had a question, of which he had last night given notice, to ask of the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Railway Companies who had, and those who had not, complied with that enactment of the Railway Act passed last Session, which provided for the efficient shelter from the weather of third-class passengers. He saw the right hon. Gentleman, late the President of the Board of Trade, opposite Perhaps, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question. He would rather have the information from his mouth than from an official return.

(who spoke from one of the front Benches, half way between the Treasury Bench and the Bar) replied, that as the question applied to a provision of law which took effect some months ago, he could have no difficulty in answering it. The Railway Companies which came within the provisions of the Act of last Session, with reference to third-class trains at 1d. a mile, comprising nearly all the Railway Companies in the country, had nearly all complied with the provision of the Act in question. The complaints on the subject had been exceedingly few, and he believed that the public were, in general, satisfied with the manner in which the Companies had met the enactment of the law. Indeed, the Railway Companies, he was bound to say, had made every effort to meet the wishes of Parliament, and fulfil the provisions of the Act. He need not trouble the House by reciting the names of the Companies who had complied, as they comprised almost all the Railways in the country. The Board of Trade had not thought it necessary to insist upon the adoption of any one particular model for the carriages to form these cheap trains, but they did require that in all cases the enactments of the law should be complied with as to seats, and likewise that real and effective protection from the weather should be supplied, such protection being understood to be afforded when the carriages were capable of being entirely closed, without preventing the admission of light and air. The House would be glad to hear that the purpose which it had in view, in passing the enactment in question, had been fully attained, and a great accommodation had been afforded to persons of the humbler classes, when formerly the accommodation they could command was very limited. He held in his hand the report of a meeting of the Grand Junction Railway Company, and he found the chairman, in his speech, observing that he felt gratified in being enabled to state that the Government measure of last Session as to cheap trains at 1d. per mile had, upon the Grand junction line, without materially injuring the receipts, been the means of conveying 2,500 persons per week of those classes who could not afford to pay the fates formerly charged. On the London and Birmingham Railway, also, within the last quarter, since the cheap trains had commenced running, they had carried 48,395 persons, making a probable average of 193,000 persons per year. The number of third-class passengers formerly carried, averaging no more than 65,000 per annum, thus showing that the number had been nearly trebled.—Subject at an end.

moved the usual Sessional Orders.

observed that he had this time last year called the attention of the House to the strange and anomalous stale of the Sessional Orders. One of them stated that

"No Peer of this realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall, for the time being, be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the election of any Member to serve in Parliament."

Now he wanted to know what there was in the statute law to exclude a Peer from voting for the election of a Member of Parliament? In fact, a large portion of the Members of this House were elected by direct influence of Peers of the realm, in direct contravention of this Order. How could they enforce this Standing Order? What was their power? What were their means of enforcing it? They had no such power—no such means. What, then, was the use of keeping up these mere show regulations, which every body knew had no force in reality? It would be better to deal plainly and honestly with the country, and say nothing at all in their Standing Orders about the power of Peers to vote, only proceeding against them like other individuals if they were found guilty of irregular practices at elections. He hoped that the Government would take the subject into consideration, and make the Sessional Orders more in accordance with the real position of the House.

did not think the "Government," as a Government, more interested in the matter than any individual Member of the House. The privileges of the House were the privileges of the whole body of the people, as represented in the House. They possessed by Act of Parliament tribunals for deciding upon their rights as Members of the House, and as such they had—sitting in these tribunals — the right of declaring whether any person, whose name appeared upon the poll books of an election, was really qualified to vote or not, and they had by virtue of these privileges decided that the votes of Peers for Members of Parliament were not to be admitted. The hon. Gentleman had stated that this was contrary to the law of the land. He was no lawyer himself, but he did deny, or at all events he entertained most grave doubts of the validity of the hon. Gentleman's doctrine. This House was the judge of its own privileges, and must act according to its own resolutions and determinations; and, independently of that, he would take upon himself to affirm that if a Peer had a right to vote at the election of a Member of Parliament, the House of Commons possessed the right to reject that vote, should it see fit. He saw no use for making the suggested alteration in the Sessional Orders. They maintained that it was light to exempt Members being returned from the influence of Peers and persons in authority, and the Sessional Order to this effect was one which he should be sorry to see subjected to alteration.

said, that he should renew the notice which he had given last Session—and as certainly take the sense of the House upon it—he meant his notice of moving for a Select Committee to inquire whether in any county or borough in England having a right to send Members to the House of Commons, such Members were returned through the illegal and unconstitutional interference of Peers. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he would be sorry if any alteration were made in this Resolution. Therefore, nothing would of course horrify him more than the idea of any Peer violating the Resolution. Why, he knew well that there was not a single county Member, and very few borough Members, either behind him or before him, who did not, previously to their election, consult some Peer or other to obtain the influence of that Peer, and did not, either by letter or personal application, almost by supplication on their bended knees, entreat him to concern himself in their election. Nay, he was ready to say, that as to some of the vacancies which had recently taken place in this House, that Peers had been consulted and requested to concern themselves in the election of Members previous to their acceptance, on the part of the then Member, of office. Ay, and if one of these Peers had not given his consent to the re-election of one of these individuals, he ventured to say, that we should now be deprived of the services of a Secretary for Ireland. But knowing all this, in spite of all this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up in his place, and with a solemn face, and still more solemn voice, expressed his wish and hope that no alteration in this Resolution should take place. He would test the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity, for when he moved for his Committee, he would prove to the House, that (as he said before) scarcely one county Member, and very few borough Members sat in it, in whose election Peers had not concerned themselves. How the right hon. Gentleman could say what he had said, and yet manage to preserve his gravity, was to him utterly inconceivable. Why, if these Resolutions were to be put in force, he would venture to say, that they would bring the House in contact with three-fourths of the Peers and two-thirds of the bishops. What a mockery to pass these Resolutions—what an insult to the common sense of the country, for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and make such a grave speech. He thought the time had come when these Resolutions should either be acted up to or abolished. This was a matter which had been discussed before, and he had voted for these Resolutions being expunged and against repeating such farces. So far as he was concerned, he would rather that Peers did vote for Members of Parliament—that they did appear upon the hustings. The more they came in contact with the people the better. It would do away with many of the prejudices which they laboured under at present. They would find humble mechanics now unjustly deprived of votes — possessing equal ability and more love of country than themselves; and they would find men, too, who would not wish or care about gaining seats in this House in order to obtain some dirty star or garter, or for the paltry purpose of securing a peerage, or the still more paltry one of procuring a baronetcy. He should have great pleasure in expunging the Resolution altogether; but if they adopted it, let not him or others be blamed for holding up to public indignation those Peers and prelates who concerned themselves in elections contrary to the Resolution of that House.

had often appealed to that House not to stultify itself. He agreed with his hon. Friend that artisans would never allow such a Resolution to disgrace the proceedings of their meetings. It was said the Minister had no more power to decide this question than any Member; but the Minister acted as fugleman to fifty Members behind him. The distinction as to Peers should be kept up in strictness, or at once abandoned.

said, he believed he was at liberty to state, that the Amendment he was about to propose to the Order relative to the Admission of Strangers, was sanctioned by the Speaker. When he moved a similar Amendment last Session, his proposed alteration was resisted by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, because from its wording it had reference to other parts of the House than the body of the House. His present Amendment, however, had been drawn up in strict accordance with the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and it fully met with the concurrence, as he had previously stated, of the Speaker. Under these circumstances it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the House, and he would simply move the following:—

"That the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House do, from time to time, take into his custody any Stranger whom he may see, or who may be reported to him to be, in any part of the House or Gallery appropriated to the Members of this House, and also any Stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or Gallery, shall misconduct himself, or shall not withdraw when Strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House or any Committee of the whole House is sitting, and that no person so taken into custody be discharged out of custody without the Special Order of the House. That no Member of this House do presume to bring any Stranger into any part of the House or Gallery appropriated to the Members of this House while the House or a Committee of the whole House is sitting. That the above Resolutions be Standing Orders."

wished to put a question to the Speaker, bearing upon the exclusion of strangers. Hitherto it had only been necessary for an hon. Member to observe that strangers were present, and the Speaker immediately requested their withdrawal, without the question being put, as in other instances, to the Vote of the House. Now he wished to be informed whether, looking at the construction of one of the Sessional Orders, it was not necessary that the question should be decided by a majority, and not absolutely by an individual Member. Ought not a debate and a division to take place on the question?

said, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman consulted him about the Amendment, he told him there could be no objection to it, as it made the Resolution more in conformity with the practice of the House. With respect to the question of the hon. Baronet, the right which was referred to, and possessed by individual Members, of having the Gallery cleared upon mentioning that strangers were present, did not depend upon the Sessional Orders. It was an inherent right arising out of the ancient usage and practice of the House, and analogous to the right also enjoyed by Members of calling the attention of the Chair to the absence of forty Members, upon which the Speaker is required to see whether that number of Members are present, and if such is not the case, to adjourn the House.

begged to call the attention of the House, especially of those Members belonging to the Committees of Selection, to the waste of time and money which the present arrangements of Private Committees involved. He mentioned last Session that, in the instance of one Railway Bill, the expense had reached the enormous amount of 100,000l. He trusted the present Session would not pass without some effectual arrangement being made on the subject. He was far from impeaching the conduct of Members on those Committees, who bestowed the greatest pains and labour in endeavouring to keep them in a serviceable condition; but they had it not in their power to do that which they so much desired. Last Session he called the attention of the House to two Private Bills, which were introduced in March, and not passed until August. He thought it would be wise of the House to come to some arrangement by which it should be directed, that Private Bills should remain but a certain time in the House. He was convinced that it would be greatly for the convenience of Members if counsel were excluded from these Committees, and the examination of witnesses carried on by the Parliamentary agents. He thought also that fees should be given up. If encouraged by hon. Members, he would move for a Committee to inquire first, whether fees could not be abolished, and next, whether the dilatory proceedings of such Committees cannot be shortened.

begged to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet. He had endeavoured on all occasions, whilst performing his duties as a Member of that House, to act free from bias, and independently of his interests. The House would remember that in the course of last Session the usual mode of proceeding with respect to Railway Bills had been superseded by the appointment of a Select Committee, formed of Members not interested in the competing lines. The utility of this proceeding had been fully established by the Parliamentary agents interested in the Bills. He hoped the Government was prepared to take up this subject, and he wished to know from the right hon. Baronet whether he was disposed to relieve him from the responsibility of bringing forward the Motion relative to it of which he had given notice, as, if not, he should feel it to be his duty to proceed with it.

was not prepared to relieve the hon. Member from the duty which he had imposed upon himself; it was very difficult to determine what was the extent of the indirect interest of constituencies in Railway Bills, and he should be exceedingly sorry to see the disqualification now enforced on Members with respect to local interests extended to this class of Parliamentary business. He was not prepared to make any announcement on the subject. His private opinion on the question was already known, but he must abstain from expressing any public opinion on the matter, as the Motion of the hon. Member for the following day would afford an opportunity for discussion. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Greenock, it must be obvious how great the difficulty was of controlling counsel in the length or duration of their addresses before Parliamentary Committees. The practice certainly very greatly enhanced the expenses attendant on the private Bills thus argued, if they did not, indeed, chiefly arise from that source. Upwards of 75,000l. had been expended in carrying a Railway Bill through the Committee after the Second Reading, when it failed; the Bill in question was the Rugby and Stafford; his advice on the subject, which was to pass the Bill, had not been taken; it was the intention, he believed, of the parties to bring it again before the House.

said: I certainly have had it in my intention to bring forward a proposition with a view to enlarge the time for receiving Petitions on Private Bills, more especially with respect to Railway Bills; and the ground on which this suggestion is justifiable in my apprehension is the extreme inconvenience and the great injustice which will be suffered, and which has been already entailed upon parties to railway projects, by submitting all such schemes to the preliminary ordeal of an examination and a judgment on the part of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade. The House is aware that a great many decisions upon projected lines have been already pronounced by the Railway Committee, and that some of their decisions are still unknown. But, with respect to those lines which are already judged upon, and the decisions made public, I must observe, that the House and the public are left in complete ignorance of the grounds upon which the officers of the Board of Trade have pronounced their decisions. It would, therefore, be manifestly unjust to call upon those parties whose intended lines have been rejected by the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade, to decide at once whether or not they will abandon their projects; and it is for that most obvious reason I am desirous of enlarging the time for the presentation of their Petitions to this House. If we proceed at once to adopt the Resolution which is before the House, we must of necessity compel those parties whose projects have not met with the sanction, and consequently will not have the recommendation of the Board of Trade, to incur in their present state of ignorance as to the grounds of the decision that has been pronounced, all the preliminary steps which compliance with the Standing Order would impose, and consequently subject them to the heavy expenses attendant thereon, such as printing, soliciting, and preparing the Bill and Petition; or else we shall, on the other hand, put them out of every possibility of appearing at all, by abandoning their Petition. It is not competent for the parties who are thus situated to come to either of these decisions at present; for if the reasons which have guided the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade in coining to their determination are found, when they are known, to be good and sufficient, and felt to be so by those whose projects are thus adversely regarded, those parties will at once deem their rejection justified, and will not throw any more money away upon their schemes. But it may also happen that neither the decisions to which refer, nor the reasons upon which they are grounded, will be satisfactory or conclusive to those whose projected lines are thus rejected; and they may, therefore, feel themselves justified, before they abandon their Bill, to call upon the House to reconsider the subject, with express regard to the Report of the Railway Board itself. I urge this consideration upon the attention of hon. Members, because I presume that neither the House nor the Government intend it to be understood that the decision of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade is to be final. I have looked upon the subject in this point of view, and I have so treated it in my argument, because I find it laid down in one of the Reports which were presented to Parliament in the course of last Session from the Railway Committee (the fifth Report I believe), that this Committee of the Board of Trade is not to be constituted an authority to decide, but merely one to investigate the various elements upon which the projected lines submitted to them are based, to report upon those subjects, and to afford thereby some guidance to Parliament in forming its decisions upon these most important matters. Such is the substance of the recommendation which was made by the Committee on Railways in the Report to which I have referred; and the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade, in bringing the subject forward, and in suggesting to the House the expediency of adopting that recommendation, did so, expressly declaring at the same time that it was not done with a view to clothe the officers of the Board of Trade with any authority in the matter, but simply an order that their previous examinations of these various projects might afford some aid to the House in arriving at a just and proper decision respecting them. In coming to a determination upon these matters, we agreed, during the last Session, to refer the Report of the railway officers of the Board of Trade on any railway project to the Committee on the Bill. What could have been the view of the House in coming to this arrangement last year, but that which I have just pointed out? I trust and hope that view will not be lost sight of, and that the Report of the Board of Trade will be simply regarded in the light of an elucidation I of, and not a decision upon, the question. But, from what I see going on out of doors, I must confess I argue that there is a degree of authority attributed to the decisions of the Board of Trade, to which I deem it necessary to call the attention of the Mouse. No; man in this House is mote alive than my self to the imperative necessity that exists for introducing some change into our system of legislation respecting Private Bills. A reform in that branch of Parliamentary proceedings is, in my opinion, most loudly called for. I therefore highly approved of the Resolutions which were brought forward during the last Session respecting railways, and which were adopted at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who then held the office of President of the Board of Trade. I think, likewise, that the preliminary examination before a Committee of that Board of a railway scheme, is a proceeding calculated to afford most valuable assistance to the House in cases where large and conflicting interests are involved. If, therefore, this preliminary proceeding be confined to the simple offer of advice and information, the Railway Commitee of the Board of Trade will, I believe, be found a most valuable assistance to the House. But if, instead of being regarded in the light of advice and information, the Report of that Committee is to be accepted as an authority, and its decisions upon the various lines examined by its members are to be held to be conclusive as to the rejection or the inadmissibility of a Railway Bill—then I say, that this is a most enormous power, and one which the Board of Trade is not the fitting or appropriate tribunal to wield. Is the House, let me ask, aware of the vast amount of the interests which are involved in these various conflicting projects? Let me give one instance in order to show the extent to which they have gone. There is one scheme, the London and York line, which has 60,000 shares. Those who deal in these speculations have made bargains at 20l. premium for each share, conditionally that the Board of Trade favours the line—that is to say, if the Report of the Committee of that Board is conclusive in favour of the particular railway in question, that circumstance alone will add 20l. to the value of each of the 60,000 shares, by which means the determination come to by the officers of an inferior department of the Government will have the effect of transferring at once the sum of 1,200,000l. from the pockets of one part of the community to those of another. The decision of the Railway Board will either give that additional value to those shares, or it will reduce their value to less than nothing. Now, is a power so enormous as this to be granted in such a manner? I do not wish it to be supposed that I find any fault or have any reason to blame those who exercise this power for the manner in which they perform their duties; but, regarding it as a tribunal for the consideration of subjects involving so large an amount, and such a variety of conflicting interests, I say that this is not a power to be thus confided. I have shown the House one case wherein the sum of 1,200,000l. depends upon the fiat of the Railway Board, but this is only a single instance out of numerous others involving equally magnitudinous interests; and if the decisions of that Board are to be regarded as authoritative, its Members will have disposed of millions, in comparison with which the sums adjudicated upon by the Lord Chancellor and the other judicial authorities in Westminster Hall are totally insignificant. Now, I ask again, is a body of officers constituted in such a manner as the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade, competent or warranted to assume such high and responsible functions? How has that Board been formed? The noble Vice-President of the Board of Trade is its chief; and to assist him there are four Gentlemen, not one of whom scarcely ranks higher than a chief clerk of a department; one of these Gentlemen was promoted, I believe, from the post of private Secretary to the right hon. Baronet opposite. The constitution of this Committee is such as to make its decisions unsatisfactory, if they are to be accepted as final. I can speak of the proceedings in this respect as of my own individual knowledge, having been personally concerned in one of the railways reported upon by the Railway Board, and consequently having become acquainted with the course pursued. The promoters of a railway send in a short statement of its extent and direction, and in due time the plan and the necessary details are furnished to the authorities at the Board of Trade. When the promoters of the line to which I refer had done this, they thought that the case of their opponents would be made known to them. This had been kept a profound secret until the 30th of November, when it was lodged with the Clerk of the Peace for the county, according to the regulations; and after that they thought that they would have been informed of the case of the opposite side, and that thus learning the nature of their opponents' allegations, they would have been enabled to answer and refute them. The time, however, passed over—the meeting of Parliament was near, and we began to think our scheme would be pronounced upon, without our having an opportunity of learning the case of our opponents. I consequently applied to the Board of Trade for a hearing on behalf of the promoters of this line. I was received by the right hon. Gentleman with that courtesy which distinguishes him. We went there knowing nothing of our opponents, save the plans and details which in common with ourselves they had sent in. Their arguments in favour of their project, their objections to ours, we were totally ignorant of. We stated our case in the interview which ensued, which was limited to half an hour's duration, and we detailed the reasons which we hoped would have induced the Board of Trade to give our line the preference. In the course of the conversation which took place, one gentleman observed, that he had expected we should have been called upon to reply to the arguments and objections of our opponents. To this observation the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, replied, "that the point was of no importance whatever, inasmuch as it was physically impossible for the Railway Board to listen to the comments and arguments of conflicting parties." That observation, I admit, was perfectly true. It would have been physically impossible to have heard the conflicting parties. It was equally so for the Board to scrutinize closely and minutely the plans laid before them, or to ascertain with any degree of accuracy whether the estimates were well founded, and which of the conflicting projects was best adapted to the economy and the other wants of the district through which it passed. Such being the case, I entertain no objection whatever to the course which I have described as pursued with reference to railways by the Board of Trade, provided the Report from that Department is merely to be regarded in the light of a document to be taken into consideration by the Committee of this House on the Bill. There is no doubt whatever that the Railway Board will be found to have had strong reasons for coming to the decisions which they have pronounced, and that parties going before a Committee of this House on a Railway Bill which has been adversely pronounced upon by the Board of Trade, will do so at an imminent hazard of failing to make good their case. But to this risk I have not the slightest objection, nor do I see indeed how the officers of the Railway Department at the Board of Trade could act otherwise than they have done; neither have I any doubt that their Reports will be found to afford the most valuable assistance in guiding the decisions of the Committees on the various Bills. But if these Reports themselves are to be considered in the light of decisions, and as such to be conclusive and binding on the Committees of this House, why, then, I must say that in common justice the conflicting parties ought to have been brought together, and their different statements and arguments heard, whilst the facts were carefully sifted and examined by those whose duty it was to decide. If the House thinks that a new tribunal ought to be created for the purpose of adjudicating on these matters, other than itself, it is competent for the House to act on that opinion; but if such a tribunal is constituted, let it consist of persons of a rank and station proportionate in dignity to the enormous amount of property upon which they are called upon to decide, an amount far exceeding, as I have shown, the sums adjudicated upon by the highest tribunals in Westminster Hall. The fact being as I have stated, let the rank and station of the persons constituting this tribunal be equal to those of the authorities in the Courts of Law. There is likewise another question to be considered with reference to this subject. In the ordinary course of life, a case involving the right to a basket of oranges or apples is not judicially disposed of, except under circumstances of the utmost publicity: I say that this practice is of the greatest use, and that it will never do to have recourse to secrecy, or to pronounce upon questions such as those to which I am referring, in the absence of the parties interested hearing them state their conflicting views in each other's presence. I say, if you sanction such a course as this, you will open a door to corruption and jobbing of the grossest and rankest nature. And I say further, that these objections do apply stringently to the system pursued by the Railway Board with respect to the railway projects, if their decisions are, though not nominally, to be held as really conclusive. I say again, that you will act in this manner if you decide that these decisions are to be final as rejecting the projects pronounced against. We know by experience how constantly matters such as these are made the subject of solicitation and private influence amongst Members of this House. Now, I must remind you that if you are to reject these projects on the Reports of the Board of Trade, that rejection will be binding and final, because no one in this House would resist such a decision if the Government thinks fit to support its officers at the Railway Board. We shall thus establish a system by which the Board of Trade will be sheltered by the House from the responsibility which attaches to its conduct, and there will be some danger of a party spirit being infused into such questions, which, in addition to the practice of private solicitation amongst Members of the House, will complicate and render the question a most difficult one to deal with. I do not, in thus expressing my sentiments, mean to impute to Her Majesty's Government, any more than I should, were my noble Friends near me sitting on the other side of the House, charge them with any desire to job or to confer favours on their political supporters by the means I have indicated; but I do say this, and I cannot too emphatically express my opinion, that the system at present in operation is full of objections and of suspicions, and it goes far to violate and to abolish that wholesome rule of official decorum which ordains that the person who is at the head of Her Majesty's Government shall take as small a share in the regulation and transaction of the private business of this House as possible. We know how honourable it is to the character of this country, whether we look at one side of the House or the other, that the statesmen of England have ever stood above the suspicion of jobbing. I attribute much of this to the wholesome rule we have adopted, that Her Majesty's Government should abstain from interfering with questions of private legislation—with those questions in which a great amount of money is involved. I should deprecate any breaking of this wholesome rule. The conclusion which I would draw from what I have stated is, that the decisions of the Board of Trade ought not to be considered as final, and that the Railway Bills, which have been unfavourably reported on by the Board of Trade, ought not on that account to be rejected on the Second Reading. What I contend for is, that until you make a change in your system—until you establish some tribunal capable of dealing with these great interests—until you re-cast the existing arrangements, if you believe such a change to be necessary, conflicting Railway Bills, notwithstanding the Report of the Board of Trade, shall be submitted to the scrutiny of a Committee of this House. What are the words of the Resolution of last year?

"That in the case of Railway Bills, if any report made under the authority of the Board of Trade upon any Bill or the objects thereof be laid before the House, such report shall be referred to the Committee on the Bill."

It is perfectly clear, when this Resolution passed, it was the intention of the House that the Report of the Board of Trade should go before a Committee, there to be scrutinized and considered. If that be the arrangement which Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt, I have no complaint to make of the course which has been hitherto adopted by the Board of Trade, because, if this be so, those who are interested in railways of which the Board of Trade have disapproved, will have an opportunity of considering the Report, and the reasons on which it is founded; they will have an opportunity of considering the statements on the other side which will be submitted to the Committee in the face of day, before which tribunal they will be able to have these matters scrutinized. I hope to learn that this is the course intended to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot help feeling great anxiety on the subject, because no one can have watched these proceedings without seeing, whether it be well founded or not, there is a notion abroad that these Reports are to be considered as conclusive and decisive; and because also, on another point to which I will only gently allude, already some of the inconveniences likely to arise from the Executive Government taking too much upon themselves with respect to private interests, are beginning to work. Whispers begin to circulate of an I injurious kind, which I believe to be now unfounded, but of which I am convinced too much will be heard if the present system be continued. I, therefore, hope that Her Majesty's Government will not conclude that we are to be ruled exclusively by the decisions of the Board of Trade; but that these decisions will be considered as the exposition by unprejudiced parties of their reasons for preferring some lines and rejecting others. If the question be so treated, if the whole subject be fairly considered before the Committee, all parties will be satisfied, but not otherwise. And, this, Sir, brings me back to the point from which I started, and to the proposal I have to make. If the House should agree in my opinions, — if Her Majesty's Government and the House should approve of the views which I have taken,—I am sure they will follow me in the course which I propose, and allow some further interval of time to enable the promoters of railways to consider whether they will persevere with their measures in spite of the unfavourable Report of the Board of Trade. I will frankly state, Sir, that I am interested in a project which has been unfavourably reported on by the Board of Trade. I do not contest the judgment of that Board. Till I know the grounds on which that judgment is founded, I am not in a situation to do so. All I can say is, that I, and those with whom I acted, believed that the public interests would be best promoted by the railroad we supported, as it could be executed at a smaller expense, and afforded greater facilities to the public, and that it was, in my own opinion, the better of the two; but I am free to admit that we are not always fit judges in our own cases,—every man has a partiality for his own bantling; and all I ask is, that we should not be called upon to proceed with, or to abandon, our Bill till we know on what the decision of the Board of Trade is founded. If this time be not given, we must come to a decision at once: within a day or two we must incur the expense of presenting our Petition for the Bill, or allow that Bill to fall to the ground. If, however, you will give us time to consider the Report of the Board of Trade, I will tell you frankly what are our intentions. We mean to consider that Report fully and fairly, if we believe that the Board have taken a well-founded view of the case; if we believe that they have come to a just and reasonable decision, we will proceed no further, we will submit to their decision, and we will retire from the contest. On the other hand, if we see nothing to alter our own opinions that our line is the better for the public, and if we believe the Committee will take that view of the case, we shall then proceed. The railway with which I am concerned is comparatively unimportant; the expense is very small, and the adverse scheme — the promoters having fortunately adopted much of the scheme of their opponents—is not of greater magnitude. But there are other cases in which the lines are of great importance, and in which expenses to a great amount have been incurred. The question is whether you will allow all that expense to be fruitlessly incurred, or whether you will allow an appeal from the Board of Trade to another and a different tribunal; when all the reasons will be before the Committee, who will be able to come to a conclusion, knowing the grounds on which the schemes have been hitherto condemned? On these grounds it is that I ask the House to give an extension of time for the presentation of Petitions praying for the introduction of Railway Bills. I am aware, Sir, and you have kindly pointed out to me, that it is not by a mere alteration of the Sessional Order that this can now be done; but we may introduce into the Sessional Order, providing for the presentation of a Petition for any Private Bill within twenty-one days an exception in favour of railways, and then I will move a separate Resolution on another day altering the Standing Orders of the House. This is a course which I venture to recommend to the House, and it is one which is, in my opinion, of very considerable importance. I will, therefore, now move, as an Amendment, to introduce the words "with the exception of Railway Bills," and with respect to them, I would propose to limit the presentation of Petitions for Bills to a period within twenty one days from the Report affecting any Railway Company being presented to the House.

added, that he would propose to allow twenty-one days after the Report of the Board of Trade affecting any particular railway had been laid on the Table, within which it should be competent for any particular Company to present its Bill.

It is impossible not to feel that there is much force in the objections which have been urged by the noble Lord; at any rate to the extent that the consideration of this Order should not be proceeded with to-day. I believe that this Sessional Order is only confirmatory of the Standing Orders of this House, and that if we adhere to the Standing Orders we can make no alteration in the Sessional. The Standing Order requires that all Petitions for Private Bills shall be presented within twenty-one days of the first Friday after the meeting of Parliament, and the present Sessional Order only carries that into effect. At the same time I think this is a subject well worthy of the consideration of the House, and that there is so much force in the observations of the noble Lord that we cannot now satisfactorily decide it. Whether it will be better to postpone this discussion or to withdraw the original Motion, I must leave to the decision of those better versed in the usages of Parliament than myself. I concur, however, with the noble Lord in the opinion that it will not be right this day to come to a determination.

said, that most important interests were involved in this question, and in the absence of the official Gentleman connected with this department, who was not then in the House, they would be legislating in the dark. The subject mooted by the noble Lord was most important. A belief existed that secrecy was not kept; that others had an opportunity of knowing what was doing, and the Government were implicated because it was a department acting under Ministers. It would be better, therefore, to postpone the discussion.

Instead of hon. Members saying that whispers were about that the secrets were not kept, it would be better to say explicitly what statements had been made, and to say what the allegation really was, than to make vague and not very intelligible insinuations against public officers, which were not capable of contradiction.

was most anxious that what he had stated on this point should not be mistaken. What he had referred to was, what had appeared in the City Article of The Times of that day, and, he believed, before also; and in one or two other papers, where it was distinctly alleged that large purchases had been made in particular lines immediately previous to the Report of the Board of Trade being made public. He was convinced that these allegations were ill-founded, but it was an objectionable system, whether the reports were ill-founded or not, which enabled parties to set such statements abroad.

believed that, in addition to the lines rejected, there were others which were recommended to be postponed, in which the public were quite as much in the dark, and he thought they should have the same means of considering the Reports with respect to all the lines.

would not oppose the postponement of the discussion; but there was one question asked by the noble Lord which must have occurred for the consideration of the Government, and it was, whether it were the intention of the Government, when the Reports of the Board of Trade were laid before the House, to stand by them as Government measures? This point must have engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he wished to know whether the House would have to decide these matters with the weight of the Government authority used on one side or the other? He wished for a reply to this question, and thought the noble Lord had usefully and wisely brought it before the House.

The House would no doubt recollect that the interference of Government arose from the strong recommendations of the Select Committee on railroads; on that Report the Committee were the organ of the House—the Report which was adopted by the House strongly recommended the assistance of the Government to assist the House. In consequence of that Report his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade did undertake the question, greatly to the credit of himself, and did devote much of his time and attention to the subject. He certainly had never understood that there would devolve upon the Board of Trade any absolute power. In the Report of the Committee they said,

"It is the opinion of the Committee that such Reports should on no account be regarded in any other light than as intended to afford to Parliament—firstly, additional aid in the elucidation of the facts by the testimony of witnesses competent by knowledge, habit, and opportunity, and officially responsible;—and—secondly, recommendations founded on such elucidation."

In his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion, the weight of the opinion of the Board of Trade would depend upon the conclusiveness of the reasons they advanced. The question, he fairly owned, had never come under his consideration; but to any course which involved the Government, as a Government, in matters of private legislation he would object. If the conclusions of the Board of Trade were so strong that they would meet with universal assent, he did not say that the House should not adopt them; but, in general, it must tend to raise the character of public men in this country if they abstained from interfering with Private Bills, but should allow them to be debated without its being thought that they received the influence of the Government. The House would not expect him then to state anything more than a general rule; he did not say that the rule should be absolute in every case but he hoped that the Government would maintain a neutrality which was most fair towards individuals and most consonant with the character of the Government itself.

quite concurred in the propriety of adjourning the discussion, and thought the right hon. Baronet had said that he substantially concurred in the reasonableness of giving time for the presentation of Railway Petitions.

begged to ask the Home Secretary, whether, as there was no notice taken of the subject in the Speech from the Throne, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure respecting County Courts? The measure of last Session had been postponed from the pressure of business. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill.

said he had had the honour of the charge of that Bill last Session, but taking into consideration the immense changes which had been made in the law of debtor and creditor, and that imprisonment for debt had been abolished, he could not undertake, in the present Session, to introduce a Bill to regulate the County Courts.

observed, that towards the close of the last Session, the right hon. Baronet had introduced a Bill for the alteration of the Law of Settlement. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to re-introduce the measure this Session, and if so, whether it would be substantially the same as the Bill of last Session?

answered that when he introduced the Bill at the close of the last Session, he did so under the idea that many and very valuable suggestions would be made to the Government, and the hope he had then entertained had not been disappointed, as he had received a variety of useful suggestions, which he should think it his duty to introduce, as they embraced very important alterations in the law. He would, therefore, take an early opportunity of re-introducing the Bill. He would state the alterations in detail, and if the House should allow him to introduce the Bill, he should allow time between its introduction and the taking any further stage, so that the opinion of the country should be taken on the subject. With this object in view he begged to give notice that it was his intention to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law of Settlement.

asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, when it would be the pleasure of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table the Report of the Commissioners appointed last Session to inquire as to the several harbours of the south and south-east coast, with a view to the formation of harbours of refuge? That Report, he might observe, had been generally circulated by the public press, whilst it had not been presented to the House. He wished also to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to take any steps with regard to the recommendations of that Report?

deeply regretted that reports confidentially received by the Government did, by some means, obtain publicity in the newspapers. The report in question had occupied the attention of the Government. The distinguished officers and others composing the Commission had made certain recommendations worthy of consideration, and they had proposed the construction of more than one harbour of refuge. There were, however, important considerations connected with the expense. The cost of the harbour of Dover alone was estimated at 2,500,000l. He thought it was of great importance to improve the harbour of Holyhead, so as to facilitate communication with the other part of the United Kingdom. Government had not yet come to a decision regarding the recommendations of the Report. The Commissioners had thus classed the importance of the harbours. Dover they had placed first, Portland next, and Seaford third. With respect to Dover they had suggested experiments upon the matter held in suspension in the sea, and depositing in the bay, with a view of determining whether the harbour was not likely to be stopped up. He was not prepared to recommend that the sum of from two to three millions should be lightly and inconsiderately expended. The Report had been referred to the Lords of the Admiralty, and the importance of the subject, and the weight the Report derived from the character of the Commissioners, he fully acknowledged.

said, that although he had no objection to the substance of the Address, yet he could not allow it to pass without making some observations. Whilst congratulations were offered on the prosperous state of the finances of the country, no hope was held out of any relief being afforded to the people—an increase of our Naval Establishment was adverted to, but no hope held out of any corresponding reduction in other establishments to meet that increase of expenditure; no hope respecting the Army being reduced; no notice taken whether anything would be done in regard to the Customs or the Excise departments, in which the whole community were of opinion great changes should be made. The right hon. Baronet had taken upon himself the task of regulating the principles on which our commerce was to be founded, and he had adopted those principles partially; but he (Mr. Hume) had hoped that the House would have received an intimation from him that he was about to relieve our commercial interest from the troublesome charges to which it was subjected, and that he would remove from the list five or six hundred excisable articles when he could not produce one-half the amount of revenue which was paid for the salaries of the clerks engaged in this department. He was free to say that the Speech contained very little. The first three paragraphs were complimentary, the next adverted to increased expenditure, then the Income Tax, and all the rest was nothing. If, however, the right hon. Baronet would say he would reduce other taxes, he should have his support. Let the right hon. Baronet reduce the indirect taxation which fell so heavily upon the humbler classes. The present taxation of the country amounted to 55,000,000l., which was too much. The right hon. Gentleman stated last night that a party attack had been made upon him on account of his proceedings in respect to affairs at Tahiti; he was not one of the party; on the contrary, he thought the conduct of Her Majesty's Government was such as deserved the thanks of the country, for their firmness in adhering to their demands, in maintaining the honour of the British Flag; and for the manner in which they had settled the matter amicably. He believed their conduct had tended to remove those prejudices which former acts had created in the minds of many of the French people; and had tended, moreover, to promote that good understanding on which alone depended the maintenance of peace between the two countries; and peace was the only object to be sought for. He heard the Speech of the hon. Mover with pleasure, because he admired the moderation of his views. At the same time, he wondered how some hon. Gentlemen could allude to the visit of the Emperor of Russia, and entertain the hope that his Majesty would reduce the duties on imports into his kingdom, until we were in a condition to set an example to the whole world. Let us amend our Commercial Code and Customs Duties, and other nations would soon follow our lead.

commented on three points contained in the Address. The first paragraph adverted to the improved condition of the country. That improved condition he admitted in the manufacturing districts, and many men had been taken into employment; but the Speech made no mention of the distress of those who were millions in number, namely, the agricultural classes. With reference to them there were indications in the country which called for the most serious attention of the Government. Witness the incendiary fires, which were an unhappy exemplification of the existence of utter distress. The Speech ought to have made some allusion to the condition of these men, from whom the value of the estates of hon. Gentlemen and others was derived. Next, as to the financial condition of the country, he denied it was so prosperous as it was represented. The expenditure of the country was much too great. The hon. Member for Huntingdon, in seconding the Address, said that the revenue last year exceeded the expenditure by the sum of 3,300,000l. The revenue in 1837 was 2,100,000l. beyond the expenditure, so that there was now only an excess of 1,200,000l. over the year 1837, with an addition of 8,000,000l. of taxation. What then became of the economical management of the finances of the country? This was a state of things which ought not to endure, and which could not be permitted to endure. The late Government were brought into difficulties by becoming entangled with the disturbances in Canada, and the war in China, and their difficulties were further increased by the ruinous export of bullion caused by the state of the Corn Laws. At the present moment the difficulties which embarrassed the late Government no longer existed, for the disturbances in Canada, and the war in China, had been settled. The country during the last year enjoyed a very extraordinary degree of prosperity, and there was no occasion for such a large expenditure as was now kept up, compared with the year which he had just named.

wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to that paragraph in the Address which thanked Her Majesty for the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the law and practice with respect to the Occupation of Land in Ireland. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give some intimation of their intention to introduce a measure on this subject. He never knew Ireland in a more disturbed state than at present. Murders and assassinations prevailed to an awful extent in one or two districts of that unhappy country; and it would be quite impossible to repress such lawless violence without making some just regulation with regard to the law of Landlord and Tenant. He trusted that the Session would not be allowed to pass over without the introduction of some such measure as would satisfy the people that they would experience the protection of the law in this respect. The Address adverted to the loyalty of the people. He concurred in that declaration; but at the same time he must express his belief that a spirit of dormant discontent existed among the labouring population with regard to the Poor law, and the consequences of that measure. The people were deeply discontented on that subject. That law had had the effect of cancelling the right of the labouring men to claim from the land and the property of England their labour and sustenance; and it had given the poor man nothing in return for what it had taken from him. Such a state of things could not continue without producing a greater degree of discontent than that which unfortunately at present existed.

, although offering no opposition to the Address, wished to guard himself against being supposed to acquiesce in the continuance of the Income Tax.

said, that nothing could be more cautiously worded than the Address, for it bound no one in any matter whatever. It only suggested certain things, and was not meant by Her Majesty's Government to commit any one upon that subject. Nothing could be more unjust than to do so; and he never should hold an acquiescence in the present Address to bind any hon. Gentleman to vote for the continuance of the Income Tax.

said, that the improved discipline on the other side showed pretty clearly what the result of the consideration of the Income Tax would be. A Property Tax met with general approval in this country; he believed it would be impossible to propose a more popular tax; but the right hon. Baronet would find that a tax upon incomes derived from trades and professions, would not receive the consent of a large portion of the community. It was thought that if a sliding scale was applicable to any description of taxation, it was never more so than to real property as distinguished from professions and trades. However, the operation upon the public mind would be chiefly regulated by the proposals that might be made with respect to the other taxes. If those taxes which interfered with trade and commerce, injured the labourer, and pressed upon the necessaries of life, were removed, he then thought that even the present tax upon income would be borne without a murmur or complaint. It had been inferred that there was no distress among the masses of the people of this country; but among the unskilled labourers there was an amount of suffering which Members of that House little knew of. It was impossible to paint a picture of the calamities and sufferings endured by that class in such colours as the reality required. He hoped that when the right hon. Baronet brought in his alteration of the Law of Settlement, some means would be taken to alleviate their condition. The Speech from the Throne contained very little, but perhaps there was the more to hope for on that account. Already several measures, of which no mention was made in the Speech, had been announced by Members of the Government, and amongst others, that to which the right hon. Baronet had lately alluded. He should be glad to hear of an intention to abolish the Law of Settlement. The horrors suffered by the poor under the operation of that iniquitous law defied the power of language adequately to describe. This was the common practice:—A labourer who has gone to a distance from his own home, has married, and reared a family, and dies. His wife makes an application for relief: what is the answer? "Well, we will give you a loaf or two of bread, or a shilling or two, but if you come again, we shall give you an order for you to be received into the union workhouse, and when the proper time has expired we shall pass you home." "Home!" says the poor creature; "what home?" "Your husband's settlement," replies the relieving officer. "Why," says the suffering woman, "my husband came from his parish twenty years since—I have never seen any of his relatives—I know of no one who resides in the town—I have no friend or relative of my own there. The relieving officer replies, "We cannot, help that; we must act in accordance to the law; and if you apply again we shall pass you to your husband's settlement." Does she apply again?—No; she suffers all the miseries of starvation rather than be removed to a place where she would be unknown; nay, I have myself seen a mother suffering her offspring to die of want rather than submit to the lot held out to her. I believe that it is the wish and desire of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) to remedy this crying evil. I believe that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet last Session would go a considerable way in doing so; and I do hope that during the present Session he will mature a Bill on the subject in a bold and masterly spirit. There is no intimation in Her Majesty's Speech with regard to the Poor Law. That question is a painful one; it is still unsettled; and it is impossible that that law, as it now stands, can much longer remain in force in this country. As one fact is worth a thousand hypotheses, I will state to the right hon. Baronet a circumstance which fell under my own observation on Saturday last. It is not, unfortunately, unique: it is too general. A labouring man of good character, and who was only twenty-six years of age, died in a state of great misery and destitution in the parish of Isleworth, in this county. He had been living with his wife six weeks before, in the parish of Iver, in Buckinghamshire. It appears that he and his wife, being both very ill, were obliged to apply for relief, and a small expense of some 25s. or 26s. was incurred for their maintenance during a period of nearly three weeks; but just before three weeks expired, finding they were to be passed to Isleworth, they went to Ruislip, and by the aid of friends procured an apartment where the furniture—for I myself saw it—was not worth 2s. Well, Sir, the parochial authorities came over from Iver, and took the man and his wife—both suffering under illness—and carted them to the village of Isleworth, and when there they put them down and said to the relieving officer, "Here are these parties, we have brought them home to you." The poor man being ill and out of work, and his wife also ill, and both of them in a state of misery and privation, the latter said, "You must go to the relieving office." These poor people said, "We must have sustenance—we must have relief, or we shall die." Now, see what are the effects of the size of your unions, and of not allowing relief to be given in parishes. That woman started in a state of extreme feebleness to Hillenden, a distance of five miles, leaving her husband at home without money or food, and this in the depth of winter, and described to the relieving officer there the state of destitution she and her husband were in. What was his answer?—and remember, it was, as the relieving officer himself afterwards told me, the only answer he could legally give in conformity with the Act of Parliament—he told the woman to go to the doctor of the union, and if he gives you an order for relief, you shall have it. The woman then went from Hillingden to Uxbridge, and saw the doctor, who promised to go and see her husband at Isleworth. The woman then went back to her wretched home, without bringing a single thing to afford her sick husband the slightest help, or even hope of obtaining relief; without money and without food, and this after she had been walking a distance of eleven miles. In a short time, the medical gentleman called upon the poor people, and was immediately struck with their wretched appearance, and at once said, "I see you are starving; you are in want of the common necessaries of life." And he then gave them an order upon the relieving officer. What has she then to do? She had to go back five miles to the relieving officer again: and when with him what does she receive? Money was not given her. She had not the opportunity of purchasing what she wanted; but an order was given to the value of 3s., which she is to serve upon the grocer in the parish of Isleworth, from whom she gets grocery to that amount. Now, observe; that women in the depth of winter has walked twenty-one miles, leaving a husband at home in a dying state, she being herself in a state of suffering and disease, before she could obtain relief to the value of 3s.; and that is the way in which you, the wealthy Legislators of this country, afford relief to the destitute. I know not what words to use to designate such a system as this; and yet, from our weakness, or from our cruelty, we call this furnishing relief to the poor by our precious legislation. Is this, I ask, a state of things that is to continue? That poor man, with his constitution broken down and destroyed for want of food, accidentally injures one of the toes of his feet, a locked jaw comes on, and he dies. On Tuesday last he died. Now, I again ask, is this system to be continued? Do the gentry, the nobility, and the wealthy people of England believe that their lives and property can be secure so long as the poor of England can be thus treated? Do you call this ministering to the necessities of the poor? Is it not a system pregnant with danger to you every moment of your lives? Do you believe that, under these circumstances, the millions of England can be satisfied? or that they will treat Parliament with respect, or yield a cheerful obedience to the law? I say, they will not; and I further say, we ought not to advise them to do so. If they were not discontented—if they were not dissatisfied—with such a state of things, they would be unworthy of the name of Englishmen, and it is utterly impossible that you, in a time of danger, when their bold hearts and ready hands would be needed to serve you, can expect that they will ever again exhibit that boldness, courage, and manly daring, which they have displayed in former times. But kindness, frankness, and generosity are the characteristics of the people of England, which they ever evince towards those who treat them well. You do not know their worth, or make proper allowance for the natural good sense and understanding which they possess. They do not expect impossibilities from you. They know very well that an Act of Parliament cannot cure all the ills which human flesh is heir to; but what they do know is, that no man who is free from crime, and who is willing to work, when in health, for his bread, should be treated in the manner I have just described to you, when in a state of disease and destitution. I do trust that what I have stated will induce the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), to inquire into this subject. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has devoted much time to its consideration. He showed, last Session, the most anxious desire to collect every kind of information that could assist him in his efforts to amend the existing state of things; he listened most patiently and considerately to every suggestion that was made to him; and I am bound to say that he did not reject any suggestion from any preconceived opinions or prejudices of his own. I beg him, therefore, to investigate the case I have stated, and ascertain whether the same thing is not at this moment going on throughout the whole of England; and, if so, I ask him, can he hesitate to introduce a measure to alter such an odious, such an abominable state of the law? My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), in the course of his remarks, stated that he thought the Government had acted wisely with reference to the affair at Tahiti. I perfectly agree with him in that view. It is the universal impression that that unfortunate misunderstanding has been settled with perfect honour to the Governments of both countries. It has been settled without giving painful feeling to either nation. With regard to the Slave Trade, a more difficult question could never have occupied the attention of the British Government. It has pressed upon us for many years; and we now learn that not the settlement, but the consideration of it is to be referred to two individuals, appointed by England and France. If France is satisfied with the person appointed on its behalf (the Duke de Broglie), I am confident there is no man in England who can be dissatisfied with the appointment of Dr. Lushington. I do not think the Government could have adopted a wiser course. Dr. Lushington has shown throughout the whole of his life that no subject was more dear to his heart, nor was there one to which he had devoted more attention, than the suppression of slavery and the Slave Trade; and that he not only understood the subject, but that he was most earnest and sincere in his desire to see it abolished. With respect to the Right of Search question, I will only make a single remark. When a boy, I went to sea, and I can assure the House that there is not a thing more aggravating, more annoying, or more exciting than that of having a boat come alongside of you, and overhaul what is going on in your vessel; and I am astonished, considering how the right has been persisted in, that it has not led to hostilities between this country and other nations. It is marvellous that peace should have been maintained under such a system. I hope therefore, that something will be devised to get rid of such an exciting, such an annoying, and, apparently, though not really, such a degrading practice. Some remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Sharman Crawford), has called to my mind the striking contrast between the actual condition of things in Ireland, and the state of that country as described in the Address. It appears to me that the facts stated by my hon. Friend, and the statement contained in the Address, are totally inconsistent; there is no agreement between them. The Address states that the large masses of Her Majesty's subjects are yielding a cheerful obedience to the law; while, on the contrary, we are informed by my hon. Friend, that the people of Ireland are, in many parts, in a most lawless state. Now, I am not disposed to rake up old grievances, but would rather let bygones be-bygones. My opinion is that the right hon. Baronet is desirous to do justice to Ireland. I hope his friends will let him, and that the benevolent intentions of the right hon. Baronet will not be thwarted by those near and around him, that is, by his ordinary supporters. But it does seem strange that it should be stated in the Address that things are going on satisfactorily in Ireland, and that the spirit of discontent has almost disappeared, when we find that so lately as Monday last, a Resolution was passed by the Repeal Association in Dublin, in which it was intimated to the Irish Members of this House, that they should not attend their places in Parliament. The words of the Resolution are these:—

"That however desirable it may be that discussion should take place in the House of Commons, with a view to expose the injustice of the proceedings connected with the late State Trials, this Association is so deeply impressed with a sense of the hopelessness of obtaining redress for the wrongs of Ireland from the Imperial Parliament, that we cannot recommend that the Irish Members should be called upon to attend such discussion. That the attendance of the Irish Repeal Members in the Conciliation Hall would be most conducive to the great object of the Association—the restoration of our domestic Legislature."

I must confess that I agree with those who consider that Ireland has been an ill-used country. Let us anticipate better times. I will only refer for one moment to the trial, which led to the imprisonment of Mr. O'Connell and his friends. Before that trial I believe the prevalent feeling in England was, that Mr. O'Connell's proceedings were not justifiable. He had crested in England a feeling prejudicial to himself, by indulging in language reproachful and offensive in regard to the people of this country. But immediately after his memorable trial, and before the decision come to by the House of Lords, the universal impression throughout this country was, that in that trial he was a persecuted man, and that his case was not fairly investigated by an impartial jury. That was the universal impression, and that impression has received the strongest possible confirmation by the decision of the House of Lords. It has been decided by that House that it was altogether an unlawful proceeding, and that the indictment was so framed and drawn up, as to make it next to an impossibility that the accused parties could extricate themselves from such a legal net-work. And what is the impression of the public mind in England now? I can assure the right hon. Baronet, from the frequent communications which I have the opportunity of holding with the working and middle classes of the people, that the public mind of England is in a very feverish state with regard to the relative positions between England and Ireland; and Ireland is looked upon here as being a source of weakness to this country rather than a source of strength. An impression universally prevails that Ireland has been an ill-used and persecuted country, and has not received justice from the English Government. When the Irish Members are present in the House of Commons they make loud complaints against our conduct; and, I believe we deserve those complaints; but at the same time I have never seen come from the Irish Members themselves any series of measures which they would place upon the Table of their own Parliament if they had one in College Green. Now, I do say that that has not been acting justly by us, or wisely by themselves. If they will frame such measures as they deem best calculated to promote the interests and welfare of Ireland, and submit them to the consideration of the Imperial Parliament, and if that Parliament should incur the responsibility of rejecting them, my firm conviction is, that the people of England would join in demanding a Repeal of the Union, and would urge that demand upon the Government and Parliament of this country; because the people of England are strong in their love of justice, and they do not wish the persecution of any class or portion of their fellow men. They do not desire partial laws, and believing, as they then more than ever would do, that the people of Ireland were a persecuted people, they would unite with them in demanding full redress. In order, then, to relieve me and many other English Gentlemen who feel strongly upon this subject from the difficulties which at present beset us in this matter, I will conclude by expressing my earnest hope that the Irish Members, without delay, will frame such measures as they deem best calculated to promote the interests of that country, and then if we reject them, the responsibility will be upon our heads.