would take this opportunity of referring to the subject of the motion of which he had given notice, with regard to the Washington treaty. He had on a former evening given notice of his intention to fix the discussion on this question for Tuesday next; he had endeavoured to learn whether it were possible that any day between this and the Easter holidays could be devoted to this discussion, but he found that every day was already occupied. The noble Lord who had fixed a motion for Tuesday next had declined to give up that day; the hon. Member for Liskeard was determined to bring on his motion on Thursday, and on that day there were nine notices on the paper. Unless the right hon. Baronet opposite allowed him precedence on Monday, he should be unable to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. The estimates were fixed for that evening, but they had been a long time before the House, and it might be hoped that hon. Members would not be disposed to discuss them any further. He, therefore, appealed to the right hon. Baronet to allow him to bring on his motion on Monday. It was a subject of immediate interest, which he thought ought not to be postponed beyond Easter.

With the consent of the House, two days were set apart for the transaction of the business of the Government— Monday and Friday—and they were scarcely sufficient for the purpose of getting through the business, which, for the general interest, it was essential should be transacted. Those days were, therefore, in the nature of a public trust, vested in the hands of the Government. He well knew what inconvenience arose from postponing the Government business until a late period of the Session: by such a course, it became impossible to transact the business of the Government properly. Bills were postponed year after year, by reason of the impossibility of discussing them satisfactorily. It was the wish, therefore, of the Government to take advantage of the two days set apart for their use, and so long as there was public business to go through, it was his duty to retain them for that purpose. He knew well that if he gave way in one instance, he must do so in many; and that if he allowed the management of the public business to be interfered with by private considerations, in one case, he must do so in all, or be placed in the invidious position of opposing the wishes of one hon. Member, and giving his assent to the proposition of another. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, hon. Members had the power to move amendments; it was true that that power was exercised sparingly; he had always protested against its use, and few hon. Members acted upon it. If he gave way in this instance, other hon. Members to whom he might refuse the same privilege, might be disposed to take advantage of the right which they possessed. The hon. Member stood on the same footing with other hon. Gentlemen, and he could not assent to the request which he had made, even although the motion of which he had given notice, was one which he intend- ed to support. Let the hon. Gentleman fix his motion for any of the Government days, and if there was time when the other business had been transacted, it might come on.

hoped that the right hon. Baronet would be convinced that this was a case which would never occur again. This was a resumed debate: what he now proposed as a separate motion would have been moved as an amendment on the original motion of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). The debate was closed by the House being counted out, and the motion was not new matter, but a renewal only of that which had been partly discussed. He should fix his motion for Friday week, and take the chance of its coming on.

The hon. Member sitting near the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. S. Crawford), could inform the hon. Gentleman that the counting out of the House might take place upon other questions than that of the Washington treaty.

begged to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. The practice to which his question referred was one which related in an important degree to the administration of criminal justice, and which in many cases amounted to a denial of justice; and it consisted in the clerk of the peace, or the clerk of the assize, demanding from defendants charged with misdemeanors, before traversing, certain fees, and making the payment of those fees a condition precedent to the defendants pleading to the indictment and taking their trial. So that before a man, who was brought up for a common assault, could plead not guilty, he had to pay fees to the amount of from 21. to 61. to the clerk of the peace as the price of his plea. He was sure that such a practice wanted only to be known, to call for the universal reprobation of all classes, and he was equally certain that the reason why they had not been abolished before was, not that they were upheld by the law, but that they had been demanded in secresy and in the dark. He begged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he was aware of the existence of these charges; secondly, whether they were not illegal, or at all events improper charges; and, thirdly, whether he was not of opinion that the courts of quarter session, and the other courts, had it in their power to put an end to the practice of demanding these fees?

If his hon. and learned Friend had not been so obliging as to give him notice of his intention to put this question, he should have found some difficulty in answering it. Having received notice of the question, however, he had endeavoured to inform himself on that authority on which he could best rely on this subject. He agreed with the hon. Member that it had a very important bearing upon the administration of justice, and he thought that the demand of such fees, before plea pleaded, if not contrary to law, was quite inconsistent with the due administration of justice. He was not previously aware of this practice, and he did not think that it was one of such general prevalence as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think; but he knew, and he regretted that at certain courts of quarter session these fees were demanded. He had consulted the highest authority, and he had no hesitation in saying, that according to the general law of the land, such a demand could not be justified. But he was also aware, that there were provisions in an act of Parliament relative to the adoption of a table of fees, which, after they had been sanctioned by a judge, were binding. He supposed, that in the case to which the hon. Member referred this course had been adopted—that the justices of quarter sessions had framed a table of fees justifying the demand which had been made, and mat the judges had given their sanction to that table. If the fact should be as was described, he was sure that the subject of complaint had arisen from inadvertency; and he was satisfied that the judges of assize would gladly say that it was not proper. He hoped, therefore, that no difficulty would arise in the particular case; if there should, he had no hesitation in saying, that he was prepared on the part of the Government to introduce a declaratory bill on the subject.

said, that he was aware that the bill authorised the clerks of the peace to receive fees; but it did not authorise the taking of one penny from the defendant. That was the grievance in this case, and it was not sanctioned by act of Parliament.

suggested, that perhaps the most convenient course would be to send circulars to the magistrates at quarter sessions on the subject.

thanked the noble Lord for the suggestion. He believed that it was only in a few counties that the demand of fees had taken place.

begged to know from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, whether the report of the Land Emigration commissioners would be laid on the Table of the House. It was usual to lay it on the Table of the House at an early period.

said, that he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving him an opportunity of answering his question. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that it was usual to lay that report on the Table so early. On the contrary, no report had been laid on the table on this subject until last year. He had then stated that it would be expedient that a report from the emigration commissioners should be produced, stating the progress of emigration, and of other matters in connection with the subject; and a report had been accordingly produced, but not until the month of August. The practice had been to lay on the table of the House, from time to time, such information as was received from the various colonies. The hon. Member was not aware, perhaps, of the extent to which these papers had gone. Last year, there had been laid on the Table of the House no fewer than forty-three papers, extending to 2,700 folio pages. Of these between 500 and 600 pages had been produced upon the motion of the hon. Member for Limerick; and another hon. Member had moved for like returns, which would take two months in preparation, and which could not be yet produced for a considerable time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, had also moved for some very useful papers relating to Canada and Australia; but until last year, no general report had been laid before the House. The plan which he had suggested to the commissioners was, that they should lay an annual report of all matters which they deemed it expedient to bring before the House on the Table, and he found that they would be able to make their report, in each session, shortly before the Easter recess. Before that time, they could not have the returns made out; and therefore, before that time they could not produce their report. He should feel very much obliged to hon. Members if they would, for the future, postpone, until the report was received, all motions for detached papers. After the report had been made, such mo- tions might be brought forward, and any returns in which the report was deficient, would be afforded with the greatest pleasure,

said, that this being the day on which the suspension of the writ for the election of a Member of Parliament for the borough of Nottingham expired, he begged to move that the writ do now issue. He was the more anxious on this subject, because a misconception appeared to prevail in the public mind as to the proceedings which that House intended to take. A statement had been made, that it was the intention of the House further to suspend the issuing of the writ, and thus 70,000 persons, of whom 6,000 were voters, would be left unrepresented. If such an intention existed, he could only say that it was not on that side of the House.

said, he had had the honour of making a similar motion last year. He quite concurred in the general principle, that the primâ facie case of a borough requiring a Member was sufficient to justify the House in issuing a writ, and that the onus lay on those who resisted it. The committee to which the House had delegated the duty of inquiring into the proceedings at the late Nottingham election having made a report unaccompanied by any recommendation for the suspension of the writ, was the House to presume that those Gentlemen had neglected something which it was their duty to perform? He would ask hon. Members whether they were now prepared, after having waited seven days to procure possession of the evidence—he would ask them, now that they had read the evidence, were they prepared to say, that Nottingham should be disfranchised? There was no other course for them to pursue than either to issue the writ, or bring in a bill to disfranchise the borough. No person had given notice of a bill for disfranchising Nottingham, and to delay the issuing of the writ any longer involved a high constitutional right as regarded that borough. If they were prepared to disfranchise the borough, then the suspension of the writ would be intelligible, but if they were not prepared to take that course, the House was not warranted in withholding from Nottingham its constitutional right. He thought, that in suspending the writ up to the present time, the House had acted unjustly, and if the hon. Member had not made this motion, he would himself have done so, but, as the motion was made, he had great pleasure in seconding it.

said, that it was not his intention to oppose the motion, but in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend who had spoken last, he felt called upon to make a few observations. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that it was impossible, after the evidence had been printed and issued, to abstain from issuing the writ, unless it was proposed to take further steps. He would not, how. ever, agree with his hon. Friend, that the House had taken an improper course, when the subject was last before it, in suspending the issue of the writ, for the House was not then in a situation to know the extent or nature of the corruption which obtained at the Nottingham election. He believed, that under the circumstances that prevailed at former elections, he was fully justified in moving for the suspension of the writ, and he still continued to think that, in acceding to that motion, the House had pursued a wise and prudent course. He thought so, because they had presented to the House the report of the committee, which alleged that a number of individuals had been guilty of bribery at the last election, and this could not but recal to mind the proceedings before previous committees which had sat on election petitions from this borough, and also the notorious corruption which had so long characterized the elections for the borough of Nottingham. Having been an eye witness in one instance of the scenes at a former election which demoralized that town, be could speak with confidence on the subject, and not only was there most extensive and systematic bribery, but there were other most flagrant cases of corruption, such as drugging voters, systematic intimidation, and the abduction of voters by open violence; and, what was worse than all, there prevailed in Nottingham elections the most extensive practice of personating voters by men from the country, and this to the amount of hundreds. With a perfect recollection of such practices existing, be felt himself fully justified in moving for the suspension of the writ until the evidence taken before the committee was printed, that the House might have an opportunity of seeing whether or not these practices continued to prevail. He had read the evidence, and although be could not but deeply regret that bribery had again taken place at the last election, being sorry to find that the election for Nottingham was not entirely pure, still he could not help recognising a marked improvement. It appeared that there was no authorised, extended, or organised system of bribery—there appeared to have been no violence, nor did it appear that there was any personation of voters, but that there were merely a few isolated, and as he believed unauthorised, cases of bribery, a state of things, which was very different from the practices which prevailed at former elections. Before he sat down, he felt bound to state to the House, that since the discussion which took place last week, with respect to issuing this writ, circumstances had come to his knowledge which afforded the most convincing proof to his mind of the perfect innocence of the hon. Gentleman who had lost his seat with respect to those cases of bribery. The circumstances which be alluded to proved, that the hon. Gentleman had not been a party to any of those acts of bribery, and also, that for a very long period after the election, he was not aware that they had been committed. Looking to the circumstances under which the acts of bribery had been committed, and looking to the manifest improvement that had taken place in the borough, and bearing in mind also the fast, that at the last election for Southampton no cases of bribery had occurred, when formerly no election took place for that town without extensive bribery, and hoping that the same result would occur in Nottingham, he felt that they would not be justified in taking further steps. The House had, no doubt, paid sufficient attention to the evidence taken before the committee to be able to form a judgment on the subject, and in addition they had the assent of six members of the committee, who were present when the matter was under discussion last week and who were at that time possessed of the information which the House then required, but now had before it, that the proceedings at the late election were not of a nature to justify their withholding the writ. Under these circumstances, he should give his cordial assent to the motion.

did not object to the issuing of the writ, but he thought that some steps should be taken against the parties who were guilty of bribery, as well as against those who received bribes. It ap- peared, according to the statement of the noble Earl, that the hon. Gentleman who was unseated, did not know, either directly or indirectly, of these proceedings; that parties who were not known to a candidate, might go to a place and vote, and thus unseat a person who had been elected. If such a state of things were to be allowed, no election would be safe; and any Member who was returned, might be disqualified for that Parliament, He thought that in this, as well as in all other cases, when a committee reported that bribery had been committed, that the giver of the bribes, as well as the receiver, should not be allowed to escape with impunity.

had proposed, in the case of the Ipswich election last year, when four or five persons had been named as having been guilty of bribery, the same course that was now proposed by the gallant Member opposite, although not with the same ability; but every Member opposite, on that occasion, objected to the adoption of such a course. With respect to Ipswich, the Members had three or four times over been recently unseated for bribery; and it appeared that in almost every one of these elections, the same parties were reported as having been guilty of bribery. The right hon. Baronet opposed the adoption of the course suggested in the Ipswich case, although he cheered the gallant Colonel when he made the suggestion. He thought that the proposition of the gallant Member was a very just one, as he had thought when the Ipswich case was under consideration, at which time the House did not seem to take the same view of the question that it did now. As for the individual cases of bribery stated in the report of the Nottingham committee, he would remind the House that they were not nearly equal to the cases which occurred at Ipswich. In the present case, he did not complain of the decision of the committee with respect to the election, and which decision, according to the report, was determined by the casting vote of the chairman; for he thought, after the evidence given, that it could not consistently come to arty other decision than to unseat Mr. Walter. But he must add, that of all the trumpery oases of bribery for a Gentleman to lose his seat, he had never heard of one more trumpery than the case of Nottingham. The House must have seen a letter of the Duke of Newcastle respecting this election, of rather a remarkable character. That noble Duke was fully entitled to be spoken of with every possible respect, for he knew that he was beloved in his own neighbourhood. That noble Duke in his letter, condemns what he terms the proceedings of a democratic section of the House, who had, as he alleged, attempted to disfranchise Nottingham. Now, if any persons had undertaken to do anything of the kind, it was not the democratical or radical section of the House, but it emanated from the nearest relative of the noble Duke and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The noble Duke wrote this letter, sympathising with Mr. Walter on the loss of his seat, and expressing the deep interest which he took in that Gentleman's success. In that letter the noble Duke said—

"I have the honour to have been enrolled an honorary freeman of Nottingham; and though I have never sought to exercise the right, yet I cannot, without extraordinary alarm and very heartfelt sorrow, see myself and others deprived of our privileges for a single unnecessary hour. It is in contemplation, I understand, to suspend the issue of a new writ, and thus a great and very important manufacturing and commercial borough town, containing 70,000 inhabitants, and 6,000 voters, is to be temporarily deprived of one of its representatives, solely, it is presumed, because twenty-seven men have been proved to have taken each a few shillings from unaccredited agents, and entirely, as admitted, without your knowledge or sanction."

Now he thought that the noble Duke and the public should know, when he found fault with the proceedings of that House, that the proceeding did not originate with the democratic or radical section of that House, but from the noble Duke's own near relative, and from the right hon. Baronet and other Members opposite.

said that his recollection of the motion of the hon. Member last year, with respect to certain electors of Ipswich, was not in conformity with the description just given by him Mr. T. Duncombe had moved for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise them.] But the gallant Officer's proposition was that the parties should be prosecuted. The course of proceeding, therefore, was essentially different. He recollected when a proposition was made for the prosecution of those who had been reported to the House of having been guilty of bribery at the Southampton election, the hon. Member objected to the motion, and designated it as a paltry proceeding. The suggestion of his gallant Friend was a fair question for consideration; and he certainly did not recollect any such motion having been made with respect to the Ipswich

could not help feeling, after hearing the declaration from the noble Lord on the part of Mr. Walter, that he was in no way, either directly or indirectly, a party to the bribery, that it was a most hard case upon that Gentleman that he should not be able to stand at the next election. If it were consistent with the rules of the House, he would at once move that that Gentleman be enabled to stand.

said, he readily admitted that the conduct of every person who had acted in a judicial capacity ought to be open to public examination and to reprehension, if it were merited. He should have remained silent if it had not been for the observations of his hon. Friend, who spoke as if the committee had decided that one or two casual cases of bribery, originating, perhaps, in the folly of a friend or in the malice of an enemy, were sufficient to unseat a Member of that House. He would not now enter into the evidence; but, if an occasion or necessity for entering into it occurred, he should be prepared to do so, and at the same time to state the view which he took of the law upon the subject. For himself he must say, that his vote upon the committee had been given under a deep and an awful sense of the duty imposed on him by the House and of the obligation under which he acted; but, he must also distinctly state, that no cases of casual bribery would influence his mind as a member of a committee of that House. If he saw isolated or casual cases of bribery, however numerous, unless, indeed, they were to such an extent as to render ignorance of them on the part of the candidate absolutely impossible, no number of such isolated cases should influence his judgment. Whether he were right or wrong in the view he took of the evidence in this case, the impression on his mind had been and still was, that the evidence showed an organised system of bribery—showed that the acts of bribery were not individual and isolated, that the actors were not casual persons springing up in one direction and another, and acting without concert, but were parts of an organised system regulated by a committee which was in communication with the subordinate agents by whom the bribery was committed, and upon that committee sat the agent of Mr. Walter. The committee stated, that acts of bribery were not brought home to Mr. Walter, and they certainly were not, but they were brought home to the committee with which Mr. Walter was identified. It had been said, that a candidate might pursue his canvass perfectly free from the possibility of imputation, and that however blameless himself he might be compromised by the acts of his committee or agent. This might be a hardship, but he believed it to be the law. in this case, the committee formed the sole instrumentality for carrying on the election, and it did not appear that Mr. Walter himself had ever canvassed. He seemed unfortunately, and perhaps unconscious of the danger, to have given himself entirely up to his committee. Whether he were right or wrong in the view he took of the evidence, that was the impression upon his mind. He should, indeed, be sorry were the House to suppose that he and the members of the committee had unseated Mr. Walter for any isolated acts of bribery, or had acted on the notion that the election might be declared void because some casual bribery had taken place. No such thing. They were fully aware, that bribery might exist, and the election be good; but here the bribery had been brought home to the committee and the agents of Mr. Walter, and he had therefore only to say, that the determination to which the committee had come was conscientious, and for himself as chairman he must add peculiarly painful.

was extremely glad to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Beverly. Whatever little weight might attach to his opinion, he confessed that his reading of the evidence had produced in his mind much of the impression which that hon. Member, acting as Chairman, and with full means of judging of the witnesses, and of what they stated, had just declared to be the result of his unbiassed and honest conviction. He must say that he thought it a great advantage conferred by the act of the right hon. Baronet opposite, who had acceded to his (Lord J. Russell's) amendment, that the committee, composed most probably of persons whose pursuits did not adapt them for the consideration of legal subjects, should have acting with them a Gentleman like the hon. Member for Beverly, whose knowledge and pursuits in the course of his life enabled him to discriminate between that which was merely loose evidence of bribery committed by indiviuals who had no connexion with the candidate or his representatives, and evidence which went to prove that an organized system of bribery had been carried on by the candidate's agents. He entertained not the least doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, with his knowledge, his capacity, and his means of judging, had given his conscientious opinion to the committee of which he was Chairman, whether that opinion were in favour of his own political party or not. This he regarded as a great advantage, because, as he bad frequently stated, former committees of that House whether composed of eleven or thirteen Gentlemen, had fallen into error not from any wish or determination to act with partiality and injustice, but because, from being unable to discriminate as to the character of the evidence or the arguments of the lawyers who spoke so ably and eloquently before them—being consequently in doubt, and unable to form a decided judgement on the question, they gave their votes according to the bias of their political sentiments. This arose, not from any determination to do wrong, but from the natural consequence of having the tribunal composed of unfit judges. He would not oppose the issue of the writ in this case, although he thought the House had acted judiciously in suspending its judgment for a time, after what had formerly taken place with respect to Nottingham. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that the onus lay with them who opposed the issuing of the writ, and that in the absence of any grounds for opposing it that House should not prevent its being issued. He would now take the opportunity of saying a very few words respecting an impression that prevailed on a former occasion, and which was expressed last year by the hon. Member for Montrose, who stated that there was no disposition in that House, and especially in the leaders of the different parties in it, to take effectual means by law for the suppression of bribery and corruption at elections. He then declared that that impression, whether as regarded one party or the other, was totally unfounded; and he now thought that under the alterations which had been made in the law both in reference to bribery, the means of bribing, bribery without privity or agency in the first instance, and the constitution of committees, the House had shown by the manner in which its committees had discharged their duty in the Ipswich and Southampton cases last year, and in the Athlone and Nottingham cases this year,—had clearly shown that there was no indisposition on the part of the House, either by legislation, or by the application of the law when made, to discourage bribery and corruption at elections. If hereafter it should appear that elections had been carried by bribery on the part of the agents and committees of the Members he thought it would be the fault of the inhabitants of the towns where those Members were elected if no representations were made to that House by which such practices could be brought to a course of investigation. As far as concerned that House and Parliament, they had done their duty, and if those practices were resolutely denounced and brought before select committees of that House, he had no doubt that the practice of bribery would receive such a severe check as would very soon lead to its complete extinction. They were told that those persons who committed bribery at Nottingham had not been authorised by the late Member for that borough; but when those persons saw that the consequence of their conduct would be to unseat the candidate whom they wished to see chosen, to destroy his chance of being fairly elected, depend upon it, they would not indulge again in similar practices. Then it was said, that persons having no connection with a candidate might unseat him by acts of bribery intended to be brought against him, and that, consequently, no candidate was safe from such acts committed by strangers. He totally disbelieved that a committee would unseat a Member on such grounds, and he saw no proof of it in the present or any other instance. He conceived, therefore, that they might be satisfied with the existing state of the law, and if that law were resolutely put in force, it would be seen that they were willing to discourage bribery, and thus remove that great stain from the present system of representation.

must take leave respectfully to differ from his noble Friend. What had fallen from the hon. Member for Beverley had given him, and he believed a great many other hon. Members, a very different idea of the case before the House from that which they had previously entertained. He was sure his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hogg) would excuse him for saying, that if such as his hon. Friend stated that evening had been his impression, it was his hon. Friend's duty to have furnished a special report to the House. But this was the inconvenience of the manner in which decisions were come to up-stairs—this was the vice of the system,—that there never had been, and never would be a contested election followed by a select committee, in which what occurred above-stairs would not find its way below, and be discussed over and over again without giving any satisfaction either in or out of the House. If such had been the impression of the majority of the Nottingham committee, it did surprise him that a special report had not been presented to the House. If, as had been stated by the chairman of the committee, a regularly organised system of bribery had prevailed to a great extent, he would ask whether it was with Mr. Walter's knowledge or not, if that was a system which ought to be endured, or for which no remedy was to be proposed? He maintained it was a case, looking to the statement of the chairman, which ought to have been specially reported. He thought that the noble Lord opposite had acted perfectly right in moving the suspension of the writ; but, as no special report had been made, he believed they could not, under the act, now move for a new committee to investigate this organised system of bribery. This question brought to his mind circumstances and views of great importance—he meant in reference to Mr. Walter's not being able to stand again for Nottingham. The fleeting reminiscences of law which he still retained rather confused him, but he remembered the vexata questio of whether a person in that situation could offer himself again as a candidate; and he would ask the right hon. Baronet opposite, as a framer of the law, what could possibly be meant by saying that the committee were bound to report whether the bribery or corruption had been committed with or without the knowledge or privity of the candidate? What was the use of those words? Why encumber the law with such a ridiculous surplusage as that, if, when told that the bribery and corruption had been committed without the knowledge or privity of the candidate, there was no earthly difference in the result? He confessed that those words did appear to him to furnish some ground for supposing that in law it was not quite clear that the same party might not offer himself again as a candidate. He remembered his having been on an election committee, out of which some circumstances grew which induced one of the parties to consult several lawyers on the subject, but he did not obtain from them an unanimous opinion. It was not plain to him that the law was a useful one on the subject; and he did not see why, in 1843, with their professed regard for clearness of legal principles, and for greater lucidity when they came to bring those principles into action—he did not see why they should not pass a declaratory act or law, instead of keeping that mysterious sentence in the act, by which a committee up-stairs was to go through the ridiculous form of stating whether bribery had been committed with or without the consent of the party, the result being the same in either case. He could not agree with his noble Friend in what he had stated. He did not think they could look forward to such a pure election millenium as his noble Friend anticipated; that persons would become so purified in heart and mind as to abstain in future from all acts of bribery. On the contrary, he thought they would continue to find on these occasions either injudicious friends or judicious enemies, resorting to these practices for their own sinister purposes, and that by such means, Members of that House would very frequently be deprived of their seats unjustly, improperly, and unfairly.

was understood to ask, when the debates on this subject were to terminate? He had hoped that the conscientious decision come to up-stairs after several days' labour would have been sufficiently satisfactory. After what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Beverley and others, he must say that he was not at all ashamed of the opinion he had arrived at as a Member of the committee; and he was certainly astonished to hear from that hon. and learned Member that there had prevailed at the last election for Nottingham a very extensive and organised system of bribery; for he remembered that after several ineffectual attempts to arrive at a conclusion, and when at length, it was settled that they were to represent that the seat was vacant, and to prepare and introduce into their report a list of those who were guilty of corrupt practices he prayed the chairman to put in the largest sums or the report would appear ridiculous. It seemed that 5l. was the largest sum, but then it was only promised, the party bribed having actually received but 10s. Now, not only were the sums ridiculously small, but the corruption, such as it was, had been carried on by persons who had never been brought to light at all. Nothing beyond constructive agency had been shown; and he was therefore surprised to hear that the agency had been organised and wide-spread. He would not address himself to the point of law which had been raised, but he hoped that the Gentleman who had left them would have the opportunity of again appearing before the constituency of Nottingham, to solicit their unbiassed and unbought votes. In arriving at the conclusion which he had done upstairs, he was influenced in that decision by conscientious feelings, and by the objection which they all entertained to the extensive corruption which had heretofore shown itself at Nottingham in very extensive ramifications. The result which he had arrived at, after seven or eight days' laborious investigation was, that that corruption had almost entirely disappeared; and that at the last election, it was of a most doubtful and unauthentic character, and such as must necessarily have led any one to feel that a great change had been effected in the town, and that the constituency had never before deported themselves in a manner which entitled them to so much respect.

said, that as to the eligibility of Mr. Walter to sit again, one hon. Member had treated the question as if it were a new one; while the hon. Member opposite thought he might make a motion to set aside the statute. The question was decided last session. A similar report was made in the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme, when Mr. Harris was unseated. A doubt being suggested on the subject, he understood that Mr. Harris took a legal opinion, but what it was he did not know. Mr. Harris, however, went down again as a candidate, thinking that the clause in the act would release him from his ineligibility, on the ground of having been unseated. He obtained a majority at the election, and a public notice was given of his ineligibility. He was unseated again, and the hon. Member (Mr. Colquhoun) now sat for Newcastle-under-Lyme, not by the voice of the majority, but by virtue of the decision, that the statutory enactment was not touched by the subsequent clause, that that clause did not vary with the terms of the original act, that a Member reported by a committee to be guilty of bribery and treating by his agents, should not be eligible to stand again. It was for the House to say, whether it would direct the Attorney-general to prosecute, or whether some measures ought not to be taken against the guilty parties.

in explanation said, that he had spoken of an organized system of bribery, as leaning upon the question of agency. Under the act, the election committee was bound to report to the House, whether or not the sitting Member was aware of the bribery practised; and they were also bound to report to the House the names of the parties bribed. In the present instance the committee only reported the names of the parties who had appeared before the committee, and had spoken on their oaths to receiving these bribes; and though many others were implicated, yet the committee thought, that before they reported the names of persons to the House, those persons should have an opportunity of rebutting whatever charges might be made against them.

said, the more clear the point of law in this case was, the greater was the injustice towards the candidate. The fact was, this penalty, to which the candidate was liable (disqualification to sit for a particular place), was adapted to a state of the law which no longer existed in reference to a case like the present. He was not sorry that the discussion on the issuing of the writ for Nottingham had given rise to an expression of opinion on the operation of the law on this point, for no greater injustice could be inflicted on parties than that which had been inflicted on the late Member for Nottingham under the operation of the law by which he had been disqualified. Under the previously existing law, it was necessary, in order to unseat a Member for bribery after a contested election, that the bribery should be first brought home by distinct proof of agency. So long as that proof was required, it was just, and fair, and expedient that this part of the penalty of bribery should attach to the sitting Member, and that he should not only be unseated, out of a regard for the rights of the electors, but should also suffer a penalty. But the law was now altered. They might now unseat a Member without bringing bribery home by previous proof of agency, and without fixing on the sitting Member the stain of the bribery committed. After making this alteration in the law, whether necessary or not, which rendered the proof of bribery infinitely easier, they should, at the same time, have taken care to effect an alteration also in that part of the law which attached to the sitting Member the penalty he alluded to. The hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Nottingham Election Committee said, the bribery at Nottingham brought before the committee was part of an organised system, but he had not gone so far as to say that he attached any participation in that bribery to the late sitting Member. If that were the case, the view which the hon. Member took of the last election at Nottingham, ought to have induced him to have proposed to the committee to make a report to this House in order that the House might be enabled to take further steps with respect to the offending part of the constituency. But the offence at Nottingham had not been committed with the participation of Mr. Walter, and he said, with respect to Mr. Walter, or any other Gentleman similarly situated, that it was the height of injustice (though, in order to secure the rights of the electors, he might be removed from his seat pro hâc vice), that he should be debarred from the opportunity of being returned to the House as the representative of Nottingham. He made these remarks because he had a strong feeling on the operation of this law, and he conceived, that in the present case as well as in other previous cases, injustice had been done, and he thought, that the House, when it proceeded to legislate in such a manner as to prevent the offence of bribery by stringent provisions, ought to have taken a fair survey of the whole state of the law, and ought so to have arranged it, that injustice might not be done in the case of individuals. If these alterations in the law only rendered parties liable to penalty, who were themselves conscious of the commission of bribery, he should have no objection to such a result, but the House should bear in mind, that if in establishing facilities for the detection of bribery they did not protect innocent persons, they might make a contested election so dangerous, that no man would expose himself to the chance of a contest; at the same time, it would place parties in the power of their adversaries, and the result most probably would be some evasion of the law by the combination of the different parties at an election, rendering it difficult to put any possible check on bribery. These were points which Gentlemen legislating on the subject would do well to consider, and he could not help thinking the honest zeal, expressed by, persons of all parties, to take steps effectually to suppress corrupt practices, might sometimes make them strain after an impossible execution of the law, and thereby indirectly assist in increasing those practices which they wished to extirpate.

, as one of those who last week voted in favour of the issue of the writ, could not allow the present discussion to terminate, without saying a few words in reference to that vote. He had no hesitation in saying, that if he had heard on that occasion but one half of what he had heard that night, he should not have thought it consistent with his duty to support the issue of that writ at that time; but he voted as he had done, on the sanction, as he regarded it, of the committee's report, because he considered it would be useless for the House to appoint committees, unless they were prepared, when those committees presented their reports, to show that they had confidence in the decisions to which such committees had come. They, at that time, had it, not only on the authority of the report, but on that of every Member of the committee who addressed the House on that occasion, that there had been no regular system of bribery, which was deserving of a special report. It was stated, as he understood it at the time, that they had 'only arrived at certain isolated cases of bribery, sufficient, under the present law, to overturn the election, but not presenting such an organized system as to warrant a special report. He had been more surprised than he could well describe at hearing that night from the hon. and learned Chairman of the committee, that there had been proved to the committee to have been in Nottingham an organized committee, in which sat Mr. Walter's two acknowledged agents, carrying on the election on the behalf of Mr. Walter, and committing acts of bribery in promotion of Mr. Walter's election; and that, in fact, there was shown to have been an extensive system of bribery proceeding directly from this organized committee, in which Mr. Walter's two acknowledged agents constantly sat and acted; Mr. Walter, it was true, not interfering or participating personally in these acts of bribery. He must repeat, that if he had, on the former occa- sion, heard but half as much as he had heard that night, he should have voted against the issue of the writ, at all events, until the evidence was printed; and even now, he should vote for issuing the writ with considerable reluctance, because it appeared to him that, considering the facts which had come out respecting the constituency of Nottingham in this and former elections, there was ample ground for instituting a strict inquiry into the whole state of things in connection with the elective franchise in that borough.

said, that on the principle which it seemed was now to be acted upon, a gentleman would not be able to give an unfortunate creature whom he found on a bed of sickness, surrounded by a starving family, 5s. to relieve him from the pressure of want, if it should happen to be at or near election time, lest the feeling of benevolence should he wrested by political opponents into an act of corruption, and be condemned for the act, as for an act of bribery, to lose his seat, and be disqualified to sit in that Parliament.

, after what had taken place that night, after the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned Chairman of the committee, was not indisposed to think that it would be better to adjourn till to-morrow, in order to give the House time to reflect upon what they had heard.

said, he had voted on the former occasion to suspend the writ, and he had done so under a strong feeling of suspicion that the facts were, as they now turned out to he, and that suspicion he conceived from what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Beverley himself. That hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion, after stating the twenty-seven cases of bribery which were proved, added that these were not the only cases of bribery; that the bribery, in point of fact, had been much more extensive. There was one argument thrown out that night by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, of a rather extraordinary description; the hon. Gentleman appeared to consider that the smallness of a bribe was an excuse for the bribee, but it seemed to him (Mr. Muntz) that it was, on the contrary, an aggrava- tion of the crime. Surely, a man was much less excusable, if there were any degree of excuse in the matter, who suffered himself to be bribed by 10s., than he who had 10l. given him as a consideration. It had been said in the course of the debate, that these things might be expected not to occur again in Nottingham or else where; but it seemed to him that such an expectation would be most groundless. How, indeed, could they imagine, it would be otherwise? When bribery was clearly proved what steps did the House take? He was aware of no prosecution, or intended prosecution, on the part of the Government for past offences—of no disfranchisement, or intended disfranchisement, of even the most notoriously corrupt constituency. After all that now and on former occasions had been distinctly proved against Nottingham—quite sufficient, in all conscience, to warrant the disfranchisement of that borough—no approach to such a well-merited punishment was made. What were the public, then, to think? They would think, as they in point of fact did think, that neither party in the House had really any wish to put an end to bribery; for they considered, that if there were in the House any genuine and general desire to destroy this abomination, it could easily be destroyed.

begged to state, after what had been proposed by his noble Friend, that it was his intention to move to-morrow for leave to bring in a bill to enable Mr. Walter to stand again for Nottingham or elsewhere in the present Parliament.

, as a Member of the committee, would maintain that no sufficient bribery had been proved to warrant the committee in taking the step which several hon. Gentlemen so strongly insisted upon. He should like to ask hon. Gentlemen, who were so loud in their complaint that no special report had been made, whether they had read the evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, there had been shown to be an organized system. What was meant by this expression? He would admit, in connection with the other Members of the committee, that it had been shown there was a committee appointed, acting for Mr. Walter, and that in that committee there were persons holding the situation of agents for Mr. Walter. But he would ask hon. Gentlemen would they disfranchise a constituency, because in it an agent, two agents, any number of agents, had gone down among them, and endeavoured to bribe, and had actually bribed a certain number of electors? In the case of Nottingham, there had been very likely bribery to the full extent which was deemed necessary by the parties committing it; but this was no reason why a whole constituency should be disfranchised. The committee, as they stated, knew that there had been bribery, but there was no sort of evidence before them that it had been so extensive as to make it right to deprive the town of the right of returning another Member to that House. He considered it very hard that the committee should be attacked in this manner.

said, he was a new Member, and therefore not very well acquainted with the mode of proceeding in the House; but it seemed to him that the case now before them was clear enough. There was an election complained of—a committee appointed to inquire into the complaint—a report of the committee that bribery and corruption had taken place—the Member complained of unseated and disfranchised; and what else was wanted. Why should they impugn the committee, and their report in this way? If they were not satisfied with committees up stairs, let them inquire into these matters themselves, in committees of the whole House. As it was, he should oppose any adjournment.

should also oppose an adjournment of the debate. Until the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beverley, there was not a question in the mind of any one hon. Gentleman as to the issuing of the writ; and with reference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must observe, with all respect to him, that he spoke on this occasion as an individual Member merely, and no longer as chairman of the committee. What his hon. and learned Friend might, while at the head of the committee, have prevailed upon them to recommend to the House was another question. It did not, however, appear that the hon. and learned Gentleman had even then proposed any resolution as to disfranchisement of the borough, or even as to delaying the issue of the writ; and this was clear, that even if the hon. and learned Member had, of the three other Members of the committee who had addressed the House on the subject, not one of them had concurred with their late chairman. If, indeed, the committee had declared, in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that an organised and extensive system of bribery had prevailed throughout the whole town of Nottingham, he could then have understood the suspension of the writ, and even the disfranchisement of the borough itself; but no such statement had been made by the committee—no such recommendation had been given; and as to what had been said that evening, the hon. and learned Member for Beverley came forward only with the same authority as any other individual Member of the House, and could no longer be held to represent the mind of the committee. He objected to the adjournment of debates as a general principle, but more especially he should object to the adjournment of that debate, unless absolute cause were shown against the issuing of a writ. In the present case, before the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, at all events, not a single voice would have been raised to dissent from the issue of the writ. Certainly no such intimation had been made, and he therefore hoped the hon. Member for Montrose would not withdraw his motion; but whether or no, he would not concur in that withdrawal. Let the question be decided now; they had been more than two hours discussing it, and the evidence before the House was quite sufficient to enable hon. Gentlemen to collect a general conclusion from it. That conclusion to his mind clearly was, that there had been no such general and systematic organization of bribery in the borough as to justify the House in taking any ulterior measures; and if they were not going to adopt ulterior measures, there was obviously no other rational course for them than to proceed to issue the writ. The majority of the late Member for Nottingham was eighty-four, while the utmost extent of those votes which were shown to have been affected by bribery was twenty-seven. The House, therefore, would best do its duty to the country by issuing the writ forthwith.

said, that all that had passed this evening had made a different impression on his mind from that which it appeared to have produced on the minds of other hon. Members. It occurred to him that the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned chairman of the committee by no means led to the conclusion at which some hon. Members had arrived,—namely, the propriety of adjourning the debate. As he had understood the hon. and learned Member, he had given pertinent and cogent reasons to justify the conclusion to which the committee had come, but not in the least to the conclusion that Nottingham ought to be disfranchised, or the debate adjourned. The question has arisen, as he had understood the hon. and learned Member, as to whether the cases of bribery were isolated instances—not cases brought into such connexion with the sitting Member or his agents, as ought to affect his seat? In explanation of this, the hon. and learned Member said it appeared to him, that there had not been that extensive, organized system of bribery, which called upon the committee to make a special report, but that the bribery which had been practised was the result of a system organized for extensive bribery by a committee upon which the agents for the sitting Member sat. That was a just conclusion to this extent—that there was no ground for supposing that the Member had been unseated for casual bribery practised by persons who had charge of the conduct of the election for the sitting Member. In other words, that in connexion with those selected by the sitting Member, those to whom he had deputed the charge of conducting the election, a system of bribery had been brought home, and then said the committee, "We cannot permit the hon. Member to retain the benefit of the bribery adopted by the agents appointed by him." If an hon. Member could retain his seat under such circumstances, an extensive license would be given to bribery, because a variety of modes might be adopted by which the agency might be difficult of proof. But on the second question he must observe, that Parliament ought only to disfranchise a place for bribery—not where a committee had arranged a system by which they proposed to act extensively—but where the inhabitants of the place were parties to that organization. If it were the fault of the inhabitants, then the Legislature ought to punish them by disfranchisement; but here it was the fault of the agents of the Member, appointed and sanctioned by his authority, and acting by means of that committee. He therefore repeated, that the conclusion was just, so far as to unseat the sitting Member, but unjust if applied to affect the right of the inhabitants to return Members to represent them in Parliament. If, therefore, he had understood the hon. and learned Member for Beverley correctly, there existed no necessity for an adjournment of the present debate. With respect to the object of the adjournment being for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to enable Mr. Walter to stand again for the town of Nottingham, that motion could be made just as well after the writ was issued as before. Therefore there was no occasion for the consideration at present of any other question but this—did it appear by the report of the election committee that such a number of the inhabitants of Nottingham had been parties to the bribery as to lay a fair ground for its disfranchisement? Now, he believed all were agreed that there was not such a number as laid a fair ground for that course, and, therefore, it would be unjust and unconstitutional to withhold the writ.

expressed a hope that the writ would be allowed to issue. He had voted on the last occasion against the writ being issued, because he wished to read the evidence. He had done so, and he was sure nobody who had read it could vote for the further suspension of the writ. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) in thinking, that the insignificance of the amount of the bribe increased the guilt of the parties implicated, because, if so, the old lines became applicable:—

"My wound is great, because it is so small;

"Then it were greater were it none at all."

said, that on the former night he had seconded the motion for the issuing of the writ, in opposition to the motion of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Lincoln), and he had done so because he then thought no sufficient ground had been laid for the suspension of the privilege of sending Members to Parliament by the town of Nottingham; but had he then heard as strong a statement as that which had been made to-night by the hon. and learned Chairman, he should have joined with those who thought the writ ought to be suspended until the evidence taken by the committee was laid before the House. That day, however, was now passed, and the question was now, whether the writ should not be suspended for one day more? Now, he did not think the proposition which had been announced by the hon. Member for Bridport—namely, to move for leave to bring in a bill to enable Mr. Walter to stand again for Nottingham, afforded a sufficient ground for adjournment, because he did not suppose the House would give its sanction to such a bill—which would be an ex post facto law, setting aside the decision of the committee, and setting aside the law the committee had administered. If he thought such a measure would be likely at all to be entertained, it might weigh as a reason with him for consenting to adjourn the debate; but then he must say, that the hon. Member who had expressed his intention to move for the introduction of such a bill, ought to have given notice to that effect, so that hon. Members might have been prepared, when they came down to-day, to meet it. On the other point, he did not think the debate ought to be adjourned unless some hon. Member, on the strength of the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hogg), or on the evidence which had been laid on the Table, stated that he had come to the conclusion, that ulterior proceedings ought to be adopted, and the borough disfranchised. If any hon. Member gave notice of such a motion for to-morrow, he should be inclined to agree to the adjournment of the debate. As, however, no hon. Member had given notice of such an intention, and as he did not see the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport could be effectual or carried out, he confessed that he wished no further suspension of the right of the large and populous borough of Nottingham, to be fully represented in the House.

had come down to the House, after giving as much consideration as he was able to the report of the committee, and to the evidence taken before it, prepared to give his vote in favour of the motion for issuing the writ, and he confessed, that he had not heard anything in the course of the present debate, which induced him to withdraw from that intention. Considering the extent of the constituency of Nottingham—considering also the extent to which it appeared bribery had prevailed at the last election—considering also the speech of his hon. and learned Friend who had acted as chairman of the committee, he did not think there were sufficient grounds laid, for the House to suspend for any longer period the issue of the writ. The town of Nottingham comprised 60,000 inhabitants, and had 6,000 electors, and although it appeared, that acts of bribery had been brought home to somewhere about twenty-seven individuals, as reported by the committee, still he could not think that any further investigation would lead to the disfranchisement of the borough, or to any material alteration in the constitution of its constituency; and believing that the onus of proof for con- tinuing the suspension of the writ, lay upon those who moved its suspension, he was induced not to withhold the issuing of the writ on the ground that an organized system of bribery had generally prevailed. Then came the question, should he consent to withhold the writ, in order that the late Member might be enabled, by the passing of an act of Parliament, to stand again? Now, he did not think that at all a legitimate reason for suspending the issue of the writ. There were two grounds on which the suspension of the writ had been urged—one by the hon. Member for Montrose, who had moved that the writ should issue, and yet had since stated he was in favour of the amendment, and thus would vote against his own motion. The hon. Member for Montrose, though he had been seconded by his hon. Friend below him (Sir R. Inglis),—a circumstance which raised the presumption, that party feeling did not operate on this occasion—had since cast off his hon. Friend as though the hon. Member were ashamed of his seconder. One ground urged for the suspension of the writ was the suspicion of an extensive and organised system of bribery. On that suspicion he did not think the House would be warranted in suspending the writ. What then was the House to do? It had not been recommended to the House by the committee, or in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hogg) who had very unnecessarily entered upon a vindication of his own character. The character of his hon. and learned Friend stood too high to require that vindication. Few Members of that House possessed greater intellectual powers, and not one had a higher character. He could assure his hon. Friend, that of his conduct no vindication whatever was necessary. But the committee had not, in point of fact, recommended to the House either the suspension of the writ, or any further proceedings; and it appeared that many other hon. Members had read the evidence which had been laid upon the Table of the House, and the conclusion to which they had come was, that the evidence presented no sufficient grounds for the disfranchisement of the town of Nottingham. With respect then, to the remaining point—namely, the suspension of the writ until the late Member was enabled by a law to be passed to offer himself again to the constituency of Nottingham, he was of opinion that this did not present sufficient or satisfactory grounds for that purpose. He did not think that sufficient grounds could be laid, even for the introduction of such a bill. Hon. Members laboured under a great mistake with regard to the law passed last session; and when the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bernal) appealed to him, and asked him how he could reconcile to himself such enactments, he begged to say that he was not the author of the bill—it was the bill of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and which it had become his (Sir R. Peel's) duty to carry through. But what had been the old system, and the old law with reference to this point? Why, that any man who by him self, or by agents acting in his behalf, should be guilty of bribery, was incapacitated from sitting during that Parliament for that place. Such was the law laid down by the Act of George 2nd, and extended by the 29th of George 3rd; and the principle of the ancient law was, that bribery by himself or his agents incapacitated a man from sitting for the place in which that bribery had been practised, for the then existing Parliament. And what had been the report of this last Nottingham Election Committee? The committee reported,

"That John Walter, Esq., was, through his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last election for the borough of Nottingham."

That was the report of the committee, and the statutes of George 2nd and of George 3rd provided that he, who by himself or by his agents, was guilty of bribery, should be incapacitated from sitting for that place in the same Parliament. In short, the Member returned was subjected to that penalty on account of the acts of his agents. Now he (Sir R. Peel) did not hesitate in stating his firm belief, that Mr. Walter was not cognizant of the acts of those who proved to be his agents—he believed these acts had been as much a matter of surprise to Mr. Walter as they were to any hon. Member of the House; but it was important to hold out to these local committees, that the fact of their bribing will peril the seat of the candidate on whose behalf they have recourse to such practices; and that though it might be quite true their candidate was wholly unconscious of the acts of those who had charge of the election for him, yet he believed the Legislature would never effectually prevent bribery, unless it was made known to these local committees that the consequences of their illegal acts would extend further than themselves, and that; their candidate must bear the penalties. That was the old law; Mr. Walter was not labouring under any peculiar hardships in consequence of the new statute; and therefore there was no ground for a special act to enable Mr. Walter again to present himself as a candidate at Nottingham. On the double ground that no sufficient reasons had been offered for the disfranchisement of Nottingham, and that it would not be consistent with the principle of ancient law to pass a bill in favour of the particular individual affected in this instance, he must resist the proposition for the adjournment of this debate.

, in explanation said, he had consented to the adjournment, under the expectation that further proceedings would be taken.

, in explanation, said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had stated, he had been influenced in the vote he had given by the strong statement of the chairman of the committee, that an organized system of bribery had pervaded the whole of Nottingham at the last election. He (Mr. Hogg) begged to say most distinctly, that he had made no such statement. His hon. Friend (Colonel Wood) had spoken of a few isolated cases of bribery proceeding from persons who were unconnected with the candidate; and who had acted indiscreetly as friends or maliciously as enemies. He believed that no committee ever did or ever would visit the candidate with disqualification for the acts' of such persons. If an attempt were made to prove such acts, the character of the transaction and of the individuals engaged in it would be manifest; and nothing could be more easy than for the candidate to show who the parties were he had entrusted with the charge of conducting his election. But the present debate had proceeded as if no candidate could be unseated unless he were personally cognizant of the bribery practised on his behalf. In the argument before the Committee the counsel for the sitting Member urged most ably the bill brought in by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, as a proof of the necessity to bring home the bribery to the knowledge of the individual, and he had attempted, from the construction of that statute, to draw an inference that the law intended that the candidate must be cognizant of the acts. But he had put this question to the learned counsel,' "Does your argument go to the extent that no Member can be unseated unless bri- bery was personally brought home to him." Mr. Austen's reply was, that he could scarcely push his argument to that extent. He had always understood the law to be, that a candidate, as regarded his right to sit, was responsible for acts of bribery committed by his agents, although not criminally liable to the penalties. The whole question and the whole difficulty was the agency, which must nearly in every case be constructed and be proved by circumstantial evidence. And why had he used the expression "organized system of bribery?" To show the manner in which the committee had arrived at the constructive agency, and when he had used that expression he accompanied it with this statement, that the corruption at Nottingham was not to that extent, or of that character, which justified the committee in reporting it specially, for he had added that he believed a committee would defeat the object of the House and of the law as embodied in the recent acts if they obtruded by special reports upon the attention of the House in cases which were not of special enormity. With reference to the paucity of the cases of bribery reported—having listened to all the speeches, he must say, that he thought no hon. Member who had described the bribery as insignificant and casual could have read the evidence which had been laid upon the Table. Suppose that only three or four cases out of fifty or sixty had been reported. If hon. Members had read the evidence, they would find that after the election large bodies had met simultaneously in some court or yard, from which they went, one by one, to a certain room where they were paid. The committee could not report these cases, because the names of the parties could not be given. With this evidence before them, it was too much to say that the committee had acted upon two or three trumpery cases. With respect to agency, it was proved that one gentleman in the undertaking given by him to pay the expenses of the hustings, had signed himself as "the agent of Mr. Walter," and by his directions another gentleman, paid the legal expenses to the returning officer. Both these gentlemen had been proved to have sat on the committee by which the election was conducted. An hon. Member had asked what was the character of the witnesses who had been examined? When they come to prove cases of such a description did they look to obtain the best description of evidence? Why, what kind of witnesses could they have? They could only have witnesses of a character corresponding to the transaction; they could never have honourable men connected with such transactions. He did not wish to be misunderstood or to have it said that he had misled the House. He had made his statement only to show the manner in which constructive agency had been proved. Mr. Walter had, as he had already stated, committed himself entirely to the committee, and on that committee sat the two gentlemen he had mentioned, and by them the clerks were paid and the other arrangements for the election made. These who gave the bribes appeared to act in communication with the committee; and it was proved that one gentleman, who had throughout sat in a room adjoining the committee, had paid 30l. to the individual who bribed in one ward, and had told him that no account of the expenditure was necessary. But he would not advert to the evidence. His sole object in rising was, to explain to the House the purpose for which he used the expression adverted to by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and so strangely misunderstood by him.

said, he could understand the law maxim—"qui facit per alium, facit per se," but that was not now the question. Why did the House appoint a committee to inquire and make a return to the House whether the bribery had been committed with the privity and concurrence of the party who was charged? He remembered well the statute of George 2nd, and he knew well that Mr. Harris had been unseated for Newcastle-under-Lyme, because he had been reported to the House by a committee to have committed bribery by his agents at a former election, whilst another subsequent committee had decided that a member might start again under such circumstances. One committee might, it appeared, reverse the decision come to by another committee the week before. It it were laid down that a man, without having any knowledge of any bribery, had committed an act of bribery per alium, it was perfectly clear that he could not in law offer himself again for the borough, and if so the inquiry as to his "privity and concurrence" were word which ought no longer to remain on the statute-book. They were a deception.

hoped the hon. Member for Newark would withdraw his amendment for the adjournment of the debate. From what had fallen from various Members of the House in the course of the debate, it was perfectly clear that the state of the law with regard to agency was in a very anomalous and dangerous state with regard to the Members of the House. The impunity which seemed to exist for all persons mixed up with bribery, except the sitting Member, was a state of things which was perilous to the seat of every Member who might be hereafter returned. He thought such a state of things ought not to be continued. If he found that no other hon. Member of greater weight in the House called the attention of the House of Commons to the peculiar position of candidates starting for elections under the present law of agency, he should feel it his duty, after the Easter recess, to draw the attention of the House to this subject.

said, hon. Members complained of the anomalous state of the law. There appeared to him to be no anomaly whatever in the law. The law said, so far as holding their seats went, Members should be responsible for the acts of their agents; if a Member chose to employ agents, he must be liable for their acts. But the law went further, and said that a man should not be criminally liable unless he were personally concerned in these acts of bribery. The law said if a Member were guilty of bribery by his agents he should not take his seat, and the committee were to report whether he was personally guilty of bribery himself, because then it would be in the power of the House to direct the Attorney-general to institute a criminal prosecution against him for having done an act for which he was liable to the criminal law of the country. He thought it right to state this, as he could not understand the anomaly complained of.

believed that the general impression on the mind of the committee was, that no case of delinquency had been proved against the borough of Nottingham sufficient to justify the suspending of the writ, even for a single hour, but he felt that the request for delay to allow time for the evidence to be printed was reasonable, and he moreover was unwilling by a vote on that occasion to express his opinion upon the evidence before the House had had the opportunity of forming its opinion from reading the evidence. Then as to the question of agency, he was reluctantly compelled to differ from the able and learned chairman (Mr. Hogg), for after carefully attending to the evidence, he had arrived at the conclusion that the proof of agency was not, to his mind at least, satisfactorily established. At all events, hardly as the disqualification, which was the necessary consequence of the committees decision, might press on Mr. Walter, he could not consider that as a sufficient justification, or as any reason for withholding any longer from a constituency so numerous, so wealthy, and so respectable as that of Nottingham, their undoubted privilege of returning a Member to this House. He trusted the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would withdraw his motion (for adjournment).

, with the permission of the House, withdrew his amendment.

rose, pursuant to notice, "to move for leave to bring in a bill for the allotment of waste lands." He said, in the middle of the second Session of the present Parliament, the middle classes, and more especially the working classes, looked to the First Lord of the Treasury for measures which would conduce to their comfort and permanent happiness. It was perfectly true that the measures which the right hon. Baronet had brought forward last Session had conduced to the comforts of the working classes; but this benefit had been short-lived. The working classes had scarcely tasted the cup of sweetness which the right hon. Baronet had granted them than it was dashed from their lips by [an universal reduction of wages throughout the country, far beyond the reductions which had taken place in the price of food; and, instead of the working classes having been in the least benefited or relieved by the measures of the right hon. Baronet, in both the manufacturing and agricultural districts, they were suffering misery, want, and privation unparalleled in the history of England. He asked the right hon. Baronet now whether he had any remedial measures to bring forward for the purpose of raising this oppressed class of people out of their distress. In preparing the measure which he asked leave to introduce into the House he had been advised and assisted by some of the cleverest men of the country; and he was convinced that the measure he was about to propose would restore the working classes of the country in a great degree to their former comforts. The distress which had prevailed in the large manufacturing towns was rapidly extending to the smaller towns and into the agricultural districts. With the permission of the House he would give a slight idea of the state of the population of the town of Bingley. He remembered when it had only contained one mill, now it had ten mills; formerly it had been almost a purely agricultural district, now it was equally agricultural and manufacturing. What had been the evidence of the state of Keighley given before the committee which sat on the Keighley Union? [Sir C. Napier: The Keighley Union again.] He hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone would not interrupt him by personal remarks addressed across the House. He had been informed by the medical officer of that town, that in cottages of four rooms each as many as twenty-five people were living, sleeping almost altogether in one room in a manner productive of the grossest immorality, whilst typhus fever raged amongst them. In this town this fever annually increased in virulence. He held in his hand a report made to her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department from the Poor-law commissioners on an inquiry into the sanatory condition of the labouring population of Great Britain, which was presented to Parliament by the command of her Majesty in July, 1842:—

"Mr. Chadwick states that the annual slaughter in England and Wales, from preventable causes of typhus, which attacks persons in the vigour of life, appears to be double the amount of what was suffered by the allied armies in the battle of Waterloo. In Manchester, among the labouring classes, more than 57 out of every 100 die before they attain the age of five years. He states that when the kelp manufacture lately ceased on the western coast of Scotland, a vast population of the lowest class of people were thrown into extreme want; they suffered from cold hunger, and despair; nevertheless, from their scattered habitations being surrounded by pure air, cases of fever did not arise among them."

The mortality and immorality of the population now crowded in the manufac- turing districts, were, he could assure the House frightful in the extreme. Was there no remedy to rescue this portion of the population from their misery? Were the functions of Parliament at an end, or were they able to redress the grievances of the people? They were told to look to foreign colonisation for a remedy. Were they to send abroad to die unpitied and unheard-of, the peaceable and loyal subjects of this country, who had a right to exist in the country where they were born? What said Mr. Burn in his letters on home colonisation:—

"If the 46,000,000 acres now in cultivation are not sufficient to maintain the population, there are millions yet uncultivated that may be increased in value 5,000-fold. It appears, that there are 46,500,000 acres of land in cultivation, and nearly 31,000,000 uncultivated. 16,000,000 were reported by the Emigration Committee to be profitable lands. Nearly the whole of the waste lands in Ireland are reclaimable, 3,000,000 of which, that are equal to 5,000,000 of English acres, can be brought to produce a rental of 1l. per acre, at an outlay not exceeding 10l.per acre. Thus, in the cultivation of the land, Sheffield and Birmingham must send their spades, their pickaxes, and their draining tools; the wheelwright must find ploughs, harrows, and carts; the iron founder must supply the plough-coulters and the axletrees; the saddler must put on the harness; Wolverhampton must supply its chains, Walsall its bits and ornaments; the carpenter must put up the gates with tools from Sheffield, and hang them with the hinges and padlocks of Staffordshire; the hedger and ditcher who encloses the ground, and the ploughman who brings it into cultivation, are clothed by Stroud, Manchester, and Leeds; their hats come from Newcastle-under-Line, their half-boots from either Northampton or Stafford; they take their breakfast out of a basin furnished by the Staffordshire Potteries; Sheffield finds the knife; Birmingham the spoon; the merchant traverses the ocean to bring their coffee and sugar; the engineer finds a coffee-mill, in which the turner furnishes a handle, &c."

What he proposed to ask the House to do was to restore the poor again to their comforts, and he proposed to do this by an allotment to them of the waste lands-He asked for an allotment of the waste lands of England to the poor as an act of justice: he asked for it in the name of the law of England—a law acknowledged by the greatest writers on the law and constitution of England for centuries. He also asked for it in furtherance of a principle acknowledged by that House. Bar- rington, in his work on our Ancient Statutes, calculated that not many centuries ago half the lands of England were held upon the degrading tenure of villeinage; and that without being abolished by statute it gradually ceased by force of long usage. If a royal forest were enclosed, the contiguous proprietors urged their claims on the ground that they had depastured upon it, and those claims were allowed. Sir A. Fitzherbert, the celebrated lawyer and judge, and one of the earliest legal authorities, in his book of surveying, thus laid down the law:—

"Every cottager sal have his portion assigned him, and then' sal not the ryche man overpresse the poore man."

, a lawyer, who wrote on the subject of enclosing, said:—

"In the carriage of this business there must be much caution to prevent commotion," (and he recommended), "that plots shall be devised to the inhabitants at and under easy values."

strenuously urged the enclosure of waste lands, with this condition,

"So that the poor commoners may have no injury by such enclosures."

A report (drawn up by Sir J. Sinclair) of a select committee of the House of Commons appointed for the purpose of considering the subject was in these words—

"If a general bill were to be passed, every possible attention to the rights of the commoners would necessarily be paid. The poor would then evidently stand a better chance of having their full share undiminished."

But was any hon. Member of that House prepared to deny that the public had a right to these waste lands? Why, what meant the Standing Order on the Table of the House?—

"That in every bill for enclosing lands, provision be made for leaving an open space in the most appropriate situation, sufficient for purposes of exercise and recreation of the neighbouring population; and that the committee on the bill have before them the number of acres proposed to be enclosed, as also of the population in the parishes or places in which the land to be enclosed is situate; and also do see that provision is made for the efficient fencing of the allotment, for the investment of the same in the churchwardens-and overseers of the parish in which such open space is reserved, and for the efficient making and permanent maintenance of the fences by such parish; and that in any case where the information hereby required is not given, and the required provisions are not made in the bill, the committee on the same do report specially to the House the reasons for not complying with such order."

The poor man had a right to call on the House to recognise this principle. In many parts of England the poor for centuries had cut turf and peat for their consumption during winter; but he regretted to say in many parts of England, the landed proprietors had taken advantage of the poor ceasing to practise their rights for a certain number of years, and had then prohibited them from doing so for ever. It was said in an old distich—

"Great is the crime in man or woman

To steal a goose from off a common;

But surely he's without excuse

Who steals the common from the goose."

In many parts of the country the working classes, more particularly the poorer portion of them—and he spoke positively with regard to many of the handloom weavers in his own neighbourhood—had been enabled to live comfortably through the enjoyment of these rights, which of late years had thus been taken away from them. If every hon. Member in that House would declare his conscientious conviction after a due consideration of this subject, he would certainly avow himself to be in favour of the allotment system. He knew that some hon. Members, even during the present system, had declared that the system had not worked well where it had been put into practice; but he was prepared to prove quite the reverse, and that the allotment system had conferred the greatest blessings on the people wherever it had been adopted. He was sure that he should convince the House that if the allotment system of waste lands were adopted, it would prove, to a great extent, the salvation of the country; for it must be clear to all, that if something were not done for the working classes, and that speedily, the consequences would be most serious. The Government were sitting on the verge of a volcano at the present moment, which might burst forth with mischievous effect, unless precautionary measures were taken. Thousands were in want and suffering, and had borne their distress and privation with patience and humility, that had been praised by almost every Member of her Majesty's Government; but praise would not fill their empty bellies. Those poor people had waited with earnest anxiety to see what would be done for them in the present Session, which was nearly half over. ["No."] Atallevents, hon. Gentlemen were about to enjoy the Easter festivities; but what had they to say to the people? What had they done? There had been a great deal of talk, but not one practical measure which would give relief to the poor. The working classes laughed at the idea of foreign colonization; they would never sanction it; for it had been tried, and not a ship came home from the colonies which did not bring some disappointed wretches who had suffered more abroad than at home, and would rather die of starvation at home than be transported again to a distant colony. But, he would proceed to state some other important facts. In the parish of Long Newton, in the county of Glocester, the effects of the system were these;—

"The late Mr. Estcourt stated, that out of 196 persons there were thirty-two families, consisting of 140 persons, in the depth of extreme poverty. The poor-rates amounted to 324l. 13s. 6d., in 1801. The result of the allotment system was an immediate abatement in the misery of the poor; the most gratifying improvement in their character and morals; and a progressive diminution in the poor-rates down to 135l. in 1829 (the last year reported). In Skiptonmoyne, an adjoining parish, the same results were experienced. In the small parish of Ashley, where the same plan was pursued by the hon. Member for Oxford, the same results followed. In the parish of Lyndon, in Rutlandshire, where the cottagers had been allowed these privileges for at least 200 years, an enclosure took place, and an allotment was reserved for the use of the poor, and to be let to the cottagers at moderate rents. The happy results of the system were described in a letter written by the Earl of Winchilsea on the 4th of January, 1796, to Sir John Sinclair, the President of the Board of Agriculture."

Lord Winchilsea in that letter said, he had made inquiries into the effect of giving small allotments of land, and that he was more and more convinced that nothing could be of greater benefit to the labourers and the landowners. The working people were enabled to better their condition, and to make their homes comfortable, and to keep a cow or a pig, and thus they became better able to do their work, were more contented in their station, and acquired a sort of independence and self-respect which prevented them from becoming burdensome to others. The effect was beneficially felt upon the poor-rates. Lord Winchilsea also wished, that Parliament would never make an enclosure without setting aside a portion of land for the use of the poor; and he mentioned the case of one family which enjoyed the privilege during 200 years, and never did one of them receive relief from the parish. He thought that letter was sufficient to show the advantages of the system he was now advocating, proving, as the letter did, that for 200 years it had worked beneficially to the lower orders. But he held in his hand the report of a gentleman whose opinion he supposed would have great influence with the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department. It was that of Mr. Power, respecting the county of Cambridge, as stated in the Poor-law Commissioners' report for 1834, page 103:—

"Allotment of small portions of land to labourers for the purpose of employing their leisure hours, giving them a feeling of dependence on their own exertions, and bettering their condition by increased sustenance and comforts, is beginning, much to the credit of the landowners, to be very generally adopted in this country. Of the excellent effects of this practice I am provided with testimony from many quarters. At Wells, fifty acres ate now granted by the bishop of Bath and Wells to 303 persons, in quantities varying from one-twelfth to half an acre, at a rent of 12s. 6d. the quarter of an acre. Of these persons not above ten are unmarried, and many are widows. The average of each family being taken at five, upwards of 1,000 persons are thus benefitted. No stipulation is made against the receipt of parochial relief, but the result has been to the same effect, as only three of the number receive parochial relief, two of whom are infirm persons who would otherwise be in the workhouse, and the third also infirm, belongs to Bristol. Twenty-nine names were pointed out of persons who formerly had received relief, but had discontinued it since they had got land. Many Dissenters have allotments. The following is an account, on an average of six years, of the profits of a quarter of an acre:—

	£	s.	d.
Rent for a quarter of an acre	0	12	6
Digging	0	8	0
Manure	0	10	0
Seed	0	3	0
Planting	0	4	0
Hoeing, &c	0	8	0
Digging and hawling	0	10	0
Supposing the man to hire and pay for everything	£2	15	6

PRODUCE.
Twenty sacks of potatoes	4	10	0
Other vegetables	1	0	0
	£5	10	0
Less labour, &c, as above	2	15	6
Clear profit, supposing the man to hire and pay for everything	£2	14	6
If all done by the man	4	4	6

The opinion expressed by the agent was, that the man who works for a farmer for twelve hours, from six to six, with the help of his wife and family, can manage half an acre, supposing it half potatoes, keep a pig, and support his family, and that a mechanic can do more. The continued increase in the demand for allotments is the best proof of the advantage derived from them. There is a general improvement in the character of the occupiers, who are represented as becoming more industrious and diligent, and as never frequenting those pests, the beer-houses. Frequently they have been known to work by candle-light. Not a single instance has occurred in which any one thus holding land has been taken before a magistrate for any complaint."

Was not that an instance worthy of the consideration of the House? Was it not one over which they would rejoice, at a time when the working classes were so much distressed, which fact not one of any party denied, and when there was so much difficulty in keeping the peace of the country, and to prevent the scenes of last year being re-enacted? He knew that any such disturbances could and would be put down by the strong arm of the law; but would it not be more gratifying to be able to say that they had done justice to the poor, by restoring to them their rights, and placing them beyond the reach of temptation and want, and making them) once more happy, and contented, and peaceable subjects. But he found, that Mr. Power gave a similar account of the working of the system at West Looe:—

"The effect upon the poor-rate has been a diminution from 10s. in the pound to 3s., but the moral effect upon the poor is beyond calculation, the population being principally seafaring men, who in bad weather had no occupation, and who idled about a dead weight upon the poor-rate; but who have now occupation, and are happy, contented, and laborious. I went over the land and found it in excellent condition."

No doubt, many hon. Members bad heard of the parish of Tring, where this allotment system was first carried into effect a few years ago, when the whole parish had become insolvent, the poor-rates had broken down under the demands upon them, and rates in aid were received from neighbouring parishes, and things were still growing worse and worse. A society in London took the matter up. A quantity of land was bought at Cholesbury, and the rector of the parish, who had acted in a most praiseworthy manner, had in a letter dated November 3, 1842, thus reported the result to the Labourers' Friend Society:—

"1. The land is still divided into allotments, varying in size from two to five, and in one instance twelve acres.—2. The land is still occupied by the original tenants, with few exceptions.—3. The population of the parish has slightly decreased.—4. The estate has passed into private hands. (About 150 acres.)—5. The tenants are maintaining themselves, and their families exclusively by their allotments, and by the casual employment they obtain elsewhere.—6. The tenants pay their rent punctually—namely, 22s. per acre (inclusive of tithes). This is the full average rent of land in the neighbourhood.—7. With respect to the question, 'What was the rent of the land per acre previous to the Agricultural Employment Institution purchasing it?'—You probably have forgotten that, with the exception of about sixteen acres, the whole of the land in the parish at that period was abandoned on account of the excessive rates upon it. The last tenant of the estate, before it passed into the hands of the institution was R. D. The result of his agreement with his landlady is curious, and shows how valueless land in the parish then was. He rented thirty-five acres for 23l., and stipulated to pay all rates up to a certain amount, whilst all above, it was agreed, were to be deducted from the rent. When settling-day came, the balance was against the land-lady; her share of the rates having absorbed the whole of the rent, and extracting from her pocket some few shillings besides. The tenant had paid rates to the amount of 46l. 7s. The contrast with the state of the parish then, with what it is now, is so remarkable that I cannot refrain from laying it before you, resulting, as it does, entirely from the allotment system. In 1832, just before the Agricultural Employment Institution took the parish in hand, it was almost exclusively a parish of paupers; since that period, it has not had an able-bodied pauper belonging to it. In 1832, the land was worse than valueless, for it was a source of loss and anxiety to the proprietors; it is now largely bought up when offered for sale, and equals, if it does not exceed, in value, adjacent land in the surrounding parishes. In 1832, the poor consumed the profits of all the land in the parish; they now maintain themselves and their families, most comfortably on only a portion of that land. In 1832, the weekly expenditure of the poor, at this period of the year, averaged 5l.; it now scarcely exceeds as many shillings, if the maintenance of a lunatic in an asylum be excepted. In 1832, the poor were supported by rates in and levied on other parishes; they are now themselves contributors to the rates, to the amount of above one-eighth of the whole parochial expenditure. Lastly, for these eight years, no person resident in the parish has been convicted of any offence against the laws of the country. To this contrast of the past and present state of the parish, I beg to add another of the past and present condition of one of the allotment men. I select purposely the most remarkable case, the more fully to show what the capabilities of the allotment system are to better the condition of the agricultural poor. In 1832, G. S. was almost the only labouring man belonging to the parish who was not a pauper. He was, however, all but reduced to the state of one, whilst as to the actual amount of privation, he was a greater sufferer than most of those receiving parochial relief. Having a wife and four children dependent upon him, the institution allotted him four acres. He is now the occupier of eighteen acres; he is the owner of a cow, a pig, three horses and a colt, a waggon, two carts, a plough, harrows, &c. He ploughs the land for the other tenants, and is paid either in kind or money, as best suits the parties. He finds at all times profitable employment for his team in taking up hay and straw to the London markets, and bringing back soot and other manures for the neighbouring farmers. This last spring be purchased 20l. worth of wood, and turned it to good account by carting it to the neighbouring towns, and disposing of it there. Of the married men who received allotments only one, an old marine, had not sufficient energy to make his land answer; he has since left the parish. The reasons he assigned for his want of success were, that 'he possessed the worst land and the worst wife of any man in the parish.'"

The same reverend gentleman had addressed a letter to him that morning, in which he confirmed all that he had stated in that passage just read, but the rev. gentleman added some words to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. the Home Secretary:—

"I have at this time the charge of an adjoining parish, the population of which exceeds 600, three-fourths of whom are paupers. The parish has for years ingloriously earned the epithet of 'Wicked Wigginton.' The poor-rates are rapidly on the increase. There is a large unenclosed common in the parish of about 200 acres. I would guarantee, that in three years, if I were put into possession of this common, with the means of bringing it into cultivation, and of allotting it to the poor, there should not be half-a-dozen able-bodied paupers in the parish.' This may appear to be a presumptuous boast; but after what I have witnessed in Cholesbury, I feel that I am speaking guardedly in making the assertion. I cannot conclude without informing you that the conduct of the men generally, since they have held their allotments, has been such as to give me very great satisfaction. They are very punctual in their attendance at church, and we have been obliged to build a gallery in it for the accommodation of their children. All the allotment men, with their wives, and every child old enough to attend the Sunday school, are members of a clothing and fuel club; and as much as from 30l. to 40l. has annually been intrusted to my care, the fruits of their weekly savings."

Now, was it not the duty of the Government to take this subject into their most serious consideration? Here was an example of the beneficial effects of the system; in the course of eight years a community of persons was restored to industry, comfort, and morality, and from being distressed and discontented, made loyal and peaceful subjects, not one of them during that period ever having infringed the laws of their country. That was the character given to them by their pastor, who declared, that although there were in "Wicked Wigginton" 600 paupers, if he could have the 200 or 300 acres of waste land, he would soon reduce the pauperism, and raise that wretched place to the same happy state as Tring. There was another point to which he begged the attention of the House—the state of the cottages of the poor, which, in fact, did not deserve the name of cottages. They were wretched hovels, in which fevers were generated, and where that scourge of the human race —the cholera—which snatched away in an instant the highest as well as the lowest, played alarming havoc. Medical men had declared, that it was as much the interest as the duty of the rich to remove from the poor the causes of those diseases, which were increasing in malignancy every year. Mr. Higgins, chairman of the Bedford Union, had thus described the advantages which had arisen from an improved description of cottages in his vicinity, in his report to the Poor-law commissioners:—

"The man sees his wife and family more comfortable than formerly. He has a better cottage and garden. He is stimulated to industry, and as he rises in respectability of station, he becomes aware that he has a character to lose. Thus an important point is gained. Having acquired certain ad- vantages, he is anxious to retain and improve them; he strives more to preserve his independence, and becomes a member of benefit, medical, and clothing societies: and frequently besides this, lays up a certain sum, quarterly or half-yearly, in the savings-bank. Almost always attendant upon these advantages, we find the man sending his children to be regularly instructed on a Sunday, and where possible in a day-school, and himself and family more constant in their attendance at some place of worship on the Lord's-day. A man who comes home to a poor, comfortless hovel after his day's labour, and sees all miserable around him, has his spirits more often depressed than excited by it. He feels that, to do his best he shall be miserable still, and is too apt to fly for a temporary refuge to the alehouse or beer shop; but give him the means of making himself comfortable by his own industry, and I am convinced, by experience, that in many cases he will avail himself of it."

But it was not only the poor who would be benefited by such an arrangement as he proposed; the freeholders, he felt convinced, would speedily find all the advantages resulting from it. Why, let them take the case of flax. Between 25,000,000l. and 30,000,000l. a year was paid to foreigners for flax, oil-cake, linseed, &c. Societies, however, were now rapidly forming both in England and in Ireland for the prosecution of the flax cultivation. There was one of those societies at North Walsham, in Norfolk, and another at Belfast. The latter had succeeded beyond their most sanguine expectations. Mr. S. R. Mulholland, at the society's meeting in Belfast in November last, stated that the firm with which he was connected had sent no less than 40,000l. of ready cash annually out of the country for the purchase of flax, but that in the present year they had not spent as many pence, and he called upon the meeting "to take advantage of what God and nature had done for our soil." He had also been told, that—

"Mr. Beard, of Killalea, lately sold a parcel of flax in which there were three different qualities; the highest reached 140l., the second, 133l., and the third, 126l. per ton; and few finer samples had ever been imported into this country."

But he had still better evidence. There was no Member in the House who was not acquainted with the name and reputation of the firm of Messrs. Marshall, at Leeds, indubitably the largest flax purchasers in the kingdom. What did they say of our capabilities of producing flax? In a letter which he held in his hand they wrote as follows:—

"As we import a considerable quantity of flax yearly from Belgium and Holland for our establishments here, we are, of course, much interested in the success of any plan for increasing the quantity grown in England. We believe both the soil and climate are suitable for the plant. At one time the flax grown in the east of Yorkshire was of as good a quality as that grown in Belgium."

But he would now proceed to state how he proposed to allot the waste lands. According to his calculation, there were in the three kingdoms no less than 75,000,000 of cultivatable acres of land in a state of waste. There were also about 46,000,000 of those lands in cultivation, and 30,000,000 uncultivated. Now, he should propose, that the land at present un appropriated, should be allotted to those who had a claim upon the different parishes. Where the lands were already allotted, he did not intend that his measure should apply. He should propose, that out of every hundred acres in every parish one-twentieth, or five acres out of every hundred, should be allotted to the use of the poor. He considered, that to give them that quantity was not to give them too much, whilst it would be a downright robbery to give them Jess. He should propose, that this land should be for ever reserved to the use of the poor, and that, with that object, it should be held by trustees for their benefit, the said trustees being the rector of the parish, the lord of the manor, the churchwardens, and the overseers. By this arrangement, he should, he thought, prevent the slightest chance of jobbing: but, in order to preclude all suspicion of it, he should also propose to enact, that the trustees should be bound to make an annual report to the magistrates. He should also propose, that five acres of these lands should in every parish be laid out as a drying ground. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh, for they probably did not know the miseries of wet and tattered clothing; but he could tell them, that medical men were almost unanimous in declaring their opinion, that nothing was more detrimental to the health of the poor, than their habit of drying their clothes in their own confined dwellings. In his own part of the country, it was not uncommon for a poor man to carry his wet linen three-quarters of a mile, or even a mile, to a hedge, and having hung it out, to remain for the purpose of watching it until it was dried. Another proposal he should make, would be to allot a portion—say five acres of land—for the purposes of recreation. By this arrangement he hoped our old national and healthful sports might be revived, to the benefit, as well as the enjoyment, of the inhabitants of every vicinity. The remainder of the land he should propose to allot to the use of the poor, to be divided into lots of such size and extent as shall be deemed most useful, no man being apportioned less than a quarter of a rood. The expenses attending this allotment he should propose to be paid out of the poor-rates, but the extent of the enclosures, and consequently the outlay, in any one year, he should propose to leave for the decision of the ratepayers in public vestry assembled, and convened by public notice. He should also propose that the trustees should have the power of exchanging allotments of equal or greater value previous to their having been broken up, also of purchasing waste lands, with the consent of the rate-payers, if the extent of the original allotments to the poor should hereafter be found inadequate. With the same sanction he should also propose that the trustees might expend out of the poor-rates a sum of money not exceeding, he should say, 3d. in the pound, in anyone year, in the erection of cottages on the allotments. They should also have the power of leasing all allotments for any term not exceeding twenty-one years, the rent of the cottages to be at the fair annual rate of cottage rents within the parish. The waste lands he should propose to be let rent free for the first year, at half the value for the second year, and at a fair annual value for the third and every succeeding year. With respect to the products, he should propose, that first of all, the rents should go to remunerate the parishes for the expense of building cottages, and enclosing allotments, and that after that, the surplus should be annually paid into the poor's-rate fund—an arrangement under which he felt quite confident that in a very few years not only the poor-rates, but the county and all parochial rates, would be paid off. With respect to priority of claim, he should propose that the poor who had obtained a settlement in the parish by birth, or otherwise should have the first claim on the land originally allotted, as well as on that afterwards purchased; and with regard to these purchases, he should propose that the trustees with the consent of the rate-payers might, if they saw fit, purchase waste lands pre- viously allotted, and erect cottages thereon upon the same terms, and in the same manner as in the parishes where no allotment had taken place. The other provision of his measure would be of comparatively minor importance. With regard, however, to the difficult question of boundary, he should propose to adjust it in this manner: that owners of allotments should not be compelled to enclose them, but that any owner desiring to enclose his own might call upon the adjoining owner to erect his boundary fence, and if he refused might build it himself, and compel payment before justices of the peace. With respect to the machinery for putting the bill into operation, he should propose that for the first three years the tithe commissioners should be employed in making the allotments—their expenses during that time to be defrayed by the Government. For the second three he should propose, that their charges should be paid half by the Government and half by the owners, the portions of the expense attached to the poor's allotments to be defrayed from the poor-rate. After the completion of these six years, the expense should fall solely upon the owners. This was his scheme, and he felt convinced, that if adopted, it would give a stimulus to the people which at present they sadly and woefully required. The following case occurred in his own parish:—A man of the age of 80, applied to the board of guardians for relief. In answer to his application, the board of guardians said, "You have a son who has a cottage in Herefordshire. He must sell that, and with she proceeds of the sale he must relieve you." The son came to him. He said, that he had built the cottage out of his hard-earned savings, and before he would comply with the advice of the board of guardians and sell his cottage, he would become an alien from the country. He begged the House to listen to his appeal in behalf of the poor man. Give the poor a small allotment of land and a spade to cultivate it, and it would have the effect of diminishing the number of instates in the union workhouses. The poor man then would not be deprived of the privilege of attending at his usual place of worship. Give the poor, before they were weighed down to the dust, what they had a right to demand. He maintained it was the right of the poor—a right of which they had for centuries been plundered.

, while he feared that the working of the measure would be found impracticable, would yet counsel the Government to allow the bill to be brought in. There were great quantities of land, however, which he should like to see inclosed. There were great tracts of land in Hampshire and Surrey which he should be delighted to see cultivated by the people of the parishes in which they lay, but he had no idea of strangers coming from every part of the world to settle upon it. Between the Epsom-road and the Portsmouth-road was a tract of fine land, which was left quite uncultivated because of a quarrel between the lords of the manors. Now, he wanted to see all England cultivated. Let the hon. Gentleman bring in his bill; but did the House suppose that at this moment, when the greatest depression prevailed among the agriculturists, that bad lands would remain long in cultivation? No; they would all be thrown out of cultivation. He thought that their first care should be to keep in cultivation the land already in that condition. For this purpose let them support their agriculture—let them not be afraid of those gentlemen there [pointing to the Opposition]. He would stand by the Government as long as they stood by agriculture, and when they threw agriculture overboard he would throw them overboard. He had lately been honoured by a letter from a working-man in the manufacturing districts. The letter was dated from Cheetham. Now he did not exactly know the geographical position of Cheetham, but as he believed that it was not for from Manchester, he was sure that the hon. Member for that town very well knew the way to Cheetham. He would really recommend the Anti-Corn-law League to take for their motto, "The way to Cheetham." Well, but with respect to the letter, the writer said—

"I wish you would favour the country with some more of your speeches in the House of Commons, as home truths are not often spoken in that assembly."

And let the hon. Member for Stroud mark this—

"The people here," continued the writer, ''want work, not recreation; they have had too much of that already."

thought, that the hon. Gentleman opposite had brought forward his bill with the best intentions, but he feared that the plan would not be found practicable. He feared that this would be the case, because he gathered from what the hon. Gentleman had stated, that the land proposed to be allotted was of such a description that those who were to occupy it would be losers by attempting to bring it into cultivation. The greater part of the waste lands existing consisted of such bad soil that it would not pay the expense of tillage. And in that fact might be found the reason why these lands remained still unenclosed and unimproved. A proposition, however, to the effect that guardians and overseers should be enabled to hire good land for the purpose of letting it out to the poor would be worth the consideration of the House. Such a plan might be of use, if the allotments were made of a proper size. The allotments proposed by the hon. Gentleman would make small farms rather than gardens He should not, therefore, be disposed to have them of such extent. The hon. Member had spoken of a man who kept upon his allotment three horses, a cow, and a pig; but surely a person in such circumstances could hardly be classed as one of the working classes. In the country parish in which he was particularly interested there were a great number of what were called cow clubs. The members paid Is. a month, and when a cow belonging to one of them died, the club contributed the greater proportion of the price of another. There was hardly any exception in North Lincolnshire to the rule that all the cottagers possessed gardens and kept one or two pigs. The plan of the hon. Gentleman of making them cultivators upon a larger scale was, however, he thought hardly feasible. He would ask the hon. Gentleman how a man could work upon a farm of his own after having been working for a farmer all day, and how it was possible for him to carry manure to his land. He himself had given notice that he intended to bring in a bill for the enclosure of waste lands; but a plan such as that of the hon. Member opposite he did not anticipate would succeed, and unless the bill should be materially altered, he should be precluded from giving it his support.

The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, had recommended that the Government should allow the bill now proposed to be brought in, and he (Sir J. Graham) would follow his advice. Indeed, he should be very unwilling that the hon. Member for Knaresborough, who had bestowed so much thought and consideration upon the subject, should be subjected to such an offensive course of proceeding as would be the refusal of the Government to allow the bringing in of the bill. The hon. Member had not only stated to the House that he himself had bestowed much attention upon the preparation of his measure, but that the measure was the result of consideration given to the subject by most able and intelligent men, whose opinions were entitled to great weight, and he had also stated that he was quite satisfied, that if the House would consent to legislate in the way in which he proposed, they would add much to the happiness and comfort of the labouring portion of the community. A measure introduced with such assurances, and embracing so important a subject, ought, it appeared to him, to command the attention of the House. A motion somewhat similar had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, but in an objectionable shape. To the present motion, that objection in point of form did not, however, attach. The hon. Gentleman had truly said, that he (Sir James Graham) had expressed apprehensions that any legislative measure would be found inadequate to relieve, in a direct manner, the wants which pressed heavily upon a very large portion of the working classes. He said so with regret; but he thought that it was highly inexpedient to bold out delusive hopes to the people—hopes only tending to disappointment, and he would guard himself against being held to be a party to any encouragement of sanguine expectations which the speech of the bon. Gentleman might tend to excite. They must bear in mind, that in our present advanced and complicated state of society, with a dense population crowded within the limits of two islands, it was hardly possible but that all land capable of being profitably tilled was already enclosed, and under cultivation. If the land which the hon. Member wished to enclose and cultivate was not of such a quality as to yield a profit to the cultivator, then the scheme was, after all, one of charity—charity at the expense of the State. If the State was to contribute, and if the poor-rates were to pay the burthen, it was only a system for maintaining the poor out of the rates, in another and a new form. The hon. Gentleman had touched on the question of colonization; but he (Sir J Graham) thought it would be highly inexpedient were he to enter upon that subject on the present occasion, or {he general subject of the administration of the poor-laws, which the hon. Member had also alluded to. He would also abstain from entering into the subject of the Corn-laws; but in peculiarly addressing himself to the matter of the hon. Gentleman's motion, he must be allowed to observe that the hon. Gentleman based his plan upon an assumption which he (Sir J. Graham) conceived to be directly the opposite to fact. The hon. Member had assumed, that where population was most dense, and where want of employment was the most felt—in consequence of the great competition between the workmen—a great extent of waste lands generally existed. The hon. Member had quoted instances of parishes in Yorkshire in which this was the case, but, without disputing the accuracy of these particular cases, he would remark that, in general, the largest tracts of unclosed lands existed in districts where the population was comparatively thin. It was true, that waste lands existed to a considerable extent not far from the metropolis, but he thought that it was also true, that these tracts were distinguished for their utter sterility and incapacity for cultivation. Generally speaking, then, where large masses of population existed, no waste lands to any extent, capable of cultivation with profit, remained unenclosed. He did not know, from the plan of the hon. Gentleman, how the poor were to be conveyed from crowded localities to these waste lands; but even suppose that difficulty to be surmounted, what habitations were to be found for them? He knew not how the hon. Gentleman proposed to provide habitations for those who were to cultivate the allotments; his cost of the erection of such habitations alone would require a large outlay of capital. Practically, there fore, there appeared the greatest difficulties, not to say impossibilities, in the way of the working of the plan. Could the system be carried out, it would probably assume the aspect of the cottier system in Ireland. He entertained the greatest doubt of the practicability of this meaure; he feared that it would not answer the benevolent purpose which the hon. Member had in view; but yet he was willing to yield to the advice of the hon. Member for Sussex, and should offer no impediment to the introduction of the bill.

was anxious that the utmost facility which the House could afford should be given to the introduction of this bill. When he reflected on the state of the country, when he considered that men of all parties bore testimony to the want of employment, not only in the manufacturing, but in the agricultural districts, and when he saw before the country but three plans that could in any way better the condition of the people, he was sure that every encouragement should be given to such plans as that now submitted. The first of the schemes to which he had just alluded was a gigantic system of emigration, against which, as a means, he was the last person to say anything; but against which, as a first principle, he should protest, except it was voluntary. And not only this, but to be worth anything, it must be an emigration to countries where the emigrants should not be liable to the miserable vicissitudes to which they now often found themselves exposed, and where, if they should not have all the comforts, they should at least have the necessaries which they enjoyed in this country. The next proposition was a total evolution in our fiscal arrangements. He was not prepared to say, whether a great revolution of that kind would be attended with the consequences which its advocates expected; but even if it were demonstrably certain that a total and immediate repeal of all restrictions would be the means of employing a hundred thousand additional hands, he could not willingly assent to such a change. He did not, of course, wish to throw any impediment in the way of a gradual increase of our manufacturing power, but he must hesitate if he were asked, whether there was no other plan than a total change which could conduce to the happiness and contentment of the whole community. He could not shut his eyes to the fact, that there was an increasing conviction that some such proposal as that of the hon. Member for Knaresborough would have a beneficial effect. And when the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department expressed his doubt whether any waste land could be cultivated at a profit in England, he should refer him to a fact of which he was himself cognizant. Some noblemen took 270 acres of the worst land on the Charlwood Moor, and in two or three years, seventy acres only having been brought under cultivation, the produce paid the expense of the establishment. When he saw such effects of skill and capital, he hoped (it might be a dream) to see the country able to produce food sufficient for the support of its people. He was sure that the time had arrived when mere party politics had no longer a hold on the feelings of the people. The clamour that had been raised for a new Reform Bill, and all that sort of thing, had waned and faded away before the distress which hung over the country. He believed that the Ministry, by taking into their consideration such a plan as that proposed, and, if possible, acceding to it, would lay a more solid foundation for fame than if they dealt with abstract theories and fine spun ideas; and not only for their own fame, but for the stability of the monarchy and of our institutions.

fully agreed with the observations of the right hon. Baronet. He had seen a good deal in his time of home colonization, and watched plans propounded by humane, honest, and zealous men with that view, but they all failed, though their projectors could not be convinced of their failure. The noble Lord (Lord Manners) had asked triumphantly whether our resources in waste lands could not be employed as the portion of Charlwood Moor alluded to had been. But he ventured to say, if the noble Lord stated the capital which was expended in making this change, it would purchase a freehold property of the same amount. When the high price of land was considered, it was impossible to suppose that for the last twenty years much that might yield profit in return was left uncultivated. Then arose the question, was it expedient to cultivate in the manner proposed on charity? Individuals might be found benevolent enough to give money for such a purpose, but he greatly doubted whether parishes would submit to assessment for such a purpose. He thought a simpler plan than either home colonization or emigration would be to admit the corn of other lands. Our people should be put on the same footing with those of other countries. England was the largest market, and it onght to be the cheapest; and if a million acres were brought into cultivation elsewhere to supply us, it was the same thing as if so much was added to our territory. We must pay for this produce by our manufactures, and this must necessarily increase the employment of the people. He had no objection to have the bill brought in, for he was sure no machinery could make it effective.

There was no doubt that, amongst the middle and upper classes, the dictum of his noble Friend (Lord Manners) was correct, and that those who belonged to these sections of society had a distaste for party politics, but he greatly feared that amongst the lower orders, and those who subsisted on their labour, such a feeling was by no means prevalent. He believed there was amongst them a feeling of discontent which was growing daily. He believed the only remedy for this state of things was practical measures, which ought to be undertaken by a responsible Government; and if the condition of the people was not made better, he asked any man of the least reflection who considered what had taken place in our own time, and the time before it, and who was capable of inferring what might be the consequence, whether it was altogether certain that any confidential understanding of Lord Grey's Cabinet) which was now dissolved, and the Members of which were scattered on either side) could stop the demand for some further organic change? He thought the present proposal was entitled to be numbered in the category of practical measures; for he had the testimony of Mr. M'Gregor that such establishments had flourished in Holland, and that it was not unlikely they would succeed here. Though this was a step in a right direction, he still thought that it would be very ineffectual in relieving the wants of the community, compared to the adoption of the principle of cutting away the ligatures which tied down our trade and commerce. That principle was so strong, that it would ultimately sweep away all impediments. He was told that low profits were a sign of vigour, inasmuch as capital was expended over a larger field; but it must be borne in mind, that every improvement in our manufactures pushed a number out of employment. It was said, "Stop machinery." They might as well attempt to stop the satellites of Jupiter. But the serious question was, what could be done with these poor people? He did not want to deal with any topic by way of popular excitement; but he did think that freedom of trade would be the best means of ensuring employment. He thought it was the duty of the Government to support this measure, or some measure of an analogous character. There might be some of the details of the hon. Member's bill, to which he could not give his sanction, but he approved of its principle, and, therefore, would vote for its introduction. He entreated the House to allow the bill to he brought in. The people looked anxiously, and sometimes sorrowfully at what took place in that House, and it was unfortunate that they had cause to regret that hon. Members did not more frequently stand up in their places and express their sympathy for the sufferings and privations they endured.

believed that the abolition of the Corn-laws would be more beneficial to the people than any measure such as that now proposed. He had received communications from poor persons in many districts, expressing their apprehension that the hon. Member's bill, though introduced professedly for the benefit of the poor, was intended covertly to advance the interests of the rich. Nevertheless, he would not oppose the introduction of the measure, but would wait to see whether the machinery of the bill was calculated to carry out the object which the hon. Member had in view.

said, that although the hon. Member for Salford seemed to think that the proposed measure was intended for the advantage of the rich, he was satisfied that it would be for the benefit of the poor, and on that ground he would support it.

remarked, that whilst the hon. Member for Knaresborough told the House that those who opposed the bill would be considered the enemies of the people, the hon. Member for Salford had stated sufficient to show that those who supported it would run the risk of being thought the favourers of the rich. For his own part, he had his misgivings with respect to the measure, and thought it was one which ought to be watched with great jealousy. He would not object to the introduction of the bill, because he was anxious that every proposition which was brought forward with the view of alleviating the sufferings of the people should receive calm and impartial consideration. At the same time, he entirely concurred in the observation of the right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, that the House should be cautious not to take any course calculated to excite hopes and expectations which it might be found impossible to realise. There was one measure which would, he thought, exercise a most beneficial influence upon the population of this country, namely, a system of voluntary emigration upon a large scale, under the supervision of the Government.

thought the repeal of the Corn-laws would not, alone, be a panacea for the distresses of the people. It was necessary to diminish the mass of the population depending for subsistence upon the hire of their labour, and the only way to do that was to place them upon the land. He anticipated much good from the hon. Member's bill.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal and abolish all the oaths now taken by Members of Parliament on taking their seats, except the oath of allegiance. It was his original intention to have included that oath also, but in consequence of a communication made to him by a distinguished Member of the late administration, a noble Lord, whose capacity and experience entitled him to the highest respect, he (Sir V. Blake) was induced to except the oath of allegiance, and to substitute it for the other oaths, which he proposed to abolish, and that it might be taken by all Members without religious distinction. He said, an hon. Member who had recently taken the oaths at the right hand side of the table, had told him that he did not in the least understand or recollect the nature or import of all that he had sworn. He (Sir V. Blake) was not in the least surprised at that acknowledgment, for he would undertake to show before he sat down, that even the right hon. and learned Baronet, the Member for Oxford, and he might add the Members of her Majesty's Government, and Members too, of the legal profession, were not aware of the existence of a statutable provision, which expressly enjoined that those oaths should be taken in a particular sense, which was at total variance with the truth, as he (Sir V. Blake) would explain. Believing that the objectionable contents of those oaths were very little known, and as they formed the basis of his motion, he would, with the permission of the House, move that they should be read by the clerk.

resumed. Although he was urged on to advocate a principle, which in his humble judgment was calculated more than any other, to uphold and maintain the character, dignity, and influence of Parliament, he was not in the least unconscious of the great disadvantage under which the subject would be brought forward, in consequence of his want of ability, and incapacity to do it anything like justice. He was, however, encouraged to proceed, because he did not deal in metaphor, but in facts, which would be seen to be at once startling and incontrovertible, and if he could only succeed in communicating his own impressions intelligibly, he trusted the House would accede to his request to be permitted to introduce the bill which he held in his hand without the aid of Parliamentary eloquence or declamation. It was not his intention at that late hour to enter into the history of the origin of oaths, further than to remind the House that they were of Pagan parentage, but even the Pagan practice was less objectionable than the Christian practice, because no oaths were taken during the Pagan era, that were not taken with the view to the administration of public justice in the courts of law. Judicial oaths were a relict of the uncivilized times of the ploughshare and wager of battle ordeals, and it was against these oaths that the mandate in the sacred volume would seem to be specially directed, where it is said, "Swear not at all"—and again, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that take the his name in vain." It was necessary for him also to remind the House that the oath of supremacy was but a portion of the first Act of Parliament, which was entitled an act to prevent Papists from sitting and voting in Parliament—at the time of passing this act, there was a legal extinguishment of the Roman Catholic religion in England, and those who professed that religion were obliged to do so by stealth. It might therefore be not untrue then to State, that no foreign prelate had any power spiritual or ecclesiastical within these realms, but now that Roman Catholics were admissible to Parliament, that the religion itself was tolerated, and its Ministers in the celebration of Divine worship were protected by law, was it not monstrous to continue the oath under the present circumstances, and the more especially when it is considered that under, and by virtue of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, section 9, a concurrent power is given to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, with the power of the Crown, to create vacancies in the representation of the people in that House, for if the Crown could create such vacancies by an appointment to office, so could the Holy Father by the exercise of his right of ordination of any hon. Member create a like vacancy—nay, more he would show, that his holiness possessed a power even in the Protestant Church, which power was greater than that possessed by the head of the Protestant Church itself, as it was competent to any Roman Catholic clergyman, by conforming to the Protestant Church, to hold the same rank in which he obtained his ordination without any ordination in the Protestant establishment. Now the words "ought to have" in the oath of supremacy were unobjectionable with Protestants, because the phrase implied merely a matter of opinion. But the words "hath not any power ecclesiastical or spiritual," amounted to an allegation of an express fact which no man after due deliberation could make upon oath. And he knew it was the want of this deliberation that prolonged the existence of the oath, verifying the observation of Mr. Lock, where he observes, that there are a multitude of upright, pious, honourable, and even intelligent men, who continue to do things that are very wrong, because they have been done by others, and thus consider themselves absolved from the necessity and trouble of enquiry. Men who had hitherto taken this oath under these circumstances could not be said to be so culpable, as if they had full notice of the enormity they were about to commit, but they could no longer plead ignorance on this point, they could no longer claim immunity from punishment or expect that the Son of God would say, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Then again, as to the oath of Abjuration, ought they not to be laughed at by all civilised nations for continuing the absurd, and ridiculous form of avowing that they had no disposition to displace the beloved Queen, that reigned in the hearts of her devoted subjects, for the purpose of substituting the unearthly prospects of James 2nd, for on earth there did not exist any of that class, and as to the Roman Catholic oath, surely at the present advanced period of civilization, it was uncharitable and unbenevolent, and therefore unchristian like, to continue the absurd imputation which is conveyed by requiring Roman Catholics as a qualification to sit in that House, to disavow that they believed it would be meritorious and proper for them to imbrue their hands in the blood of their beloved Sovereign, if so ordered by the Pope, while at the same time it was a terror arising from the notorious existence of a spiritual power in his holiness, that dictated, the objectionable paragraph of the Roman Catholic oath, to which he alluded; this in itself was sufficient to demonstrate that it was not true to allege on oath, that no spiritual or ecclesiastical power was exercised by any foreign prelate within these realms. It was curious also that the Roman Catholic oath should be so framed as not to be objectionable to Protestants, many of whom he believed committed the pious fraud of professing that they were Roman Catholics for the special occasion, rather than commit wilful and corrupt perjury, by taking the oath of supremacy, with a full knowledge of its import, so we have now the extraordinary discouragement to Protestantism, arising from the construction of the oaths, by which it may be so said, that the Roman Catholic Relief Bill is a bill to promote the growth of Popery, as it afforded the opportunity to avoid the taking of the oath of supremacy. He was now done with the religious portion of the argument, and would beg next to call their attention to the provisions of the act of the 5th of Anne, being the act of Union with Scotland, by which it is enacted that the Members of Parliament for Great Britain should take the oath to which he had alluded, upon the penalties and disabilities thereby enacted, and then this act proceeds in the following words:—

"And it is declared that these words, this realm, the Crown of this realm, and the Queen of this realm, mentioned in the oath and declaration aforesaid, shall be understood of the Crown and realm of Great Britain, and in that sense here, said oath and declaration shall be taken and subscribed."

Then followed the act of Union with Ireland, which statute merely declared that the Members of the Lords and Commons of the United Kingdom should take the oath, and make and subscribe the declaration now by law required to be taken by the Parliament of Great Britain. There was no extension to Ireland of penalties imposed at the time of the Union with Scotland, for omitting to take oaths; neither was there any extension of the sense in which the oaths were to be taken, so as to make them referable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; therefore, the same oaths to which a particular sense was given by Act of Parliament, making the oath applicable to Great Britain only, could not be taken in the same sense which would extend them to Great Britain and Ireland; so that in point of fact, every Member now taking these oaths, was made to swear that there was no Union with Ireland—and that the Kingdom of Great Britain was still in existence. He apologised for having detained the House so long, but he was approaching to a conclusion. He would say, that the agency of steam added to our previous resources—our progress in national acquisitions and influence was so rapid and extended, that England exhibited an accumulation of power that left at an immeasurable distance the widest empire of ancient and modern times—that in proportion to our growth in this way, the business of Parliament was overwhelmingly increased and onerous; so that even the acquisition of the three or four days spent at every new Parliament in taking oaths, would be a vast advantage to the public. Then again, it was notorious, that at the close of each successive Session, the men of business of the House, who were constant in their attendance, were obviously exhausted and debilitated, and were scarcely sufficiently renovated in the country to resume their labours at the opening. Many eminent men have lost their lives by their assiduity, and there could be no doubt but that the effect upon all would be to shorten the duration of human life, it was therefore the interest of all to adopt some new system of transacting the business of Parliament, that thereby the duties of the chair might continue to be performed by its present occupant with an ability, courtesy, diligence and knowledge of the law, and usage of Parliament which was never surpassed, and which might probably be never again united in the person of any one individual, without shortening the duration of a life, which is so highly valued by all who enjoy the superior advantage of being permitted to approach him, either officially or otherwise. With these observations, thanking the House for their kind indulgence, he would beg leave to move for leave to bring in the bill of which he had given notice.

hoped the hon. Baronet would not think him wanting in courtesy if he felt it his duty to oppose the motion for leave to bring in this bill. He could not for a moment believe that any person, while taking the oath of supremacy, really felt that he was committing any violation to his conscience. He was aware, certainly, that a strange construction might be put upon the oath, but that construction was not strictly consonant with fact. When the oath was framed, that no foreign prince, potentate, or prelate exercised any power or jurisdiction in this realm, reference was made to a state of things that had formerly existed, but which had ceased to exist. The sense, he thought, in which the oath was taken was this—that matters, not formerly under royal control had, and ought to be placed under the control of the Crown. The hon. Baronet was also anxious to repeal the oath at present taken by the Roman Catholic Members of that House. That oath had been prescribed by the act of Catholic emancipation, and he (Sir J. Graham) must repeat that the attainment of that great settlement had been attended by great difficulties. The oath was framed by some of the greatest and ablest men then in Parliament, and he thought it would be very inexpedient now to do anything calculated to disturb that settlement. He thought it would, therefore, be impolitic and inexpedient to allow this bill to be brought in, and, therefore, without intending the slightest discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, he felt it his duty to withhold his consent from the motion.

, looked upon every oath as a solemn imprecation, and it was a serious thing for a man to take any oath when the injunction was borne in mind by which it had been commanded to them, "Swear not at all." He thought that injunction alone ought to be received as a reason why they should endeavour on every occasion to get rid of every oath which it was possible to dispense with. He was aware that the expression, "So help me God" had been explained to mean a prayer that God might help the individual who took an oath to keep it; but that was not the sense in which the words were usually understood, and the words which Shakspeare put into the mouth of Hamlet—

"This do ye swear,—

"So grace and mercy at your most need help you"—

showed that Shakspeare used the words in the usual sense. He (Mr. Ross) should feel no hesitation in giving his support to the motion before the House.

said, it was impossible he could give his concurrence to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. In 1829 he had concluded, in concert with the Government of that day, the arduous task—a task rendered still more arduous by the position in which he then stood—of bringing to a satisfactory settlement the long agitated question of the removal of the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics. It was well known that the greatest objections to that measure were entertained by a large body of the Protestants of the empire. The Roman Catholics professed a readiness to give every security which the Protestants could require; they disclaimed every intention to subvert the existing settlement of property and establishments in Church and State. They declared that they never would exercise any privilege to which they might become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant Government and religion. These declarations, spontaneously offered on their part, were embodied in an oath which they were required to take. The oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration were appointed to be taken by all Protestants, or declarations to the same effect by those who objected to oaths. The Relief Bill required a particular oath to be taken by Roman Catholics, which was so framed as to contain nothing offensive to their feelings. If this were the age of common sense, and if that was to prevail, he hoped the House would not wish to break in on the principles of the settlement made in 1829, on the faith of the adherence to which many persons, opposed to the Roman Catholic claims, consented to give up their opposition. Balancing, on the one hand, the advantages promised from the removal of the oaths, with the risk, on the other hand, of inflaming religious discord if it were found that the principles of the settlement of 1829 were to be laid aside, he thought that there was ample reason to induce the House to decline the concession they were now asked to make. The hon. Gentleman said there was a religious objection to oaths, and appealed to the scriptural doctrine, swear not at all; and yet the hon. Gentleman himself proposed to retain the oath of allegiance, though it was contrary to his principles to take any oath whatever. The hon. Gentleman said, those who took the oath of supremacy were perjured. That very oath had been the subject of consideration for 150 years, and the most eminent men of the Protestant Church had felt that they could, with perfect safety to their consciences, take that oath, and deny that there was any ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction to which her Majesty's subjects were bound to conform, possessing any co-active or obligatory force. In 1829, this subject was discussed in the presence of men of the greatest wisdom, acuteness, and information; it had been previously discussed in 1813, when Mr. Grattan brought forward his bill to repeal the oath of supremacy, and in 1825, Mr. Canning never proposed to relinquish the ancient oath of supremacy. Questions were then urged in the same spirit of refined acuteness as the hon. Gentleman had displayed on the present occasion. Attempts were made to show that you could not take the oath of supremacy, or refuse to admit all spiritual jurisdiction on the part of the Pope, so long as a Roman Catholic bishop remained within this realm; but he (Sir R. Peel) had then maintained, and it was impossible to contest the truth of the statement, that there was no coactive jurisdiction—although, at this moment, if a Roman Catholic bishop were to conform to the Protestant Church, he would hold the rank of bishop. That had been so for a century past. It was rather too much that the hon. Gentleman should come from the recesses of Galway, and pronounce all who had taken the oath denying the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, during 150 years past, to be perjured. The oath of abjuration was declared by the hon. Gentleman to be absurd. By that oath the Queen was acknowledged to be lawful Sovereign of this realm, and the person taking it promised faithful and true allegiance, and bound himself to make known all plots and conspiracies against the Crown which might come to his knowledge. There was also a clause by which the person engaged to maintain, support, and defend the succession to the Crown as settled at the Revolution. The hon. Gentleman was relieved from any conscientious scruple he might have as to oaths—he Was a Separatist, and was allowed to make a declaration. He hoped the House would not lightly depart from the principles so long established on this subject. If they receeded from the arrangement made in 1829, he did not think they would increase the feeling of security as to the permanence of that settlement entertained by the community.

thought the motion was founded on a misapprehension of the oaths. It did not appear to him that either of the oaths to which the motion referred could possibly be dispensed with; but, in saying so, he would not enter on the general question as to the expediency of oaths. Assuming that, for the purpose of securing the safety of a state, oaths might be imposed, he thought the present oaths did not bear the construction which the hon. Gentle man had put on them. It was thought necessary to bind the consciences of persons, for that purpose their religious persuasion must be ascertained; there was one oath for Protestants, and another for Roman Catholics. The oath of supremacy was the oath by which Protestants were distinguished from Roman Catholics; the oath of abjuration recognised the independent authority of the present Royal Family, as established by law, and bound the subject not only not to be a party to any conspiracy against the Crown, but faithfully to reveal any that came to his knowledge. That oath, therefore, was directed to an object of great national importance.

in reply, said he did not impute the least degree of discourtesy to the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department, for opposing his motion; but he thought the reason given for doing so was very insufficient—namely, that he had already consented to the bringing in of another bill by another hon. Member. He had no arguments, properly speaking, to reply to, for none were used in opposition to his motion. He was proud to say, that his objection to the oath of supremacy was the result of an hereditary feeling; his ancestor and namesake was the first man who was expelled from the House of Commons, for having refused to take that oath; and it was a singular coincidence that after the lapse of two centuries, Providence should have so ordained it as to enable the descendant of that man to be instrumental in the abolition of this oath. The right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, objected that because the oath of supremacy was taken for 150 years, it was not now objectionable—but when it was enacted, and down to 1829, the law repudiated and disavowed the existence of the Roman Catholic religion in England; but now it was avowed openly and tolerated, and protected by law—the allegations of the oath were true till the Emancipation Act—the Act of 29 was improperly described as a bill for the relief of her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; it ought to be described as also for the relief of her Protestant subjects—for the principle I contend for is to be found in that bill, where it abolishes the infamous declaration of 30, Chas. 2nd. He thanked the right hon. Baronet for assisting to illustrate the position that the Pope could ordain a Protestant bishop. What more convincing evidence of the fact that he has spiritual and ecclesiastical power in this kingdom? The force of numbers, and not of argument, would overwhelm him but it was a good cause, and he would never abandon it.

said, he must divide the House, as he thought they ought to have a discussion before they even assented to the introduction of the bill.

advised the hon. Member for Lewes not to attempt to bring it in without a discussion.

thought the hon. Member should not bring in a bill of this importance, at so late an hour, without making a statement.

said, the bill had been recommended in the report of the ecclesiastical commissions of 1832, as well as in the report of the committee on the Admiralty Court. His object in thus asking leave was, that the House might have fair time to consider all the provisions of the bill. If his motion were agreed to, he should not think that any hon. Member was pledged to those provisions.

would have had no objection to the bill as he had originally understood it, but as he now found it, he thought that it was not in accordance with the reports of the ecclesiastical commissioners. He suggested the withdrawal of the motion.

declared himself in favour of the Ayes.