, who had placed a Notice on the Taper for a Select Committee on the petition of Charles Evans Deacon and John Wheeler, with reference to a petition which had been presented relative to this railway, said, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the petition, he had the pleasure of being able to say that he was now in a condition to state not only that every allegation in that petition was true, but also that he could now give the House an explanation as to how the irregularity occurred. It did not appear that there was in the present case any attempt to commit a fraud on any party, but there was a very great degree of irregularity, which the House could not fail to visit with severe reprehension. The statement was, that after the petition had been presented an alteration was made in it by interpolating a sheet containing various allegations which did not exist in the petition at the time it was presented to the House. That was now allowed to be the case, and the explanation which had been handed to him by one of the clerks at the Table was, that the petition had been placed by the parties in the hands of Mr. Vacher, the law stationer, in order that a copy might be made for presentation, and that the man who was directed to join the sheets had accidentally dropped one of them, so that the petition was delivered and presented without that sheet. It was further explained that Mr. Vacher, on finding that a sheet had been omitted, went to the office of the Clerk of the House, asked for the petition, and placed the dropped sheet in its proper place. It seemed to him a serious matter that any person should be allowed to alter a petition after presentation. There was no fraud attempted in the present case; but, at the same time, when matters of such great interest were concerned, it became the House to see that no alterations were made in a petition after presentation. The facts being now before them, he had no object in moving for a Committee on the subject. The Notice had had the good effect of inducing the parties to give an explanation. He had no wish to punish the parties, and thought that the House might safely leave the matter in the hands of the Speaker, confident that that right hon. Gentleman would take the steps necessary to prevent the recurrence of so gross an irregularity. He apprehended, however, that the dropped sheet could not be considered as having been presented. On that point he should be glad to hear the opinion of the Speaker.

said, that he had no hesitation in stating to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, that the petition would only be valid with reference to those parts of it which had actually been presented, and that those parts which had not been presented could not be properly refer- red to the Committee. He had instituted inquiries into the case, and the report which he had received corresponded with the statement made by the Member for Nottingham. If the House would leave the matter in his hands he would attend to it.

hoped there would be no objection to his calling the attention of the Speaker to a case of not exactly a similar kind, with regard to which he had already presented petitions. The statement was, that three petitions had been presented by the hon. Member for Totness (Mr. B. Baldwin) which had been interpolated with different statements after one of the parties had signed them, and had been presented as if they had been regularly signed, while the fact was that one of the parties was not aware of the additions made.

said, that he did not know how the petitions had been got up; they had merely been transmitted to him for presentation.

said, there were two questions he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, if he would indulge him with a moment's attention. One was, whether he would consent to take into consideration the expediency of placing the whole sum required under the head of medical relief to the poor upon the same footing? The Poor Law Commissioners had intimated, that in the agricultural districts the authorities were apt to give a less liberal salary than those in the manufacturing districts, and therefore it would be well, as such an unhappy collision between the two classes had arisen, that on nice questions and cases some persons eminent in the profession should be always at hand. The other question had more immediate reference to a person with whom the right hon. Baronet was personally acquainted—a very eminent person, known in the literary world as a great linguist, having edited French, German, and Spanish grammars, and also brought out a work on the use of the globes; his name was Rowbotham. That gentleman had drawn up a curious analysis of the relative taxation of land and houses; and the question he proposed to the right hon. Baronet was simply this — whether Mr. Rowbotham was not for some time employed by him as a teacher in the minor branches of the mathematics, and more particularly arithmetic?

, in answer to the first question, observed, that while proposing that a part of the salaries of medical officers should be borne by the Treasury by means of a Vote of Parliament, he was very anxious that there should be a local check against an improvident expenditure, by the ratepayers bearing a portion of the expense, as well as by the revision incidental to an annual Vote in Parliament. Provision for medical relief would, no doubt, be most willingly made by whatever body had the control of it; but there was a tendency to abuse in such cases, and therefore the double check was proposed. However, perhaps if the hon. Gentleman could have assured him of his cordial support of the other portions of the proposed measures, he might have endeavoured to yield upon this. As to the other point, he really could not say that he had any recollection of employing the individual whose name had been mentioned in the way supposed by the hon. Member.

rose to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government had received from the Spanish Government any statement of their intention to visit the commerce of England with hostile measures on account of the unfavourable position in which the sugars of the Spanish colonies were left under the existing Tariff; and also, whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had any knowledge of any instructions being given, or about to be given, in the Spanish colonies, the object of which would be to throw impediments in the way of the indirect communication of British vessels with those colonies—that is, vessels not trading directly between Great Britain and the Spanish colonics?

said, that Her Majesty's Government certainly had not received any communication from the Spanish Government which led him to believe that the Spanish Government had any intention hostile to the commerce of this country. By some Papers which would be laid upon the Table of the House, it would be seen that the Spanish Government had reserved to itself the power of acting upon principles unfavourable to the British Government; but no communication had been received from it, indicating any intention to make use of that power. So far from it, in a very recent discussion, the following was the account of the relations of this country with Spain that was given by that eminent person the Minister for Foreign Affairs in that country, M. Martinez de la Rosa:—

"Our motto is—'Good will towards all, friendship with some, special intimacy with none.' As tar as England is concerned, it has rarely happened that our relations with that country have been more frank, more friendly, and more satisfactory, than they are at this day. The Spanish Government has received on various recent occasions proofs of the confidence which England places in our probity and good faith."

He (Sir R. Peel) thought that must be satisfactory to the hon. Member and to the House. Of course, a remonstrance would be made if any such course were to be adopted as the hon. Member pointed out.

said, that perhaps this would be the fittest time for the question of which he had given notice—whether Her Majesty's Government had had any further correspondence with the Spanish Government on the subject of the sugars of Cuba; and whether the right hon. Baronet was prepared to lay on the Table any such further correspondence?

answered, that there had been a further correspondence; two letters had passed, one on each side. There might be some inconvenience in laying them on the Table at present; and perhaps the noble Lord would be satisfied with his (Sir R. Peel's) assurance, that the House should be in possession of them on a future day, in ample time before the discussion on the Sugar Duties.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he were able to make the same statement with regard to the Brazilian Government or Legislature; or whether they had intimated any intention of acting with hostility towards our Colonies, in consequence of our measures hostile to the consumption of Brazilian sugar?

said, the terms of this inquiry were rather vague, as it asked respecting any intimation given by the Brazilian Government or Legislature; he would rather be accurate in his reply, and would therefore give an answer next day; because, as to "intimation," he could hardly speak.

wished to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether there was any truth in a report current out of doors, that Government had purchased, or suggested the purchase, of a quantity of maize or Indian corn for this country in the United States of America? Mr. Forster added, that he did not believe the report himself; but it was believed by many.

answered, that almost immediately after the receipt by the Government of that Report of Dr. Playfair and Mr. Lindley which had been laid upon the Table, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and himself, consulted upon the course proper to be taken; and orders were given for purchasing in the United States a certain quantity of maize for the consumption of the people of Ireland.

considered the principle of this transaction most objectionable. Such a system would be calculated to paralyse private enterprise; the public ought to know how the matter stood.

inquired, whether the Government were in a condition to lay on the Table an account of the grounds on which the Judges had decided that we had no jurisdiction in the case of the Brazilian prisoners who were tried for felony at the last Summer Assizes; and also, whether it were the intention of Government to repeal any part of the Brazilian Slave Trade Act passed last Session?

observed, that in cases of felony our law gave no appeal to any court of error. If the Judge who tried the prisoner entertained doubts with respect to the legality of the conviction, the course was for him to grant a respite of the sentence, until he could have an opportunity of consulting the other Judges. There was not always an argument heard in open court; very commonly it was a conference among the Judges themselves. If, after such conference, the Judge who tried the case should find his doubt of the validity of the conviction confirmed by his brethren, a communication was made to the Secretary of State, requesting him to recommend Her Majesty to grant a free pardon. In the case referred to, there was an argument, which was heard in the Court of Exchequer; in the ordinary course no judgment would be publicly given; but he (Sir J. Graham) was informed by the Judge, that, upon consultation with his brethren, he was induced to advise a pardon. He had no cognizance of the grounds on which the Judges came to that conclusion; nor was he in a condition to lay a statement of them upon the Table. With regard to the other point, the Government had no intention of proposing any alteration of the Act with respect to the Brazilian Slave Trade, which received the sanction of the Legislature last Session.

would take that occasion of noticing that the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson) proposed to move for the production of correspondence, in continuation of that presented last year, relative to the conduct of Brazil with reference to the Convention of 1826 and the Slave Trade Act of last Session; it would be very desirable that that Motion should be postponed. The last despatch presented last Session from Lord Aberdeen to the British Minister concluded thus:—

"You are already aware that the measure by which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the Government of Brazil would best evince their determination to carry out the intention which they have so solemnly recorded, would be the negotiation of a Treaty similar either to that concluded between Great Britain and Spain in 1835, or to that between Great Britain and Portugal of 1842. Should the Brazilian Government show any willingness to entertain the question of such a Treaty, you will frankly declare that nothing would give Her Majesty's Government more sincere pleasure than to find themselves relieved, by the conclusion of it, from enforcing the operation of the Bill which they are now about to propose to Parliament; and you will assure the Brazilian Ministers, that it will be a source of real satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government to return to a good understanding, both on this and on other subjects, with a nation in whose welfare and independence they have, from the earliest times, taken a lively interest, and whose growing prosperity and power they have witnessed with the greatest gratification. I am, &c.

"ABERDEEN."

The conclusion of a Treaty would enable the Government even to propose a repeal of the Bill of last Session. Communications were pending upon the subject; and it would be prejudicial to the public interest to produce the correspondence at present.

would postpone his Motion.

inquired how soon the new duties would come into operation?

answered, that so soon as the House should have affirmed any Resolution it might be pleased to come to, and allowed that Resolution to be reported, the Government would propose, in conformity with the general usage, immediately to permit the reduction of the duties, taking the usual guarantee that in the event of the Resolution not receiving the final sanction of Parliament, the old duties should be paid. Generally speaking, therefore, the reduction would take effect from the day on which the Resolution was agreed to; but perhaps there would be an exception made in the case of seeds, on which the reduction might not take effect until June.

considered the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to be highly satisfactory.

said, he had occasion to make representations to the Board of Trade on behalf of his constituents in Coventry, who were very much interested in some of the proposed reductions of duty. He believed that notwithstanding the anxiety they had expressed upon the subject they would give a general concurrence to the plan in question. But, at the same time, they had sent a memorial to the Board of Trade, expressing their earnest desire that under the peculiar circumstances of the case the reduction of the silk duties might not immediately take place, but might be delayed until the beginning of July, when the season for the sale of silk goods would have arrived. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would be prepared to give to that subject some further consideration.

said, that the answer he had given to the hon. Member for London did not preclude him from listening to any representations that might be made with respect to any particular trade. He must do the people of Coventry the justice to say, that although their interests would be more interfered with by the proposed alterations of duty than the inhabitants of any other town, they had shown a readiness to bear their share of the reductions, which entitled them to the highest credit. But he felt a sincere conviction that they would not be benefited by any delay in carrying out the alterations in question.

wished to know whether the principle which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down in the answer he had given to his hon. Friend the Member for the city of London would be applied to the duties upon foreign corn?

said, that, as soon as the Resolutions should have passed, if they were to be passed, and should have been reported to the House, he proposed that the reduction of the duties on corn should at once take effect.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the naturalisation of foreigners. The House would recollect that an Act had been lately passed which altered in a material degree the laws previously in force upon that subject. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether that alteration had, in his opinion, worked satisfactorily?

said, he had no hesitation in stating to the hon. Gentleman that since that Act had come into operation many applications for naturalisation had been made under its provisions; and although he had entertained important doubts as to the expediency of passing-such a measure, he had reason to know that it had worked most satisfactorily.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, of which he had given notice, respecting the duty on Irish, spirits. It was proposed that foreign spirits should be admitted at a reduced duty; and he wished to know whether any similar reduction was to be made on the duty upon Irish spirits, so that the Irish proprietors and the Irish distillers might not be placed in a worse position than that which they at present occupied in the English market?

said, that Irish spirits introduced into England or into Scotland, were permitted to be entered on paying the same amount of duty to which English spirits and Scotch spirits were subject. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to ask that Irish spirits should be admitted into England on payment of the Irish duty. That duty was only 2s. 10d; foreign spirits would be subject to a duty of 15s., and they would, therefore, not come into competition under very favourable circumstances with Irish spirits. He did not intend that Irish spirits should be admitted to the English market on the payment of a less duty than that to which they were subject at present—namely, the duty to which British spirits were subject.

only wished to know whether a reduction of the duty on Irish spirits would be made corresponding with the reduction of the duty on foreign spirits?

said, that the hon. Baronet put the question as if he were disposed to complain of a grievance. But there was in reality no grievance whatever in the case. Ireland was permitted to distil spirits on payment of a duty of 2s. 10d., while the duty in England was 7s. 10d. Ireland was, therefore, fairly dealt with in the matter.

said, that the right hon. Baronet had diverted the attention of the House from the main point. He did not wish that Irish spirits should pay a less duty in the English market than that paid by English spirits. His object merely was that there should be a reduction of the duty on the home-grown article proportioned to the reduction of the duty on the foreign commodity.

said, that the Notice given by the hon. Baronet was as follows:—"To ask Sir R. Peel if any alteration is to be proposed by which the landed interest in Ireland may have the benefit of the British markets for Irish spirits." Surely the landed interest in Ireland would not be deprived of any advantage to which they were fairly entitled by the proposed alteration of the duty on foreign spirits.

certainly felt that the question, as it appeared in the Notice Paper, was not sufficiently explicit; and he had, therefore, thought it his duty to state the immediate point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet.

rose to move, pursuant to Notice, for leave to bring in a—

"Bill for the farther repeal of Enactments imposing pains and penalties upon Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, on account of their religion."

The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he did not mean to preface the Motion by any lengthened observations, and that he did not wish to invite discussion at that stage of the measure. A Bill containing similar provisions had last year met to a certain extent with the approba- tion of the Government, and those provisions had received the sanction of the Criminal Law Commissioners, to whom the whole subject had been referred. The enactments which he sought to repeal were a deep stain on our Statute Book. They were enactments no longer suited to the ago, and he therefore expected no opposition to the measure from any quarter in that House. The Criminal Law Commissioners had said that these Statutes had now become obsolete, that they were opposed to the feelings of the people, and that they ought to be at once repealed. There was one part of the Bill to which he particularly called the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and that was the repeal of certain severe enactments affecting the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, which were continued in the Bill of 1829—he meant the regular clergy, who had come to this country and placed themselves under monastic vows since the passing of that Act. He believed few persons did more good in their sphere than these men, who had devoted themselves to religious purposes and acts of charity; and yet they were liable, on coming into this country and placing themselves under monastic vows, to severe punishment, even to transportation. He thought it, indeed, high time that such an enactment should be removed from the Statute-book. It was utterly absurd to suppose that this could be one of the safeguards which the Church obtained in 1829, or to imagine that the existence of a body who spent their lives in acts of charity and mercy, in following out their religion, should endanger the Church of this country. With these few observations he would simply move for leave to bring in the Bill.

did not intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he should think it expedient, under the circumstances he was about to state, to persevere in his Motion. In consequence of what took place at the close of the last Session of Parliament, the whole subject of the Penal Laws, not only affecting Roman Catholics, but all dissenters from the Established religion, was referred to the Criminal Law Commissioners, with the direction that any Statute or portion of a Statute which in their opinion was susceptible of a penal character should be embodied in one Bill. During the recess the Criminal Law Commissioners, acting on that instruction, had framed a Bill, which had been laid before the other House of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor, with the full concurrence of the Government. Every effort would be made by Government to pass that measure; and he confidently expected in a short period to be able to introduce it to that House. It was a measure fully as comprehensive as that which he announced to the House at the end of the last Session.

had felt it his duty not to rise until his right hon. Friend had addressed the House. He rejoiced on one account, and on one poor account only, at the observations which had fallen from him; and that was, because they had clearly proved to his mind that in his predictions last Session he had not wasted the time of the House; the fears which he had entertained last year, having in the present year been realized by Her Majesty's Government. He wished that hon. Gentlemen opposite would permit him to urge upon them respectfully and seriously the expediency of leaving their separate projects, whatever they might be, in the hands of Her Majesty's present advisers. He believed that the advice just tendered by the right hon. Baronet to the hon. and learned Member for Kinsale might with equal sincerity be tendered to other Members of the House; and that the objects which other hon. Members had in view would be attained quite as readily as the objects of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be attained, by transferring their labours to Her Majesty's Government. He did not mean to divide the House on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill then under their consideration; but he wished to remind the House what was the nature of the Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward last year, and what was the nature of the Bill, precisely similar in its provisions, which he now asked leave to introduce; and which the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had adopted as his own. It was a Bill to repeal the Act of Supremacy; it was a Bill to enable Roman Catholic bishops to assume the titles of the sees of prelates of the Established Church; it was a Bill to legalize processions (and processions, let them recollect, of one class of persons, while they had prohibited the processions of another class of persons on the ground of their exciting public opposition and hostility); it was a Bill to repeal the Act for expelling the Jesuits. Could any hon. Member deny that that was a fair summary of the Bill brought in by the hon. and learned Gentleman about this time last year, and which had been rejected on the 9th of July, when it stood for going into Committee? But he should repeat to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to other hon. Members having similar projects for effecting a "blessed reformation in Church and State," that they might rely much more upon the assistance of Gentlemen on that side of the House, than they could rely on the assistance of his noble Friend the Member for the city of London. His noble Friend had said, on the 9th of July, he believed, when the Bill stood for a Committee, that although "he could not oppose the Motion for going into Committee, he was not prepared to say that he assented to all its provisions." Was not that a lesson to hon. Members who entertained what were called liberal views not to trouble the House with any amateur legislation on their parts, but to suggest their wishes to Her Majesty's present advisers, and to leave to them the accomplishment of those wishes, instead of consuming night after night in vain endeavours to direct the attention of the House to their measures? They might rest assured that those measures would be brought forward with all the advantages of the Government machinery and the Government advocacy, and would be passed on the nights devoted to Government business. He said it seriously—he believed it would be found that the most successful mode of proceeding for carrying those measures, would be for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest them first, and then to leave them in the hands of the present advisors of the Crown. Let any body deny that he had correctly stated the substance of the Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced last year, and he would be ready to apologise to the House for any unintentional misrepresentation. He repeated, deliberately, that, as far as he recollected, that Bill had comprehended the four points to which he had already adverted, and which were in the present Session, they were told, to be brought forward in the House of Lords, with all the authority of a united Cabinet, by the Lord High Chancellor of England. From what he knew of that new Government measure, he believed it was substantially the same as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kinsale had just asked leave to introduce.

would not charge the hon. Baronet with intentionally misrepresenting him, but certainly he had both misrepresented him and misled the House, however unintentionally on his part. He said the Government had adopted the measure of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He (Sir J. Graham) gave a direct but respectful denial to that assertion. So far from adopting the measure of the hon. Gentleman, if it was the same which he introduced last year, on the occasion to which the hon. Member for Oxford had referred, he must state that there were certain clauses in that Bill to which, on the part of Government, he was opposed. He knew not what the Bill was, but if it was the same with that of last year, he should have the same objections to certain clauses which he had stated on the former occasion. With respect to the measure brought forward by the Government in the other House of Parliament, he should be prepared to defend it in all its parts; and if the hon. Baronet chose to attend when the time came, he trusted he should be able satisfactorily to prove that the Bill did not repeal the Act of Supremacy.

said, he hoped he was as incapable of misrepresenting the right hon. Baronet, as of endeavouring to mislead the House. But he believed that the recollection of the House would go with him when he re-asserted, that the right hon. Baronet, although he had not said that he adopted the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman—and perhaps he (Sir R. Inglis) ought to apologise for having put those words in the right hon. Baronet's mouth—he believed that the recollection of the House would go with him when he re-asserted, that the right hon. Baronet had stated, that if the Bill were the same in substance as that of last year, a similar Bill, (he believed that the words were, "a Bill as comprehensive,") had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government in the other House of Parliament. If he had misunderstood the right hon. Baronet, he would be ready to apologise to him. But the right hon. Baronet had stated, that the Bill of last year would not repeal the Act of Supremacy. He, however, pledged himself, that this was a prominent point in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and it was as prominent a point, if he were not mistaken, in the Bill introduced into the other House by the Lord Chancellor.

said, that it would perhaps be more convenient that the right hon. Baronet should state whether the penalties affecting the regular Roman Catholic clergy were retained in the Bill introduced into the House of Lords. [Sir J. GRAHAM: When the Bill comes in, I will explain it.] When the proper time should have arrived, he would be perfectly ready, although exceedingly sorry, to meet his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford upon the provisions in question. He could not conceive that the Church of England could derive any benefit from penal Statutes against the regular Roman Catholic clergy. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that there were many safeguards which the Church of England had a right to demand. He thought she had a right to demand to have perfect freedom to increase her resources with the increase of our population; he thought she had a right to demand that her ancient landmarks should not be swept away, or the number of her livings decreased. But he did not think that the Church of England could be benefited by retaining penalties which were not only alien to the spirit of Christian charity, but which the Governments which had imposed them had never had the cruelty to enforce. It was perfectly notorious that there had been enacted against religious bodies in this country, penalties which no one would wish to see carried into effect. He was sure that no one would wish to interfere with the Christian Brothers, for instance, or with the Cistercian Monks—men who devoted their lives to the improvement of their fellow-creatures.

hoped, that this Bill would not be withdrawn, or left in the hands of Government; but that it would be permitted to be read a first time, and in due course they would find whether the Bill referred to by the right hon. Baronet was essentially the same. Singular, indeed, it was, that at this time of day, that House should be called on to decide whether the exercise of the priestly office was to be made penal by Act of Parliament—whether a devoted attachment to religious exorcises, the abandonment of worldly cares, and the salvation of the souls of such individuals, as well as the souls of others—were things that the people of England wished to have punished by legal enactment. They had come to a curious period of the world's history. Who had not heard of persecutions of a most atrocious kind—of cruelties of the most hor- rible nature—inflicted on the helpless nuns of Minsk? The monster tyrant who could thus basely and foully commit such outrages on those estimable ladies, was an object of loathing; and it was not creditable to the Christians of Europe, that some public demonstration had not been made to express the horror and detestation of all civilized Christendom against the monster and his satellites who had perpetrated such enormities. What was the principle of the law in this country as it stood? It was the same principle as that upon which the tyrant of Russia, had acted. There was no punishment by our law for the Atheist—none for the Deist: it was all reserved for the sincerely pious and the benevolently humane. To visit virtue and charity with penalties and punishment, was a most anti-Christian proceeding. He felt bound to thank the right hon. Home Secretary and the Government for the excellence of their intentions; and he hoped that their Bill would be found so good as to supersede that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinsale.

, allusion having been made to him, wished to say a few words as to his former declaration, that he was not ready at once to repeal these laws without consideration. Last Session he had voted for the Committee, but he had reserved to himself the right of weighing the details. It appeared to him that there was one part of the question that had not been sufficiently attended to: the measure of Government, as far as it was stated last year, did not effect that relief to the Roman Catholics from a law by which they were punished, both for assuming episcopal titles in Ireland, and for belonging to certain religious orders. That part of the subject required interference by the Legislature. As to preventing persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more absurd and puerile than to keep up such a distinction. He had also the strongest objection to the law which made Jesuits in certain cases liable to transportation: the enactment was as intolerant as it was inefficacious, and it was fit that the law should be put on an intelligible and rational footing. Whether it would be expedient to repeal that part of the law which restricted monastic orders, or whether some security ought not to be required from them similar to that given by Protestant Dissenters, viz., that they should be registered and subjected to the inspection, if you will, of Roman Catholic visitors, was a great question he was not yet prepared to answer. What had happened in various countries in respect to these religious orders was well known. They were not attacked because they professed particular tenets, but because they actually interfered with the politics of the State in which they were established. He was prepared to say that severe penalties ought not to be threatened which no person and no Government would venture to execute.

rose to move for—

"Returns of all applications for the Stewardship or Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds received from any Member or Members of Parliament by the Government during the present Session, with the date of such application, and date of the appointment, where such applications have been complied with.

"Of all applications made to Government by Members of Parliament for appointments to offices of the like nature with the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, being appointments applied for with the view of vacating the Seats of the Applicants, and the dates of such appointments, where the applications have been complied with.

"Of the particular Forms of Grants of the Stewardship or Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds and of other Grants of the like nature, and of the Time necessarily occupied in completing the same, when such Grants are made."

The hon. Member spoke as follows:—I rise to address the House on a subject of some importance as it respects the operation of the representative system. It appears that there is a power in the Government (which I am sure I do not pretend to say has been on the present occasion abused)—but as to the exercise of which I think inquiry is demanded—it appears that there is a power in the Government of delaying or accelerating the issue of writs when Members have accepted offices which occasion the vacating of their seats. I was informed last week by general rumour (having had no other means of information), that two seats for the county which I have the honour to represent were vacant; and I have since had reason to believe it is true; but up to this period the writs have not been moved for. My hon. Friend Mr. Miles the other night asked some explanation on the subject; and it then appeared, that though the office which could occasion vacancies had been applied for, the Government writs had not been made out so as to justify the moving for the writs. Now, at this particular period, when a very important question is coming on, it is a matter of some consequence to the county, that two seats should be vacant. The result must be, so far as I can anticipate, that two of the votes of that county cannot be given on the first division that is likely to take place. I have no right in any degree to anticipate how those votes would be given when the Members were returned; but I have a right to say it is a hardship on the county to be deprived of those two votes, whichever way they would be given. Had these writs been moved for on Monday (I am not assuming it was possible they should have been), by this day se'nnight—the day on which it is most probable a division will take place—those two Members would have been here. But, the writ being moved for to-night or to-morrow, it is impossible such a result should take place. According to every ordinary calculation, giving fair allowance for long speeches and several nights' debates, it is hardly now possible that the two Members for Dorsetshire should attend the House on the first division in the approaching debate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to bring this subject before the House. In doing so, I by no means intend to impute blame to any one. As to my two hon. Friends, the late Members for the county, I have a right to say, that had I arrived at the same opinion as I understand they have arrived at, I should have felt bound to pursue the same course as they have taken; because, though I came into the House with no pledges, so that I need not consider myself the delegate of any man, yet, under the circumstances of the late election—taken as it was, and known to be taken, with reference to this particular question, I certainly should have felt, as it appears my hon. Friends have felt, that the declarations then made, did raise expectations—which expectations if I could not conscientiously satisfy by my votes—would have compelled me to resign into my constituents' hands the trust which they had committed into my charge, and to desire them to place it in the hands of some one whose opinions were more in accordance with their own. I cannot, therefore, feel at all surprised at the course pursued by my two hon. Friends, my late colleagues in the representation of the county. And I am convinced it must be their wish that the county should not be deprived of their two votes on the important occasion I allude to. Whether the constituency may re-elect my two late hon. colleagues, I cannot pretend to say. But this I claim for the county, the right of having its two votes at the earliest possible period. I wish especially to know—as the information would be peculiarly valuable under existing circumstances—what is the earliest period at which, in regular course of procedure, the writ can be moved for after the occurrence of such vacancies. And I can venture to say, there could be no better rule adopted for the future than this: that the Member of the Government who grants the offices referred to, should be responsible for moving that the writs be issued. For at present it appears that no party is responsible, even supposing the grant is made. How can the public at large know of any such grant having been applied for? The consequence is, that (without imputing blame to any one) the writ may be delayed, and the constituencies deprived of that representation to which they are by law entitled. It is under those circumstances I am induced to submit my Motion to the House for the production of Papers which may perhaps explain a matter of no small importance.

said, that so far from being opposed to the Motion of his hon. Friend, he had brought down to the House a Paper containing all the information required by his Motion, and that Paper he was ready to lay on the Table of the House, in order that there might be no delay. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had always acted while in office according to what he believed to be the uniform custom—namely, to consent to every application for the office of steward for the Chiltern Hundreds, when he had ascertained that such application came from the Member himself. Under such circumstances, the office was always granted without hesitation, and he had acted upon what had been the invariable custom; but in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would add, that he never felt that the duty devolved upon the Government of obtaining a new writ when such an office was granted. If the Government were responsible, and if that power of obtaining a new writ was confined solely to it, he was of opinion that the possession of such a power would be likely to lead to great abuses—to abuses which he had no doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Bankes) would be one of the first to object to. The manner of granting the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds was, by the com- pletion of an instrument, conferring that office on an individual; and although it might sometimes happen that delay took place in completing that instrument, yet it would be seen by the Paper which he hold in his hand, that no such delay took place with respect to the cases to which his hon. Friend had alluded. With reference to a question which had been put on a former night, relative to Lord Ashley, he would state that the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds could not be given twice on the same day; and when it had been given to an individual, and that another applied on the same day, it was necessary to call in the aid of another stewardship. He hoped that his hon. Friend saw the inexpediency of forcing such a responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With reference to the case of Lord Ashley, he had not been able to give an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles), at the moment the question was put, because as the Chiltern Hundreds could only be conferred once on the same day, it was necessary, when applications were so frequent, to call in aid other stewardships; so that he had been unable to state the precise office which had been granted to Lord Ashley. He, however, trusted the House would not impute to him any blame in these transactions, which, he repeated, had been conducted according to established practice.

could not avoid expressing as his opinion that it would be better to get rid of all these forms of applying for and obtaining the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and to leave Members at liberty at once, when they so thought fit, to resign their seats.

was of opinion, that the inquiry which the hon. Member opposite was desirous of instituting, might be carried still farther, for it was most desirable that the particulars of some recent resignations should be laid before the country; and it was also most essential for them to know if it were true that, in contravention of the orders of that House, any Peer or Peers had interfered, or used influence, in returning Representatives to sit there. He could name a Gentleman who held one of the highest offices of the Government, and whose constituents for the last fifteen years had been perfectly satisfied with his conduct in Parliament. That Gentleman had been recently appointed to the high office to which he had alluded; but he was not again returned by the constituency which he had represented for fifteen years. What prevented that Gentleman's return by his former constituency? Every individual in the country knew—every newspaper in the country stated—that he was not again returned in consequence of the interference of a Member of the other House of Parliament; and that his return was so prevented in consequence of his support of the liberal and enlightened measures which had been proposed by the Government. He would say that an inquiry ought to be instituted into these circumstances. The House of Commons ought, in justice to its own character, to inquire into the influences which were used to send Members to that assembly, and to ascertain if it was true that Members of the other House sent Representatives to the House of Commons, not for the purpose of attending to the interests of the country, but for the purpose of attending to the private interests of those Peers themselves. They ought to ascertain if any such influence had been used in order to prevent the return of a Gentleman, because he was favourable to the enlightened measure which had been recently brought forward by the Government for the good of the country. If the House of Commons truly represented the people, they would not sit quiet for one day until an inquiry had been established into those flagrant abuses and violations of the Orders of that House. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down with the Returns in his hand, for he should have been desirous for additional returns; and, indeed, he thought that their information could not be considered complete without a Committee of Inquiry, which might enable them to sift the selfish views that opposed hon. Gentlemen who preferred supporting liberal and enlightened policy to any private interests.

moved for copies of any Papers or Reports by Mr. Chadwick, Secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners, by Mr. Parker, late Assistant-Commissioner, or by any other Assistant-Commissioner, on the subject of bone-crushing in Union workhouses; and in doing so, he referred to passages in Mr. Parker's letter addressed to Sir J. Graham, for the purpose of showing that such representations had been made both by Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Parker. Of course, he (Mr. Christie) could not state precisely the proper names which the Papers or Reports bore in which these representations appeared; but he trusted the Government would not, on that account, refuse to lay them on the Table.

said, he was not aware when he spoke yesterday, that there were any such documents of the nature of those which the hon. Member had described; but in consequence of what the hon. Member had then stated, he had, in the course of that morning, made inquiries of the Poor Law Commissioners, and it did appear that there was a paper by Mr. Chadwick, in the nature of a memorandum, unsigned, but it was quite of a confidential nature, and intended entirely for the consideration of the Commissioners. He (Sir J. Graham) therefore hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press for the production of the documents referred to; for it was impossible that public business could be conducted without differences occasionally occurring between superior authorities and the officers in their employment, and all public confidence would be destroyed if such documents were not to be considered of a confidential nature. He begged to say, therefore, that he could not consent to lay on the Table the Papers moved for.

The right hon. Baronet has said nothing about the paper by Mr. Parker.

replied, that the paper by Mr. Parker consisted of a mere memorandum on the back of certain other papers, which expressed an opinion that bone-crushing was not a good employment for the poor of the workhouses. Mr. Chad wick's paper was a more recent production; but both were alike of a confidential character.

remarked, that though the documents were refused, he was glad to find from the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that it was made clear that both Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Parker had remonstrated against the practice of bone-crushing in workhouses.

I did not say that they remonstrated against the practice; but merely that they had expressed an opinion.