meeting, the House would judge how far it was the opinion of the inhabitants of Bolton that the military should be withdrawn. The mayor of Bolton wrote a letter to Colonel Wells, transmitting him a copy of the resolutions agreed to at the meeting, but stating that he (the mayor), and his brother magistrates, were of opinion, that there was a necessity for the military to remain in Bolton. The mayor and those magistrates were not Tories, but had been appointed by the late Government, and held, many of them, Liberal opinions. The hon. Gentleman read a letter of similar import, addressed to the Secretary of State and Captain Woodward, stating that the shambles had been hired for the use of the military. There was also a subscription among the inhabitants of the borough to provide the expense of that temporary accommodation to the military; and he could acquaint his hon. Colleague, that men of all parties in the borough contributed their mite, and that a sum of 128l; was received for that accommodation. Last year the borough of Bolton was visited by a lawless mob, who took possession of the town for a whole day, ransacked the provision shops, and turned out the quiet workmen. The mayor exercised a wise discretion in sending for the military, for it would have been impossible to have driven out these disturbers of the public peace without their assistance. A very extraordinary circumstance connected with the meeting to which his hon. Colleague had alluded, was, that one of the individuals who attended that meeting, was one of the first to send for the military when his house was attacked. The communication to which he now alluded, he had received that morning from the town clerk of Bolton, and it fully confirmed what he had stated on Monday last.

had understood his hon. Colleague to say, that he was authorised to express to the Government the concurrence of the borough in the erection of the barracks. He had received a communication from the town clerk, in which he stated, that he had never sent any such letter.

said he had also received a communication from the town clerk on the same subject, so that that Gentleman must have forgotten the circumstance. The facts were, that an application was made to the Home Secretary, to allow new bar racks to be built, instead of repairing the old ones. This he refused; but in consequence of the feeling in the borough about retaining the troops, he had no objection to their remaining, provided the authorities would appropriate some money to the repairs of the old barracks.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) with respect to certain proceedings which had taken place at the recent Chartist trials at Lancaster. Any one who had read the evidence adduced on those trials must have perceived that numerous attempts were made to drag in the names of parties who had taken an active part in opposition to the Corn-laws, and who had supported the Anti-Corn-law League. Endeavours were made to excite an impression, that these parties were the originators of those disturbances which took place a few months since in the manufacturing districts; but the attempts failed most completely and signally. The attempts to which he referred were of such a remarkable character, that they elicited an observation from the learned judge, who said—

"I have not been able to understand what the introduction, which has been made several times, of the names of parties connected with the Anti-Corn-law League, and of other parties, can have to do with the present question."

A similar feeling was entertained by a great number of persons who were present during the trial; they felt that an attempt was made to inculpate parties who, not being before the court, did not possess the means of refuting the accusation. One of the witnesses who gave evidence of this nature was a person named James Wilcox, who was called for the prosecution by the Attorney-general, and upon his cross-examination by Mr. Feargus O'Connor, an attempt was made to draw statements from him.

wished to know whether the hon. Member for Manchester was in order in thus introducing a question arising upon a trial which took place in a distant part of the country?

The hon. Member for Manchester is in order, there being now a question before the House.

continued:—The Attorney-general called as a witness for the prosecution a person named James Wilcox, who stated as it appeared to him from a perusal of the trial, some very unimportant facts, but in the cross-examination of this witness by Mr. Feargus O'Connor, an attempt was made to draw from him statements calculated to inculpate the Anti-Corn-law League. This witness stated in the course of his examination, that previously to the trial he had been in correspondence with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he (Mr. Gibson), wished to ask that right hon. Gentleman whether he would object to lay on the Table of the House any letlers or correspondence which had passed between himself and Mr. James Wilcox. Although he had no doubt, that all the proceedings connected with the recent trials had been perfectly regular, he must confess he regarded it as extraordinary, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), who was subpoenaed by Mr. Feargus O'Connor as a witness for the defence, should have been allowed to leave Lancaster on condition that Mr. James Wilcox, a witness for the prosecution, should be called in his stead. He thought it strange that one of the defendants should substitute a witness for the prosecution for a person whom he had subpoenaed in his own defence. He had derived the information which he possessed on this subject from reading the reports of the trial in the newspapers, and if he had misstated any fact he hoped that some hon. Member would correct him. He had no doubt the proceedings had been quite regular; but he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would object to the production of the whole correspondence on the subject?

would endeavour to an- swer the question of the hon. Member as far as the circumstances to which he had referred came within his own knowledge. He had been informed just before he came down to the House that the hon. Member for Manchester intended to put a question to him as to his correspondence with a person named Wilcox. He did not remember ever to have heard the name of that person until he was present in the Court-house, at Lancaster, upon a subpoena which he received from one of the defendants, in the recent trial, when the Attorney-general informed him that his presence was no longer necessary, as an arrangement had been made that a person of the name of Wilcox should be called in his place. His hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney-general) would state the circumstances which led to that arrangement. Until the name of James Wilcox was mentioned on that occasion, he (Sir J. Graham) was not aware that he had ever heard of that person, but it was now stated that in the course of the last autumn this individual addressed a letter to him. He (Sir J. Graham) had searched the public records of his office, as well as his private correspondence, and he could discover no trace of the receipt of any such letter, or of any answer having been returned. He could assure the hon. Member that, not only could he find no trace of such correspondence, but that he had not the slightest recollection of the receipt of any letter from a person of the name of Wilcox. At the time of the outbreak he received very numerous communications by letter from the disturbed districts, but he was in the habit of sending all letters bearing upon the transactions to the solicitor who was employed by the Government to institute prosecutions. He had not had an opportunity of communicating with that officer since the hon. Member for Manchester intimated his intention of proposing this question; but he would apply to him, and perhaps he might possess some knowledge of the letter referred to.

said, as the hon. Member opposite had expressed surprise that a witness for the prosecution should have been accepted by one of the defendants in the place of the right hon. Gentleman, it might be satisfactory for him to state to the House the circumstances under which the arrangement was made. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was subpoenaed by one of the defendants to attend at Lancaster, and he accordingly proceeded there, although his absence from town was attended with great incon- venience to the public service. Some communication took place between him (the Attorney-general) and the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. D. Dundas), who appeared for one of the prisoners; and he was informed that as the presence of the right hon. Baronet was required in London, it was intended by the defendant to call in his place a person named Wilcox, who, it was supposed, was in attendance as a witness for the prosecution. A communication was made to him (the Attorney-general) that if it was intended to call Wilcox, Mr. Feargus O'Connor was willing that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) should return to London, as he expected to get from Wilcox all the information he wished to obtain from the right hon. Baronet. His (the Attorney-general's) intention was, from a regard to the interests of the country, to have examined Wilcox, irrespective of any such arrangement as that to which he had alluded. The hon. and learned Member for Sutherlandshire also conceived that the further attendance of the right hon. Baronet would be unnecessary; and he (the Attorney-general), therefore, publicly informed the learned judge of this arrangement. He could not recollect, at this moment, for what precise object Wilcox was called on behalf of the prosecution; but he did remember that his evidence was necessary for the identification of some of the defendants with certain transactions which occurred during the outbreak in Lancashire. Wilcox was examined for the prosecution, and he was then cross-examined by Mr. O'Connor with reference altogether to certain communications made by him to the Home Department. He had objected at the time to this line of examination, stating that although he did not wish to place Mr. O'Connor in a worse position than he would have been in had his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) been examined, he must put it to the Court whether, if that right hon. Gentleman had been under examination, he could have been called upon to produce the communications to which reference was made; and the learned judge decided that if those communications were made to the right hon. Gentleman in his official capacity, he could not be required to produce them. He could assure the House that, throughout the proceedings, he had objected to all questions which could tend to inculpate parties who were not before the Court. Any hon. Member who had read the proceedings attentively, must have observed that he (the Attorney-general) had, while he endeavoured to bring distinctly before the Court the proceedings of the defendants of which he complained, cautiously and religiously prevented, as far as he could, the utterance of any reflection upon absent persons, and the moment an attempt was made to elicit evidence reflecting on absent persons, with regard to whom such evidence would have been a calumny, he interposed all the authority which he possessed in order to confine the investigation to the single judicial purpose for which it was instituted.

had not imputed to the hon. and learned Attorney-general, as the prosecutor in the cases to which he had alluded, any desire to inculpate absent parties. Having read the evidence throughout he was willing to admit that the hon and learned Member did, on many occasions, prevent witnesses from making statements which would have tended to criminate persons who were not present; but he adhered to his former statement, that in the course of the trial attempts were made of so marked a character [cries of "order,"] to drag in the names of absent individuals [renewed shouts of "order"], that the learned judge——

said, the hon. Member must be aware that he could not again address the House on the subject on which he had before spoken.

thought it right to state that he had received several communications with reference to the trials to which allusion had been made, and he was bound to say that the conduct of the Attorney-general had given universal satisfaction to men of all parties

rose to move, as an amendment, for

"A list of the guardians of the Halifax Union who assembled at the Board on Wednesday, the 1st day of March instant, specifying the ex officio guardians from the elected guardians; also a list of the guardians who were not present, specifying the ex officio guardians from the elected guardians; also the name of the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner who attended the board: also a copy of their minutes and proceedings as well as of the resolutions adopted by the board; also a copy of all notices given at any preceding meeting of the board relating to any proceeding or resolution adopted by the board of the 1st day of March."

He felt that in bringing forward this motion he owed some apology to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had, a few days ago, requested the production of certain papers relative to the proceedings of the Halifax Board of Guardians, and if the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had acceded to that request it would not have been necessary for him to adopt his present course. In the discharge of his parliamentary duties he (Mr. Ferrand) had deemed it necessary to allude to the conduct of Mr. Clements, an Assistant-Poor Law Commissioner. He stated that, from information he had received from private sources, and from public papers, he considered that Mr. Clements had conducted himself in an insolent and overbearing manner in attempting to enforce the Poor Law in all its rigour. Mr. Clements, while acting at the Halifax Board of Guardians had thought proper to assist in passing a vote of censure upon his (Mr. Ferrand's) conduct for having alluded to him in the House. He understood that there was reason to believe that that meeting, at which eighteen guardians attended, was not convened by a proper notice issued by the clerk to the whole body of guardians. At that meeting the board of guardians resolved that a strong athletic man should be appointed, at a weekly salary, to act in the capacity of taskmaster, for the purpose of applying a more severe test to the out-door labourers. It would be found that the board of guardians having, with the sanction of Mr. Clements decided upon adoping a more severe test in respect of out-door labour, had also decided upon adopting a more severe test within the workhouse. The question was brought before the board how that test could be most advantageously enforced, and different plans having been proposed, that of a treadwheel was discussed, and how many men it would employ. This treadwheel the board of guardians directed to be erected, and a member of the board undertook to see it erected. He had stated that some time ago, when he last addressed the House on this subject. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) stated that it was not so, and that instead of a tread wheel to be applied to a rack machine, there was only to be erected a hand-mill for corn. He next day received more information from another person. The right hon. Baronet, however, again said that the mill was only a corn-mill, and that he was told that by the Poor Law Commissioners. The board of guardians of the Halifax Union had passed a resolution reflecting on words used by him in the discharge of his duty to his constituents and to the country—a resolution which had been brought to the board from his own house by one of the ex officio guardians, and this was passed by the board of guardians, Mr. Clements, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, assisting at the meeting. The same day an order was passed with the sanction and approbation of Mr. Clements, for excluding the reporters of the public press from the board room during the meetings of the board. But what sort of a corn-mill had been erected, did the House think? Why, none at all; but, instead, a rag machine had been erected, for the purpose of grinding rags obtained from the poor of the towns on the continent, and impregnated with all manner of contagion and filth, and he was told that the stench was so great, and the dust arising from the grinding so oppressing, that they had the greatest difficulty in parts of Yorkshire, where rags of this kind were ground for purposes of fraud by the cloth manufacturers, to get persons to undertake the work. But, in order to make this more of an infliction on the poor pauper, the wheel was to be worked by capstans, which were to be turned by the poor like horses. These capstans were to be worked at not only by the feet, but by the hands and breasts. According to the opinion of a medical gentleman whom he had seen, it was highly injurious to the health to labour in this way, and was likely to end in apoplexy. This was the sort of mill which was about to be erected in the Halifax union workhouse for the employment of the poor there, either with or without the knowledge of the Poor Law Commissioners; if they knew of it, then they had deceived the House in the statement which they had authorized the right hon. Baronet to make in his place; if they, did not know of it, then they had neglected their duty. But he would call the attention of the House to a corn-mill within a stone's throw of the place where they were sitting. In the Lambeth union workhouse a corn-mill had been erected, for the purpose of more severely testing the labour of the poor; and he asked the House to decide, that night, whether such things were to be suffered in this country or not. At this corn-mill, in the Lambeth union workhouse, he found it was intended that sixty-four persons were to work at once; sixteen at indoor labour, and forty-eight at outdoor. The mill was worked by one crank, which was so large that every time these poor wretches worked they must bend with their hands to the ground. The mill was under a shed. And what was the object of this contrivance? Why, whenever a poor person came to the workhouse to ask for a loaf of bread, he was to be shown these poor wretches working at the crank under a shed. But another exposure had taken place. In a leading article of the Times newspaper of that day it was stated, that within the last seven years 9,315 persons had been committed to prison in England and Wales for offences against the rules and regulations of union workhouses, and that in the year 1842 no fewer than 2,299 persons had been imprisoned in her Majesty's gaols for breaches of those rules and regulations. Sir J. Graham had insinuated that he had stated in the House what was not true, and the right hon. Baronet called on the House not to place too much confidence in what he said. Now, whatever he might think of the right hon. Baronet's conduct to him, a supporter of her Majesty's Government, as he had been, whenever he conscientiously could be, he had to tell the right hon. Baronet that the question was between the right hon. Baronet and himself which of their statements coincided with truth. If the right hon. Baronet could induce the House to agree to refuse these resolutions, still he (Mr. Ferrand), it must be remembered, was courting every inquiry. He desired nothing more than that the matter should be sifted fully, and that the right hon. Baronet and himself should be placed fairly before the country. If the right hon. Baronet succeeded in refusing the papers, the country would conclude that he was convinced that the production of the papers would show not only so much cruelty, and such ill-treatment of the poor that it would not be expedient to produce them, but also that if the poor did not like to enter an union workhouse, they had nothing left to look forward to but the right hon. Baronet's corn-mill.

hoped the House would agree with him that on the present occasion it would not be expedient that he should follow the hon. Member for Knaresborough into any of the new matter that he had adduced. The hon. Member had raised the question for the first time of the Lambeth Union workhouse. He did not intend to follow the hon. Member into that subject. He had had no opportunity of testing the accuracy of the hon. Member's information. Much less did he intend to follow the hon. Member to the leading article of The Times newspaper, or into anything which might have been stated there that morning. It would be much better, in his opinion, to confine himself to the motion before the House. The hon. Member had charged him with saying, that he (Mr. Ferrand) had made an untrue statement to the House. His respect for the House—he had almost said for himself—would have prevented him, he trusted, from doing any such thing; but he did say, that from the zeal of the hon. Member he adopted such exaggerated statements, that without the hon. Gentleman's meaning it, if the House were to affix any credit to those statements they would infallibly be mistaken. The real question upon the present occasion was, not as to the intended erection of a rag-mill in the Halifax Union work house; it was not whether the mill was to be turned by a capstan or any other power; but the House would remember that the statement of the hon. Member was that a treadmill was erected there. [Mr. Ferrand: I said a treadwheel.] He understood it to be a treadmill, according to the hon. Member's statement, and the hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that the workhouses were to be made prisons of; and he, taking the usual acceptance of the term "treadmill," positively denied, as far as he was informed, that any treadmill was to be erected in the workhouse in question. The hon. Gentleman had that evening wandered away to a rag-mill; but this was not much to the purpose, because he did not say that no mill had been erected; he did say that the mill in question was to be worked by hand. He believed that it was to be applied to the grinding of corn. He was mistaken. The mill was not to be applied to grind corn, but rags; with that exception he was satisfied that his first statement to the House was not in the least incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman then read a letter from Mr. Clements, in which he stated that the guardians of the Halifax Union had taken steps for the erection of a handmill for the purpose of giving work to the paupers who had no objection to remain in the workhouse. He was glad, the right hon. Gentleman continued, to see the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) in his place, because he (Sir J. Graham had received a letter from a gentleman who appeared to be a member of the Halifax board of guardians, and who referred him to the Member for Halifax for his respectability. The Gentleman's name was Holston, and he said, that having observed it stated that the board of guardians of the Halifax Union proposed to erect a treadwheel in the workhouse, and that Mr. Clements had not prevented it, he could only say that no such thing had taken place, and that, if there had, every member of the board would have scouted it. It was true a rag-mill had been erected. With the exception, therefore, that the mill was intended for grinding rags instead of corn, he appealed to the House whether his original statement were not correct, and whether the hon. Gentleman had not failed in making out his case? In fact, he considered that this motion was the same substantially as that which the hon. Gentleman brought forward the other day, and which the House rejected by so large a majority; and, although, strictly speaking, there might have been some breach of privilege involved in the conduct of the board of guardians of the Halifax Union, he thought it highly inexpedient that they should embark on a voyage of discovery for a breach of the privileges of the House under the auspices of the hon. Member for Knaresborough. He repeated, that, although there might have been some irregularity in the board of guardians entering into the consideration of the speech of a Member of that House, the utmost charge was that Mr. Clements was present at the board during the discussion, though he was no party whatever to the vote; and with respect to the charge that Mr. Clements had shown an insolent demeanor and oppressive conduct at the board, he did think, if such a statement fell from an hon. Member in that House, that should the guardians have noticed the injustice and inaccuracy of the statement, whatever technical error they had committed by naming it, they had not morally committed any great offence when they came to a resolution negativing the charge. He hoped the House would come to the same resolution as it did on a former evening. He would be unwilling to meet the motion by a direct negative; but that was not necessary; the House had only to persist in the motion, that the Speaker leave the Chair, and that would be the easiest and safest course to escape the difficulty in which the hon. Member sought to involve them.

rose only to state, that Mr. James Holston was one of the guardians of the Halifax union, upon whose opinion and testimony the utmost reliance could be placed. The board of guardians were unanimously of opinion, that the conduct of Mr. Clements was in no way whatever liable to the imputations made against him. They were the only persons competent to judge of his conduct, and this was their opinion.

had stated the other night, that Mr. Clements attended the board in consequence of some sort of complaint; he was in error, as there had not been a complaint against him. It was his duty to attend the board, and when there the resolution was moved, but he was no party to it. When the hon. Member for Knaresborough had first brought forward this matter, he had stated he was convinced, that Mr. Clements would be anxious for every inquiry. He spoke this in his zeal to preserve Mr. Clements' character; but after the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had spoken, he had felt he was in error, and had sacrificed his consistency to his sense of propriety by voting against the motion for inquiry, and he regretted that he had misled some hon. Members into being caught voting with the hon. Member for Knaresborough. Mr. Clements was now in town, and he would only offer to the hon. Member to be the medium of introducing him, and then let them settle the matter.

did not find that there had been any positive contradiction given to what the hon. Member for Knaresbo rough had asserted. It seemed there had been a meeting—a packed meeting as he called it, from not having been regularly summoned, of the board of guardians, at which was passed the resolution in question, which the hon. Member said had been brought ready cut and dried from his own house by one of the ex officio guar- dians. Now this looked, he must say, very much as if the resolution had been preconcerted, and if preconcerted, it was not impossible, that it might proceed from personal motives; and that possibility appeared the more striking, when they found that the board of guardians had since refused the reporters of the public press admittance to their proceedings. Consequently, though on the last occasion on which this subject was before the House, he had voted against the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and though it was not his wish to give a wild vote, yet, acting independently, and seeing no inconvenience likely to arise from the production of these papers, he should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member.

wished to say, that he considered the hon. Member for Knaresborough was mistaken as to the resolution.

thought the hon. Member for Knaresborough could answer himself, and overturn his own argument, for as related to the use of the treadwheel, the motion of the hon. Gentleman could not be sustained upon any substantial ground. As to the exclusion of reporters, the board of guardians were authorised to adopt that course by the powers vested in them by Parliament. He could not, therefore, vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, after the substantial ground of the motion was taken away.

considered it a matter of great importance, that there should be no concealment in matters relating to the manner in which the poor were treated in the union workhouses. If, as it was calculated, 1,500,000 persons were subjected to the regulations by which the union workhouses were regulated, it was the imperative duty of English Gentlemen to look to the regulations to which they were subjected. He was sorry that the question of privilege should be in any way mixed up with the present motion, and he would, therefore, not address himself to that point, but with respect to the use of a mill—whether the motion was upward or downward, or backward or forward, it did not signify—if labour in that shape was imposed, the matter ought to be inquired into. If it were a mill for grinding rags, or for making what the hon. Member for Knaresborough called last year "the devil's dust," to be used as manure, or for other purposes, nothing could be more unwholesome or destructive to the human frame. The question was of additional importance, inasmuch as it was in contemplation to introduce Poor-laws into Scotland, and it was desirable that the people who were likely to be subject to its operation, should know the manner in which it was intended to employ them. He hoped the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire, who had rendered such service to his country by taking up the questions of factories and mines, would take care to see that the poor people of this country should not be engaged in such an unwholesome employment as grinding rags into dust. With this view of the case, he would support the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough.

objected to the motion. If the House wished to obtain information respecting the machinery used for the purposes of labour in the Halifax Union, the proper mode would be to move for any communications on the subject between the Poor-law Commissioners and the board of guardians of Halifax. If such a motion were made, he was sure the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Home Department, would not object to it.

only object was to let the House and the country know what had taken place. He found, that there was a treadwheel ordered for the Halifax Union, which was to hold from four to forty persons. He did not know what had since occurred, and he would take no steps to bring Mr. Clements to the Bar of the House, if the papers were produced.

felt himself bound to vote for the motion, with a view to obtain information as respected the manner in which the poor were treated in the workhouse; but, in voting for the motion, it was not the wish to go into the privilege question.

would support the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, on the ground, that when there were any complaints as to abuses, with respect to the labour done in workhouses, no attempt at secrecy should be made by excluding the press. Under such circumstances, inquiry became incumbent, and, therefore, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) ought not to object to the production of the papers asked for by the hon. Member for Knaresborough.

would admit, that if abuses were alleged to exist in the prac- tice of any union workhouse, it was fit and proper, that the House should inquire into the subject; and if the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Wortley) wished to move for papers relating to the nature of the wheel used and the work done in the Halifax workhouse, there would be no objection to their production; but the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough referred to the production of the resolution of the board of guardians, which he before alleged to be a breach of privilege, and to such a motion he would strenuously object.

said, that the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough pointed to no distinct object. He understood it as a renewal of the question of privilege, and that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to enforce the charge against Mr. Clements. Into that question the House, in his opinion, had better not enter. No person had more at heart the privileges of the House than he, but it was because of his regard for them that he would not wish to enforce a debate on them in the present instance. It was very natural if a man's personal character was injured by an erroneous imputation in that House, that he should endeavour to free himself from it, and it would be very hard if he were not at liberty to do so. The House did not enforce its privileges with respect to the publication of the debates, and it was natural if a man were injured by those publications, that he should try and set himself right.

understood the motion to be, that if the House were put in possession of certain official papers the hon. Member for Knaresborough would exculpate Mr. Clements from any charge of breach of privilege. As the House was about to alter the New Poor-law, it was desirable that it should be put in possession of the character and working of one of the union workhouses, which was looked upon as a pattern one. The hon. Member for Knaresborough only asked for the proceedings and minutes relating to a particular day, and those minutes were refused, on the ground that the motion was mixed up with a question of privilege. These papers had nothing to do with privilege, and it was proper that the House should know what was done by Mr. Clements or by the board under his influence. Why, he should like to know, were copies of the proceedings refused? The resolution did not reflect on Mr. Clements, it merely asked for certain papers, that the House might be put in possession of what occurred on a particular day. They could not legislate fairly on the amendments proposed to be made in the Poor-law if the papers were refused.

did not understand the question in the way in which it appeared to be understsod by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and he would therefore vote the other way. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, he understood that there was no objection to furnish every information respecting the nature of the work done, or the manner of employment in the Halifax Union work house. He could not infer from the course adopted by Government any intention of withholding information either as to that or any other workhouse; but the hon. Member for Knaresborough, amongst other grievances, complained of a breach of privilege on the part of Mr. Clements, an assistant Poor-law commissioner, and grounded the complaint on a resolution adopted by the board of guardians at Halifax. The House did not shut out the reporters from the press, and when it was stated in the papers in the report of a speech that certain things were done by the Poor-law guardians, they came to some resolution to the contrary. He objected then, to that part of the resolution which would bring the House into a contest with the guardians for honestly denying what had been attributed to them. He could not see the use of such contests; but as regarded the other part—namely, the manner in which the union was conducted and the work performed, he thought that every information should be given.

said, he had an account of the matter yesterday from Mr. Clements's own lips, and that Gentleman assured him that he had used no influence with the board of guardians to induce them to pass the resolution, nor had he any hand whatsoever in it. Mr. Clements was present when it passed, but he did not wish it to pass, nor had it his concurrence. Mr. Clements also told him that there was neither a treadmill nor a tread wheel in the union, but there was a hand mill, which had not then been introduced for the first time, but had been there for several years. The labour, as it was by no means severe, and it was found to be the best mode of employing able-bodied paupers, more especially as it was difficult to find labour for them which would not interfere with out-door employment.

asked the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he were prepared to give any public assurance, that some provision would be introduced into this bill against the personation of voters? The further consideration of his (Mr. Liddell's) bill stood for Wednesday next; and in the event of the right hon. Baronet being so prepared, he would postpone that bill sine die.

said, that since the question was last under discussion, he had given his attention to the subject, and had framed some clauses to prevent the personation of voters. These had been seen by his hon. Friend, who had deemed them satisfactory, and well adapted to effect the purpose which his hon. Friend and the House were desirous of securing. They would be ready for publication to-morrow, and he would move their insertion into the bill on the bringing up of the report.

thought, that the amendments which had been made in the bill only tended to increase and complicate its machinery. They never could have an adequate number of voters, so long as men were liable to be punished for the conscientious exercise of the franchise. This bill would leave the system open to all the complaints which were now urged against it, and which, in his opinion, must continue to be urged against it, until the system of vote by ballot were substituted.

suggested, that there should be more frequent registrations, in order to prevent the necessity of persons, who had become qualified waiting such a length of time before they could obtain the franchise. If, for instance, a man became qualified on the 1st of August, he could not, under this bill, be put upon the register until the end of October, in the ensuing year, a period of about fifteen months. He thought there ought to be appointed a certain number of registration judges, who would confine themselves to the business of registration; or, in the event of the County Courts Bill being introduced, that the judges under that bill, who would go round the country five or six times a-year, and hold courts in different parts of the country, should be required to add to their county court duties those of registration.

thought it would be better not to discuss points before they arrived at them in the bill. It had been his desire, in the framing of this bill to depart as little as possible from the provisions of the Reform Act, and only to do so where experience had shown that such departure was indispensable and certain to effect some public good. But he totally differed from those Gentlemen who imagined, that registrations more frequent than annual, would effect any public good. He, on the contrary, felt convinced, that a constant recurrence of the turmoil which attended registrations would be the cause of much public evil and inconvenience, and ought to be avoided. It was proposed by the bill brought in by the late Government, that certain officers should be constantly employed throughout the year making circuits in various parts of the kingdom for the purposes of registration; but if this were to be the case, the turmoil would never subside.

thought it would be more convenient that the precepts should be issued in the first instance to the clerks of the unions than to the overseers of the poor.

could not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The clerks of the unions did not possess the requisite knowledge for discharging the duty consequent upon the service of the precepts, while overseers, from their great parochial knowledge, could at once secure the most competent persons. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would, besides, impose a new duty on a party not now conversant with it, whereas it was a duty quite germane to the general duties of an overseer.

begged to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to an objection which presented itself on this clause. He alluded to the necessity which was imposed upon voters who changed their residence, even though they retained the same qualification, to re-establish their claim to vote. He asked whether this might not be altered.

thought that no practical difficulty arose upon that part of the clause to which the hon. Baronet alluded.

said, that he thought there was a material point in which this clause was defective. He thought that the overseers should append to the name of every person objected to the cause of such objection. He believed that, in many cases, objections were raised for party purposes merely, and upon no real or sufficient grounds, and that, if such a proposition as that which he made were agreed to, much vexation and expense would be spared.

while he concurred in the object of the hon. Member, thought that every means had been taken in this bill against the bringing forward of frivolous objections. He thought, too, that the hon. Member had raised this objection rather prematurely, because it could hardly be said, he thought, that the practices of which the hon. Members complained prevailed with overseers. Their objections were, in the great majority of cases, valid and tenable objections. As the hon. gentleman, however, had raised this point generally with respect to party objections, he begged to refer him to the 45th clause of the bill, whereby power was given to the revising barristers to give costs in the case of frivolous claims or objections. There was also this inconvenience in requiring the specific statement of the ground of every objection—that every possible objection whcih the utmost legal ingenuity could raise would be brought forward.

felt that the last observation of the right hon. Baronet would apply to persons making objections merely for the purpose of harassing the voters. The overseers, however, could hardly be supposed to be persons who would make frivolous or vexatious objections. There was no reason, therefore, why they, at all events, should not state the grounds of their objection. The same rule should be adopted in cases of objections by the agents of the parties, for the purpose of bringing them more clearly within the 45th clause.

as a revising barrister of ten years' experience, could bear testimony to the carefulness of overseers in avoiding frivolous objections. He believed that to impose upon them this additional duty would be to throw them into great difficulties.

said, he would propose that in the eleventh line, after the word "objected," the words "and with the bona fide ground of objection" be inserted.

observed, that it often happened that the overseer was an illiterate man, and they would involve him in all kinds of difficulty by calling upon him to specify the grounds of objection.

said, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned the Solicitor-general, he should not vote for the amendment.

objected to that part of the clause which made it sufficient for notices of objection to be sent by post, and moved, as an amendment, that in every case where an objection was made, the overseers should be bound to see that the notice was actually served upon the party objected to.

suggested that the latter part of the clause, which enacted that notices sent by post should be sufficient, should be omitted altogether, and the matter be left to be settled in the interpretation clause.

said, it was intended that a personal notice should be served on the tenant in every practical case.

said, that the serving of notices by post, on the most important matters, was considered sufficient in courts of law, and he thought it would be found to answer every purpose in reference to the service of notices.

objected to the rate-paying clauses altogether, of which this was a part. They caused a great deal of expense to the candidates, and were a great source of bribery. In the city of Westminster the expense, he believed, of paying the rates of persons unable to pay them, was not less than 600l. Requiring rates did not, as was supposed, ensure a more respectable class of voters, but gave rise to a great deal of bribery, in order to secure the votes of the smaller voters. He should propose that the clause be omitted.

thought, that the period of twelve calendar months for which a man was required to have paid all his rales was too long. It involved a virtual disfranchisement for fifteen months, as the rates were never immediately paid.

explained, that the words "twelve calendar months," in the clause, had been introduced in order to settle a doubt which had been raised by the revising barristers. Some of them had required proofs that the rates had been all paid up for a longer period than twelve months, for all the time, in fact, that a man had been liable for the rates, and this part of the clause was, in fact, a relaxation of what they had interpreted the law to be. With respect to the observation of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Elphinstone), he must observe, that the house-tax having been abolished, a considerable relaxation of the principle of the Reform Bill had already taken place, and this clause, as he had explained, was a still further relaxation of the law, as interpreted by the revising barristers. He must remind the House, as he had before stated, that when the Reform Bill was passed, the authors of that bill would have proposed a higher rate of qualification than 10l; were it not that the franchise they did propose was accompanied by the restriction of paying rates. They thought that the payment of rates was a test of the respectability and solvency of the parties, and had that condition been refused, the authors of the Reform Bill would not have been satisfied with a franchise so low as 10l. In practice, however, a considerable relaxation of that restriction had already taken place; and, as he was disposed to adhere to the principles of the Reform Bill, he could not for one moment admit the proposition of the hon. Member, and would divide the committee against him.

would support the hon. Member for Lewes, because the rate-paying clauses narrowed the franchise and promoted bribery. It was generally understood, when the Reform Bill was passed, that it was intended to enfranchise all the owners and occupiers of premises of 10l; value. But it was found in practice that the Reform Bill did not enfranchise all the 10l. householders, and the disfranchisement was caused by the rate-paying clauses. In his own borough the number of persons who at any time voted was very much below the number of persons who occupied 10l. premises. On these grounds he should vote against the clause.

objected, when the Reform Bill was under discussion, to the rate-paying clauses. He had then stated, from the experience of Westminster, that those clauses would cause a great deal of bribery, and what he had foretold had come to pass. The payment of rates had led to a great deal of bribery. They had tended also to narrow the franchise, as he had objected to them when the bill was under discussion. At present there was not 1,000,000 of voters, though there were 5,000,000 of full grown males who ought to have the franchise. At present five out of six of the full grown males, who bore all the burdens of the state—who paid the taxes, and were called on to perform all the duties of subjects to the crown—were denied the franchise. He thought every male of twenty-one years of age should have a vote; but those who were not prepared to go so far as he went, should at least be ready to remove this restriction. If they withdrew the tax-paying clauses they would both lessen bribery and practically extend the franchise. He was reluctant to oppose this clause, as it was an amelioration of the present law; but if there were no better mode of getting rid of the rate-paying clauses he would oppose it. At the present time, when distress was disfranchising the people, and when great dissatisfaction existed amongst them on account of being disfranchised, he thought it would be proper to abolish the rate-paying clauses.

did not find it his duty to defend the principles of the Reform Bill, but he must remind the House that to insist on the payment of rates was not an innovation introduced by the measure. Under the old franchise the scot and lot voters were obliged to pay the rates. It had, however, been slated by the right hon. Baronet, that a higher rate of qualification would have been selected had the payment of rates not been adopted. If therefore, they were to abolish the rate-paying clauses, they must raise the qualification. He wished to see both sides keep to their bargain.

had never agreed to rate-paying clauses, and, therefore, he was no party to any bargain.

said, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Elphinstone) had shown that these clauses narrowed the franchise and promoted bribery. Those two objections, pointing out the moral evils caused by these clauses, had been left entirely unanswered. Was it worth while to retain such clauses, on the supposition that they insured the respectability of the voters? He thought it was not, and he should support the hon. Member for Lewes.

thought it of too much importance to allow it to pass without remark. In its general principle he agreed. It was as objectionable that bad votes should be retained on the register, as that good votes should be struck off; but Gentlemen practically versed with the subject had led him to believe that the practice of revising barristers being allowed to award costs, would throw very serious difficulties in the way of making up correct registers. It was to the probable practical effects, not the principle of the clause, that he was opposed. He thought that if those who lodged an objection should be compelled to deposit some such sum as 5s. that the precaution would be quite sufficient for the prevention of frivolous objections.

thought that, instead of no costs being permitted, much larger sums should be awarded as such. He would move, as an amendment, that the utmost amount of costs to be allowed should be 10l; instead of 20s.

believed, from communications which he had had with the revising barristers, that if they had a power of awarding costs, many frivolous cases would never have been entered into. He would move, as an amendment, that 5l; instead of 20s., be the limit of costs, a proposition to which he hoped that the Committee would agree.

stated that he was principally opposed to costs being awarded against claimants. He would move that the words "claim or," in the clause be omitted, with the view of limiting the power of revising barristers in granting costs in cases of objection.

said, that he was in favour of granting costs against both frivolous claimants and objectors. The registration commissioners had come to the conclusion, after a long investigation, that costs should be so allowed by the revising barrister. He quite objected to the motion of the hon. Member for Halifax, and did not see the justice of his distinction between frivolous claimants and objectors of the same class.

withdrew his motion.

also withdrew his motion, but hoped that the Government would consider its principle.

said, with respect to the matter before the House, that when a bill of this nature was first brought in by the late Government, costs were proposed to be allowed to the extent of 10l., but within two years the amount was reduced to 10s., and, of the two propositions, he certainly liked the latter best. He thought that the power of awarding costs to the amount of 10l; would prove a serious bar to the claims of many persons to be registered; and that, upon the whole, costs not exceeding 20s. would be sufficient to answer the purpose they were designed to serve.

would divide the Commit tee against the proposition with respect to costs. He thought that a greater sum than 20s. should be permitted to be awarded.

thought that 20s. were sufficient.

would divide the Committee upon his proposition of substituting 5l; for 20s. in the clause.