considered that as this Bill (which came down from the House of Lords) had not yet been explained to the House, it would be necessary for him, in now moving that it be read a second time, to state in a few words the nature of the measure. It was notorious to the House, that the prorogation of Parliament put an end to every proceeding in either House of Parliament, and that, at whatever stage a measure might he when the prorogation took place, the whole of the stages of that measure must be gone through if it was again introduced in the subsequent Session of Parliament. They were also aware that, of late years, the greater portion of their business, and very frequently the most important, was postponed till a very late period of the Session—so late that, on many occasions, it was found necessary to drop important questions altogether; while the House of Lords either found it impossible to get through the Bills that came before them, or did so with a degree of rapidity that ought not to exist. In 1844 the number of Bills that were brought up to the Lords from the Commons were—in March, three; April, one; May, ten; June, nine; July, fifty-two; and, on the four last days on which the House sat, in August, twelve. In 1854 there were 155 Bills brought into the Commons; and 130 Acts of Parliament passed, of which 21 originated in the House of Lords, and 109 in the House of Commons. Of 91 Bills sent up from the Commons in 1845, and printed, excluding those which the Lords did not think of sufficient importance to print, there were sent up in February, one; in March, five; in April, twelve; in May, four; in June, nine; in July, fifty-nine; in August, one. So that of the Acts which were sent up to to the House of Lords in 1845, sixty-three, or nearly one-half, were so sent up within the last six weeks of the Session. In 1846, 149 Bills were brought into the Commons; of 117 Acts which were passed, 12 originated in the House of Lords, and 105 in the House of Commons; 79 were printed, and of those, 15 were sent up in July, and 36 in August. In those two months 51 Bills were, in all, sent to the House of Lords, and passed into law. In 1847,159 Bills were brought into the Commons; 115 Acts passed, of which 11 originated in the Lords, and 104 in the Commons; 7 were not printed. Of those Bills there were sent to the House of Lords in January, two Bills; in February, six; in March, seven; in April, ten; in May, fifteen; in all, forty Bills up to that period. In June there were brought up twenty-eight; in July, twenty-nine; being fifty-seven Bills sent up during those two months; forty-nine of which were passed within six weeks, and twenty-eight within three weeks, of the prorogation. It was plain that under these circumstances sufficient time was not left to the House of Lords for the consideration of those measures. If it were necessary to adduce futher proof of the evil which the present Bill proposed to remedy, it would be found in the statements which had been made in Parliament at different periods with respect to the state of public business. On the 20th of July, 1843, Sir R. Peel, after adverting to the number of Orders of the Day, proceeded to state, that though there were some which might pass without difficulty, there were others of great importance. Among these were the Arms (Ireland) Bill, the Scottish Church Bill, the Irish Poor Law, and the Exportation of Machinery Bill. He added—

"Of course it would be difficult for him to be aware what the progress of those Bills would be; but he thought it probable that they would occupy so much of the time of the House, that it would be difficult to expect full attention in that and the other House of Parliament to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. Her Majesty's Government were perfectly prepared, if there had been time, to proceed with that Bill; but they could not think that at this late period of the Session the Bill would receive the full consideration of the House of Lords, even if it should pass this House. "

For similar reasons it appeared the Factory Bill, the County Courts Bill, and the Small Debts Bill, were abandoned. The House was that year prorogued on the 24th of August. On the 1st of July, 1844, Sir R. Peel expressed his regret that "a vast mass of business still remained to be transacted;" and on the 7th of July, 1845, the right hon. Gentleman, again adverting to the state of public business, said—

"I regret to find, on a view of these measures, that several of those which yet remain to be discharged, and that must and ought to be discharged, are very important. The entire number of Bills amounts to between fifty and sixty."

Now, among the Bills which the right hon. Baronet enumerated were to be found the Irish Colleges Bill, the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, the Jewish Disabilities Bill, the Bills of Exchange Bill, containing modifications of the Usury Laws, the Parochial Settlement, the Irish and Scotch Removal, the Criminal Lunatic, the Drainage of Land, the Joint Stock Companies, the Practice of Surgery, the Merchant Seamen's Fund, the Charitable Trusts, the Ecclesiastical Local Courts, the Small Debts, the Commons Enclosure, and the Justices' Clerks Bills. Such was a list of important Bills which were in that House on the 7th of July, 1845. Parliament was that year prorogued on the 9th of August. In 1847 the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government stated, on the 31st of May, that he felt the Health of Towns Bill of very essential importance, and hoped to pass it; yet, on the 8th of July, he was obliged to withdraw it. Lord Lord Norman by on one occasion complained that—

"Under the present custom of Parliament most Bills must originate in the Commons. At present their Lordships' time was wasted in the early part of the Session, and everything was crowded on together when a majority of their Lordships had left London, and when, even if they were all present, they would have no time to bestow for the consideration of the measures presented to their notice."

The circumstance and statements to which he had referred, showed that there was an evil to be remedied. The evil, he conceived, was admitted on all hands, and the only question which remained was whether the Bill of which he was about to propose the second reading was calculated to alleviate the evil without trenching on the prerogative of the Crown, or prejudicing the privileges of either House of Parliament. The Bill proposed that it should be lawful for cither House of Parliament, at any stage of any Bill which had been passed by the other House, to adjourn proceeding with it to a future Session. It was not intended to interfere with the power of putting a stop to measures by means of a prorogation which the Crown now possessed; for the consent of the Crown was requisite to their reintroduction; and if there was any apprehension that Bills would be improperly hung up, the provision rendering the consent of the Crown necessary to the suspension of a Bill would afford an efficient guard against abuse, the Government being responsible for the general good conduct of the business of the country at largo. He believed that no practical inconvenience would result from the operation of the measure he now proposed for the acceptance of the House. The Bill did not apply to matters of tax or revenue. After a measure had passed the House, and undergone the fullest consideration there, very considerable advantage would accrue from having it placed before the country for a period of five or six months. At present, he feared, there were unavoidably instances of hasty legislation, which might not occur were provision made for the revival of Bills in a Session subsequent to that in which they were introduced. It might be said that in the course of five or six months the House of Commons might, under a change of circumstances, alter its opinion of a Bill. But even that contingency was provided against by the present measure. A Bill revived in the Lords must come back to the Commons for its approval before receiving the Royal assent. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. It was said the Houses of Parliament might carry out the object of this Bill by resolutions of their own. With the precedent established by the 1st of George IV., c. 101, he doubted greatly whether they ought to proceed otherwise than by Bill. He had not hastily come to the conclusion that a measure such as the present was required; and, however important it might be to adhere rigidly to practice as a general rule, yet, when an evil existed, and a remedy might be applied, he trusted that he would ever be ready to set himself free from the prejudice which naturally existed in favour of what was the old practice. He had a strong conviction that a very considerable degree of relief would be afforded, and that great advantage would be derived by the House and by the country at large from the adoption of this measure. It was perfectly notorious that the House at the present moment felt the effects of delay in the progress of public business. Notice had been given of a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider what was the best mode of facilitating the despatch of public business in that House. It was his earnest wish to refer the Bill to that Committee, and it was with the view of so referring it that he now proposed the second reading of the Bill.

felt that great part of the objection he had to this Bill was removed by the proposal to refer it to the Select Committee which it was intended to nominate on the business of the House, because when the question came before the Committee there would be an opportunity of considering all the objections in detail which applied to the measure. He must be allowed, however, to say that he thought this Bill rather aggravated the evil. As a Committee, however, was to be appointed on the business of the House, he should forbear from entering further on the consideration of this Bill; but should it so happen that the Committee was not appointed, he should take an opportunity of stating his views on the subject when it should be proposed to commit the Bill.

concluded that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the second reading would at all events refer the Bill to the Select Committee which it was proposed to appoint on the business of the House; that whether the House agreed or not, though he presumed they would, to that Committee, the hon. Gentleman would propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and would nominate the persons whose names now stood in the Votes. Like the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he should refrain from entering into any of the considerations which the Bill involved. There was one question, however, as to acting by Resolution or by Bill, which was of considerable importance, and to which he should briefly advert. He believed the House had an inherent power of making resolutions by which the House could agree at a single reading to a Bill which had been passed in a previous Session of Parliament, and the House of Lords had agreed to. There was nothing in the first, second, or third reading of a Bill which was binding upon the House by Act of Parliament, or which they had it not in their power to change. He thought, therefore, that they could by resolution declare that, instead of three readings, they should have only one reading, which should be conclusive. Such would be the effect of the Bill as it stood, because it was proposed, not that the House should be bound to assent to what it formerly agreed to; but that every clause of a Bill might be reconsidered in another Session, if it were not passed in the same Session in which it was introduced. But as to doing such things by resolution, he saw considerable objection. It would be altering the whole usage of Parliament by resolution. If there were to be a Bill, it ought to be a temporary Bill, for otherwise very great inconvenience would be experienced; and it would rather embarrass legislation than assist it, were they to adopt a mea-sure which they had not the power of al- tering without the consent of the other House of Parliament. Therefore he thought, if a measure of this kind were adopted, whether by way of resolution, to which there was great objection, or in the shape of a Bill, that Bill ought to be of a temporary character, so that the House should have the opportunity of judging of the effects of an experiment which might be required by the state of the business, but at the same time an experiment of which no one could tell the result.

objected entirely to the Bill. Instead of facilitating, it would greatly retard public business. He should therefore feel it his duty to take the sense of the House against it, and to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. W. S. Crawford) would not persist in his Motion, He believed that some Bill of this kind was necessary to enable them to get through their business. The system of Parliament taking up in one Session the business which had been left undone in a previous Session was not new. It had already been in operation for several years in the French Chambers, and had been found to be productive of great advantage.

was quite ready to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. But, notwithstanding his great respect for his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, he could not go along with him in several of the objections he had stated to this Bill. He thought it was liable to some objections; but he considered that the general principle well deserved the attention of the Committee. He was strongly impressed with the advantage of the Bill in a case like this: Suppose a Bill to be supported by a majority of that House, but resisted pertinaciously by a small and determined minority. There might, of course, be great delay in passing such a measure, owing to that opposition; and, consequently, it might not reach the House of Lords till a late period of the Session. If the House of Lords, owing to its reaching them at so late a period, should throw out the Bill, there would be a great loss of time occasioned even to the House of Commons by its reintroduction into that House in the succeeding Session, because the minority might recommence their opposition, and endeavour to defeat it again by renewed dis- cussion. At the same time, there was one objection stated by the right hon. Gentleman in which he entirely concurred—he meant in regard to the interposition of the Crown. By the first clause it was provided that the consent of the Crown should he signified to the adjournment of Bills. Now, this might prove a serious difficulty, because they might suppose a case in which a Bill was not pressed till a late period of the Session, when many Members might have left town under the idea that the Crown would not refuse its assent to its adjournment; but the assent of the Crown being refused, the Bill might be carried by the minority of Members remaining in town. He hoped, however, that the Committee to whom the Bill was to be referred, would present it in such a form as to obviate every just objection to it.

would state very shortly the course which, as an individual, he intended to pursue in reference to this Bill. In a former Parliament, as well as during the present Session, he had taken the liberty of stating fully to the House the objections which he entertained to the principle of this Bill. Those objections remained unaltered, and, he believed, unalterable, He did not think that any modification the Bill could receive in Committee would remove the objection which he felt to its principle. Moreover, he did not think it expedient, considering that the House, after a full discussion on a former occasion, had decided in favour of going into Committee on the Bill, to obstruct the Speaker's leaving the chair, and to prevent those who were in favour of the measure from changing it as they thought fit. He believed that the Bill was resisted generally by the Established Church of Scotland, and he had reason to believe that it was resisted also by all the Dissenting bodies in Scotland, with the exception of the Free Church. He certainly would take no part in the discussion in the Committee, but should reserve any observations he had to make till it came out of the Committee in its amended form, when he would be prepared to resist its further progress at a subsequent stage; believing that, in addition to the support of the Estab- lished Church and the Dissenters of Scotland, he should then have the support of the Free Church also, in resisting the Bill passing into a law.

said, that as that clause at present stood, it would allow the members not only of every Christian congregation, but of every association whatever, who chose to take a religious form, to compel landlords to sell their land on which to build their places of meeting. Now, he wished to move an Amendment confining the operation of the measure to the relief of the parties at present labouring under the grievance complained of. Now, what was that grievance? That grievance was a single grievance, confined to a limited number of persons in certain localities. It was not a grievance which was suffered by the whole Free Church, or anything like the whole Free Church. It was confined to some twenty or thirty congregations, composed of some 12,000 or 14,000 persons. But the grievance was nevertheless a great and intolerable grievance, and one which called loudly for redress. That grievance had been represented to the House by their own Committee as an intolerable grievance; and in the present state of things it was actually dangerous to the health both of the ministers and of the congregations who were exposed to it. Through the winter and summer these congregations were at present compelled to worship in the open air, or, at any rate, under very insufficient covering—exposed to frost and cold and heavy falls of rain. He appealed to hon. Members how they would feel if they and their families were obliged to attend public worship under these great hardships, and if they had no remedy but that of absenting themselves from public worship altogether? He thanked God that his countrymen, under no hardship or deprivation, would do that. They would go to a place of worship even if they had to stand up to the knees in snow, and if they had no more comfortable place to go to. Every Member must see that that could not be done without very great danger to the health of those congregations; and it was impossible but that already many persons should have fallen victims to the refusal of these sites. This ease was different from anything that could happen in England or Ireland, for in Scotland there were in the hands of a few proprietors properties that more resembled little sovereignties than private estates, some of them extending fifty or sixty miles in length; and it was impossible to get one acre of that land without the consent of the individual to whom it belonged. It had been objected that this should be the subject of a private and not a public Bill; but they had been engaged in that House in passing a measure for enabling land to be taken for securing the public health; and as that Committee had reported that the health of the congregations where sites were refused was suffering in consequence, this was properly made the subject of a public Bill. He did not rest this upon the claim of the Free Church, for that church had nothing to do with it, and he confined his remedy entirely to the grievance which had been reported by the Committee. That grievance was solitary, confined to a certain number of persons and certain localities, and he was sure was temporary only. His proposal, therefore, was that they should so legislate as that, the grievance being proved, they should give redress for that grievance only; and, that being done, that they should put an end to the law, and there should no longer be any remembrance of what passed. If they accomplished that end, he thought they would put an end to the ill feeling that now existed in Scotland on this subject. The hon. Member moved—

"To leave out the words, 'the members of any religious congregation in Scotland,' in order to insert the words, 'any congregation or congregations of the Free Church of Scotland."

wished to call the attention of the House to the course which had been pursued with reference to this order, which related to what was asserted to be a very important question—the repeal of the Union. That subject was brought before the House on the 11th of April by the hon. Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell); and, after the speeches of that hon. Gentleman, of the Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. W. S. O'Brien), who seconded the Motion, and of one or two other hon. Gentlemen, the debate was adjourned. Now, those hon. Gentlemen had since absented themselves from the House; they had shown no further interest in the matter; and he thought the House ought now to determine whether the order should any longer remain on the books. He wished it to be understood that he did not cast the slightest blame on the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), who had been in his place whenever the order stood upon the Paper; but he did think that as hon. Gentlemen who had put themselves forward as the leaders of a great party—who had asserted that their proposal for the repeal of the Union was the only panacea for the evils of Ireland—and who had taken up the time of the House for a whole night in speaking on the subject—had since absented themselves from the House, and had not attempted to bring the question forward again, the House ought to determine whether the order should be discharged or not. The Motion was submitted to the House, as he had stated, on the 11th of April. The debate was then adjourned to the 10th of May, a day when the hon. Gentleman who proposed the adjournment must have known it could not come on, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill being the first order of the day, and four other orders of material importance intervening between that order and the order for the adjourned debate. If the hon. Gentleman had wished to bring the subject forward, he might have fixed it for the following Wednesday, for which, at that time, only one order was on the Paper; but no attempt was made to do so, and the debate was again adjourned to the 31st of May. On that day neither the mover nor the seconder was present; and as a matter of courtesy the order was postponed to the following day, in order that some hon. Member might fix a day for resuming the debate; and on the Motion of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) the order was further postponed to Wednesday the 7th of Juno. On that day the mover and seconder were not present; and they had now arrived at the 5th of July, three mouths after the Motion had been submitted to the House, without any attempt having been made to resume the debate. He, therefore, thought he was only doing his duty to the House in giving notice that, unless the hon. Members for the city and county of Limerick were in their places on that day three weeks, he would move that the order be discharged. Those hon Gentlemen had sometimes complained that they had no influence in the House; and if they conducted themselves in this manner, he was not surprised that they did not possess any influence in such an assem- bly. [Cries of Move!"] No; he would not make the Motion now, for if he did so it would be said by some hon. Gentleman in Ireland, "Here is an English Member who, because we were not present, takes the opportunity to discharge from the Order-book an important Motion." He (Sir B. Hall) must say he thought this was a miserable exhibition, for there were not at present in that House a dozen Members connected with Ireland who were favourable to the proposition to which he had referred, and which was represented in Ireland as one of paramount importance.

must confess that there was much truth in the observations of the hon. Baronet. He begged to thank that hon. Gentleman for exculpating him (Mr. Reynolds) from any blame in relation to this matter. The reason his name had been connected with the various postponements of the debate was, that he had moved its adjournment, and had therefore a sort of official connexion with the question. He (Mr. Reynolds) wished to state, not only for the information of the House, but of the public, who felt much interest in this important national question, that he condemned the hon. Member for the city of Limerick for choosing the occasion he selected for bringing the subject forward. He (Mr. Reynolds) and several of his hon. Friends had remonstrated with that hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connell) against bringing the matter forward at that time. They stated that upon that Wednesday there would not be sufficient time to discuss the question; indeed, the hon. and learned Member's own speech occupied four hours, and the House on Wednesday could spare only six. It was impossible for him (Mr. Reynolds) to bring on the Motion on any of the other days for which it was fixed; and now it was half-past 4, and the House must rise at 6 o'clock, and not more than three Repeal Members were at that moment in the House. [Cheers.] He understood that cheer; the absence of the hon. and learned mover, it was to be presumed, would be satisfactorily accounted for hereafter; the seconder was absent, it was believed, in consequence of illness in his family; the greater part of the Repeal Members were at the assizes, and discharging great and important duties in Ireland; and under these circumstances he (Mr. Reynolds) thought he should not be doing justice to the subject if he were to ask the House to discuss it then. He, for one—and he did not mean to say that any of the Irish Repeal Members were disposed to shrink from the discussion of this question—he, for one, believed conscientiously that it was of all questions the one most calculated to confer benefit upon Ireland. If there was any intention to back out of the discussion, he was not aware of it; but, on consultation with the hon. Member for Tipperary, Mr. Maher, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny county, Mr. Butler—these hon. Members were unanimously of opinion that the debate ought to be postponed for a fortnight. The paper of that day fortnight being preoccupied, he had moved that the debate be deferred until that day three weeks.

looked upon the discussion throughout as a mere pretence. The quarrel between the hon. Gentlemen was "a very pretty one as it stood," and he was not inclined to interfere; but he was not at all disposed to join in exculpating the hon. Member (Mr. Reynolds). He (Mr. Keogh) happened to be in Dublin when that hon. Member, in his place in another Parliament—Conciliation-hall—informed his admiring audience, that there was to be found upon the repeal benches of the British House of Commons a greater amount of political rascality, a greater amount of political profligacy, than in like proportion had ever disgraced the sacred benches of Conciliation-hall. It was difficult, therefore, to blame hon. Members for not being in their places, to hear perhaps similar language applied to themselves. But there was another reason for not exculpating that bland demagogue the hon. Member for Dublin ["Order!"]—well, then, democrat ["Order!"]—he (Mr. Keogh) would apologise if he had used a word that was not consistent with the rules of the House—at all events that bland popular orator, bland only in that House; that was the only place where he had heard him speak in such mild and complacent language. When the hon. Member went back to Ireland for the recess, the first thing he did was to denounce his own supporters, and to say, "I give you notice that on the 31st of April—on the 31st of May, no matter what business may be on hand, no matter if I should be engaged in the Herculean labour of defending my seat, I will bring on the question of repeal. "Said the hon. and learned Member for the city of Limerick, "I was always for taking an opportune time; my opinion is, that we should keep this awful, practical, tremendous question hanging, like the sword of Damocles, over the House of Commons; the surest way of carrying it is by never bringing it on; if we could got the House to an everlasting postponement, then, assuredly, the question would he immediately carried." Yielding to his illustrious chief, the hon. Member for Dublin, instead of carrying out his public declaration, absented himself on the 31st of May, and the debate was postponed. But the hon. Member's hands might have been tolerably full since then; and, indeed, this playing with the question, and deceiving the people of Ireland, was not alone to be attributed to the Repeal Members. The Gentlemen upon the Treasury benches had been lending themselves to the agitation in that country, and the Repeal Members had got encouragement and consolation in their difficulties from the Treasury benches. At the last general election the word given was, "Let there be a Whig-returned if possible;" but if that could not be effected in any way, no matter what, then the power and influence of Her Majesty's Government were directed to the aid and support and to achieving the success of those men who had been for years confusing the state of Ireland, and keeping it in hot water. The right hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil) smiled; well might he smile; a speech of his in 1814 was not yet forgotten, in which he said—

"Against drinking let the drunkard rail, let Crockford's Club preach against gaming, but lot not a Whig Government complain of agitation."

By putting forward that cry of "repeal" men were only deceiving the country, and keeping out of this Parliament those who would be disposed to look to the real practical welfare of the people of Ireland. When the hon. Member for Dublin said that he looked upon this as a bonâ fide substantial question, he must be told that none of his acts or of his supporters in that House could lead a rational man to think anything but this, that the question of the repeal of the Union had been used as a false pretence to enable them to obtain seats in that House, By preaching up that cry, which unless put down once for all must inevitably lead to the dismemberment of this kingdom, he and his friends were deceiving the people of Ireland, and not holding a fair or upright attitude before the British House of Commons.

would second the Motion for the adjournment of the House, in order to have the opportunity of saying a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Dublin. He seemed to have touched a sore point when he spoke of Repeal Members receiving comfort and consolation from the Treasury benches. When he made that allusion, it was not his intention to infer that any broad pieces had been disbursed to those Gentlemen, although since he last addressed the House an extract from a paper had been placed in his hands which went into some details respecting pounds, shillings, and pence; but he would not road it, because he had not touched upon the topic in his original observations. The hon. Member said he liked open and advised speaking, and therefore, he would state a few plain facts respecting the hon. Member and the Government. The hon. Member opposed Mr. Gregory at the last election for the city of Dublin, and although Ministers professed to be the uncompromising opponents of repeal, the first vote tendered for the hon. Gentleman was that of Her Majesty's present Attorney General for Ireland. Her Majesty's Attorney General was so zealous in the cause, that, not finding a deputy in the booth to take his vote, he pulled out his watch and called all present to remark that the polling-booth was not opened in time, which, he said, would be a good ground for petitioning if the supporter of the Government should not be returned. He could go further; he could produce a letter written by Her Majesty's present Attorney General for Ireland, who had recently conducted prosecutions against men who had only carried too far the principle tolerated in a modified form by Her Majesty's Government—he could produce under the hand of Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland—and if the assertion were not correct he would be answerable for it in his place in Parliament—a letter written on the morning of an election to the agent of a candidate, stating that although he (the writer of the letter) was not a repealer, he would much prefer the return of a repealer to a supporter of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He had stated what he knew to be facts, and he defied contradiction. The hon. Member for Dublin had contradicted point blank the words which he (Mr. Keogh) had stated him to have used in Conciliation-hall. The language ascribed to the hon. Member for Dublin in the public papers of Dublin was, that there was a greater amount of political profligacy and rascality on the repeal benches than ever disgraced the benches of Conciliation-hall, which had been rendered sacred by the presence of the Liberator. Immediately after he (Mr. Keogh) sat down, the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone confirmed the accuracy of the quotation, and expressed his regret that he had just sent to his residence the newspaper containing the passage, under the impression that he would not have occasion to use it that day. He trusted that after this explanation the House would give him credit for not having made an assertion which he was not able to prove. He could refer to at least twenty cases in which the Government in Ireland had pursued conduct precisely similar to that adopted by the Attorney General in these two instances which he had noticed: and he felt justified in saying that the Government, when it suited their purpose to do so, had been playing fast and loose with the question of repeal, while under the cover of repressing the violence of the leaders of that movement they had secured majorities in that House. The Secretary for the Home Department was in his place, and would perhaps feel it necessary to address the House in consequence of the statement which he had made.

said, that he would not have interposed between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Dublin, who seemed to be very equally matched, had it not been for the very uncalled-for and unprovoked course which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken in bringing a charge against the Government, supported by the most meagre evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a vote which he (Sir. G. Grey) dared say was given on good and sufficient grounds. [Mr. KEOGH: I did not say that the vote was given, but tendered.] He would take the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement to be correct, for he was bound to give credence to what a Member stated of his own knowledge; but the hon. and learned Member was not justified in founding upon the fact of a vote having been tendered for the hon. Member for Dublin a wholesale charge against the Government of throwing all their power and influence into the scale in favour of repeal candidates. The solution of the hon. and learned Gentleman's conduct was, perhaps, to be found in this circumstance—that, however solicitous he might have been to obtain the influence of the Government at his election, he found that they would not give it to him. He could only meet a general assertion by a general denial; and, in support of his denial, he might refer to the determined opposition offered to the election of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland by the members of that body to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman said the Government afforded comfort and consolation. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman bring forward and substantiate, if he could, a distinct charge against the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; for to that nobleman the charge referred, because it was well known that the Irish elections were not managed in England. He protested against sweeping charges being brought against the Government, supported by nothing but vague declamation and general assertion.

thought it unnecessary to read the Bill a second time at that moment, because the House had already assented to the second reading of another Bill in which the ease of Horsham was dealt with.