appeared at the bar of the House and stated that he had yesterday presented the Address of the House of Commons to Her Majesty, and that Her Majesty had been pleased to return the following Answer:—

"I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.

"I rely with confidence on your co-operation with Me in advancing the welfare and happiness of My People, whose interests it is My constant desire to promote."

could hardly hope that the House would recollect, that in the course of the last Session of Parliament he had called their attention to the subject which stood in his name on the Mo- tion Paper for to-night. Early in the Session, indeed, he had moved for the production of a copy of a circular despatch by the Earl Grey, which was dated the 20th of November, 1847; and was addressed to the Governors of all the British colonies: and as that despatch referred to another communication from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to Earl Grey, he gave notice at the close of the Session that he should take an early opportunity in the present Session of asking the attention of the House to the general subject involved in his notice. The Motion with which he proposed to conclude his observations on the present occasion was—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to lay upon the table of the House a Copy of any Communication from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Earl Grey, on the subject of the rank of persons described as Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, to which communication the Earl Grey adverted in his Circular Despatch of the 20th day of November, 1847."

Now, in justice to both parties—to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, and to his correspondent the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he ought to state, not in substance, but in words, the first sentence of this despatch. He was now quoting the circular letter dated "Downing-street, Nov. 20, 1847," and it was as follows:—

"My attention has lately been called by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the fact that the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in the British colonies have not hitherto, in their official correspondence with the Governor and authorities, been usually addressed by the title to which their rank in their own church would appear to give them a just claim."

Whether the matter were deserving of regret or not, he would not stop to inquire; but with the greatest personal respect for the Earl of Clarendon himself—a respect which that noble Earl had well earned by his conduct during a season of peculiar trouble and agitation in Ireland—with all respect for that high functionary, he desired to know what constituted him the authority which was to regulate the intercourse between the Colonial Secretary of State and the officers subjected to his immediate control and responsibility—what justified the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in taking upon himself to be the advocate of the claims, whether just or not, of Roman Catholic bishops, not in his own jurisdiction—not under his own authority—but wherever they might be placed in any part of the world? He should say, that this was a fair question to be asked, even if the grounds upon which the communication between the Earl of Clarendon and Earl Grey rested, were correctly stated in fact or in law. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or rather the Earl Grey acting upon the suggestion of the Lord Lieutenant, proceeded to state that—

"As Parliament has, by a recent Act, the Charitable Bequests Act, formally recognised the rank of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates, by giving thorn precedence immediately after the prelates of the Established Church of the same degree—the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops taking rank immediately after the Protestant archbishops and bishops respectively—it has appeared"—

To whom? Not to Her Majesty's Secretary for the Colonies, but—

"to Her Majesty's Government, that it is their duty to conform to the rule thus laid down by the Legislature; and I have accordingly to instruct you hereafter officially to address the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in your Government by the title of 'your Grace,' or 'your Lordship,' as the case may be."

He (Sir R. H. Inglis) meant to say that there never had been a grosser misstatement of a plain fact than the statement contained in the paragraph which he had just cited, that the Act of Parliament to which the noble Earl (Earl Grey) referred in the paper laid upon the table of the House, contained one single word upon the subject in respect of which it had been so quoted. He defied the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or even the humblest layman in the House, to find in the Charitable Bequests Act one single expression referring to the subject-matter of Earl Grey's despatch. That Act provided that it should be lawful for Her Majesty to nominate ten persons, of whom five, and not more, should be members of the Church of Rome; but whether they were to be priests, deacons, bishops, or laymen, was nowhere stated. Either the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, had never read the Act, or they had altogether forgotten it; and had confounded it with the Gazette. But an announcement in the Gazette did not imply or enact that certain persons should take civil rank in the order in which their names were mentioned. Every one who had ever read a commission appointing Lords of the Treasury, or Lords of the Admiralty, knew that the precedence there given was one of official seniority, and not of personal dignity. These mat- ters, he was aware, might be looked upon by many as subjects which a wise man would not much care about; but he confessed that he regarded them with a jealous eye when they followed the will of a foreign potentate. His objection was not to the persons recognised as archbishops and bishops of the Church of Rome having such rank as the members of their own communion were willing to concede to them inter se; but his complaint was that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had suggested, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department had adopted, a principle which took from the Queen the fountain of honour, which belonged to Her jure coronœ, and placed it at the disposal of the Earl Grey. The power of creating intermediate ranks in the nobility of the empire had no existence whatever in the patent of a Secretary of State. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed that Her Majesty had not been consulted at all upon the subject; and he observed that Her Majesty's name was not made use of in the despatch, although it undoubtedly would have been had Her sanction been previously obtained. Precedence in Her Majesty's dominions rested partly upon immemorial custom, and partly upon the Statute of Henry VIII; and he (Sir R. H. Inglis) doubted, in fact, whether the Queen herself could have given the precedence now claimed under that despatch of Earl Grey, which gave the Roman Catholic bishops rank after viscounts. What induced him most especially to call attention to this subject was the recognition thus given to an authority which this country for three centuries had invariably repudiated and disowned—the recognition of the authority of Rome to place in Her Majesty's dominions, without Her sanction or authority, a class of individuals, who, when so placed, were given precedence over the Queen's own subjects. What was the meaning of an Established Church in this country, if it did not follow the rights of the Crown of England wherever that Crown ruled? He asked the Attorney General—having given him notice of the question—in what part of the world where the Queen of England had dominion, was not her Church—the Church of England—established? Treaties might, here and there, recognise other communions: local authorities might unhappily neglect the claims of the Church of the Crown of England; but, as an abstract proposition, he contended, that the Church followed the Crown. If the new power claimed by the Secretary of State were applicable to the colonies, it would be equally applicable to any part of Her Majesty's dominions; and the Pope might just as well, and with equal authority, send an archbishop to Westminster, and a bishop to London, as an archbishop to Sydney. The Imperial Crown of England, being necessarily held by a member and a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church of England, it followed that wherever her Crown was acknowledged, her Church should be established. Wherever an Englishman carried with him the law of trial by jury, the Habeas Corpus, and the law of primogeniture, there he had an equal right to find established the Church of this country. The Scotch colony in Darien having been founded before the union of Scotland with England, he admitted that if that colony still existed, the Presbyterian Church ought to have been established there; and a Scotchman would have been entitled to expect that his own national Church at home would have precedency in the dependencies of his ancient kingdom. By parity of reasoning, an Englishman had an equal right to find the Church of England established in whatever dominions of the Crown he went to. Every English colony should be a miniature of England, not only in civil, but also in religious rights. He had often stated, what was said recently by the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. E. B. Roche), that he wished far less for emigration than for colonisation. But no system deserved that name, and none was entitled to the support of Parliament, which did not provide for the colonists sent forth, all those aids of education and religion, as well as of law, in the security of person and of property, which the parties enjoyed in England, and had a right to find everywhere under the Imperial Crown. To revert to the letter which formed the immediate subject of his Motion. The Government adopted this letter of the Earl Grey, or they did not. If they did, it was not the act of Earl Grey, as an individual, but the act of the Cabinet; and he wanted to know if they had obtained Her Majesty's authority for that course. He apprehended they had never asked nor obtained Her Majesty's sanction; for if they had, it would have been more decorous if the Secretary of State had declared that he had had it-by command from Her Majesty to give those directions. If, on the other hand, they told him there was no such despatch from the Lord Lieutenant to Earl Grey, and that the whole was the act of the Earl Grey only, the charge came with double force against Earl Grey. It was no small aggravation of the matter complained of, that this precedence was given at the expense of one of the most eminent and excellent of the colonial prelates, Bishop Broughton, whom he named to his honour, venerable for his age, his virtues, and his services; and admirable, at the very moment, when this despatch deprived him of his rank, for the self-denying sacrifice, with which he had made over a large portion of his income for the purpose of endowing another bishopric for his Church. He then moved the Address of which he had given notice.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, I will say at once that there is no official communication from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to Earl Grey upon the subject of the rank of persons described as prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in Earl Grey's circular; and it does not appear to me to be a fit matter with regard to which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should correspond officially with the Colonial Secretary. But what the Earl of Clarendon did was this—in the Charitable Bequests Act there is so far an acknowledgment of the rank of certain ecclesiastics belonging to the Church of Rome, that they are in several of the clauses in that Act called archbishops and bishops of the Church of Rome. Now, being archbishops and bishops, the usual titles by which we describe such dignitaries is "the most reverend," and "the right reverend;" and, in addressing them in conversation, or by letter, they are usually termed, "your grace," and "your lordship." Now, the Earl of Clarendon was of opinion, that when he saw certain prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, it would be fit, lest they might feel themselves in any respect not placed in the rank which they ought to hold, not only to call them archbishops and bishops, in the place of "doctor," as they were formerly called—Dr. Troy, and the like—but to address them as "your grace," and "your lordship." Having done that, I believe that he communicated privately to Earl Grey, some time afterwards, that he found there were Roman Catholic bishops in the colonies, one of whom was then, I believe, residing in Ireland, and that he thought what had been done in Ireland might very well be clone in the colonies, as he believed it would be gratifying to the Roman Catholic Church to have their rank thus acknowledged. The Charitable Bequests Act certainly does not give any particular title to archbishops and bishops, any more than calling them archbishops and bishops, neither does that Act in any way confer a right by which a Roman Catholic archbishop may call himself the Archbishop of Dublin, or of any see where there is a Protestant bishop by law existing. In the same way, Earl Grey states, though it may be proper to call an archbishop an archbishop with his name, yet that it would not be proper to call him by the name of any sec where there was an archbishop or bishop of the Protestant Church by law established. But, I own, I do not think that this is a matter of very great importance. It was very agreeable to the feelings of the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops that they should be called by the titles by which they are usually designated. They have received those titles; but that does not imply any legal claim to authority; and I cannot conceive, therefore, that it is necessary for this House to take any proceeding in the matter. If the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) were to press for this official communication, the only return would be, that there was no letter of the kind to be found in the Colonial Office. The hon. Baronet says the Church of England is carried into all the colonies, and that, therefore, every colony ought to be a miniature Church of England. I do not think, however, that it would be very convenient to adopt that plan. I do not think, for example, that it would be convenient to adopt it in Trinidad, where there are a greater number of Roman Catholics than Protestants, and where, if adopted, every Roman Catholic would be looked upon as a Dissenter. I have now stated the brief facts of this case, and do not think it necessary to occupy the time of the House with more lengthened observation upon it.

said, there was a public impression, which it was certainly inconvenient should remain, that in the colony of Sydney, to which his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) had referred, in consequence of the Roman Catholic Church having placed an archbishop there, while the Church of England had only a bishop; the effect of the letter of Earl Grey was to give precedence to the former, be (Mr. Goulburn) wished to know if it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that they had allowed any superiority to the Roman Catholic Church in that colony. He knew they might be told that it was easy to get rid of the difficulty by appointing a prelate of equal rank there; but he was of opinion that it was better not to run a race with the Church of Rome in such matters. In the Charitable Bequests Act the Legislature had laid down no rule whatever as to the precedence of the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church.

said, he thought that one of the most obvious deductions to be drawn from the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) was, that the Catholic Church ought to be the established church of Ireland. He had confessed that it would be quite right for the Scottish bishops to retain possession of their sees, and that England was entitled to her own Church; and the natural inference was, that the people of Ireland ought to have their religion also established by law. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) did not say that this was his opinion, because he would much regret any connexion between his Church and the State. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that those very sees which they now had in England had been originally established by the Pope. As to the titles conferred under the Charitable Bequests Act on the Catholic prelates of Ireland, he did not attach any importance to them. He did not, for instance, think there was much honour in being degraded down from Archbishop of Dublin to Archbishop Murray, or Archbishop Murray of Dublin. The Catholics of Ireland believed their own bishops to be alone entitled to assume the names of their sees. He should protest against the wording of the Motion, in which the prelates of his own Church were called "persons described as prelates of the Roman Catholic Church;" and he also protested against the noble Lord's (Lord. J. Russell) supposition of Roman Catholics being called Dissenters. The Roman Catholics were not dissenters from the Established Church, but they regarded Protestants as being dissenters from their Church.

explained that what he had stated was, that it would be very offensive if the Roman Catholics of Trinidad were to be told that they were Dissenters from the Established Church of the colony.

wished to know whether, in point of fact, the Roman Catholic archbishop in Sydney was allowed to take precedence of the bishop of the Church of England?

said, he did not believe that any precedence had been given to the Roman Catholic prelate in Sydney by what had been done, or that the letter of his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) had at all altered the forms of precedence there. At the same time, he was well aware that some unpleasant feeling might exist in the colony on this subject, because he recollected that some years ago the Protestant bishop complained of the Roman Catholic prelate having waited on the Governor wearing the episcopal ring and other insignia of his order. The matter had been referred to him (Lord J. Russell), and his reply was, that he thought it unfair to object to a man wearing any dress he pleased. The proceeding had, he believed, annoyed the Roman Catholic prelate a good deal, as he had complained at being interfered with in wearing the dress that distinguished his order in every part of the world.

replied: He had hoped that his noble Friend would have informed the House that the despatch of which he complained, had, so far as Bishop Broughton was concerned, been practically withdrawn; because he had reason to believe—but the statement would have come more graciously from his noble Friend—that the Protestant Bishop of Sydney was no longer placed below the Roman Catholic, whom the Pope had sent there as archbishop; it having been ascertained that Bishop Broughton, as metropolitan, still held the pre-eminence. The general question, however, remained, had the Pope, a foreign Sovereign, a right to create ranks in the States of Her Majesty? In the Sydney Chronicle, the supposed organ of the Church of Rome, is the following paragraph:—

"As the bull of his Holiness, Pope Pius IX., appointing Dr. Goold to the episcopal bench, bears date prior to the letters patent under which Dr. Perry hold office as the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Dr. Goold will be entitled to precedence."

Here was a claim which would be admitted in the dominions of no other Protestant potentate—a claim, too, which every hon. Member in that House had sworn to resist. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) denied the validity of the course adopted by Earl Grey in this instance; but if his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury consented to a return of nil to the Address, he should be perfectly satisfied.

begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there was any objection to lay before the House the evidence taken by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the constitution and management of the British Museum?

said, he did not apprehend that any objection would be made to giving a portion of the papers required, but there was an objection to have all the papers given for the present.

appealed to the right hon Baronet (Sir G. Grey) whether he would consent to lay papers on the table when only half the case had been heard? He wished to know from the right hon. Baronet if he was aware that the trustees of the British Museum had not received any communication from the Commissioners until nine months after they had begun their inquiry?

said, that he had before explained that only a portion of the papers could be given at present. As to the point alluded to by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), he would reserve his opinion upon it for the present.

said, he wished to increase the number to twenty-two, in order to introduce the name of a Gentleman without whom he thought the Committee would not be perfect.

said, he believed that Committees of this description usually consisted either of fifteen or twenty-one Members. Twenty-one was more than the ordinary number, and he did not think it desirable to add another name.

was not particularly anxious to have twenty-two Members. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) would withdraw a name, in order that he (Mr. Henry) might add one. [Cries of "Name."] He moved that Mr. Bright be a Member of the Committee. After a short pause, the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment.

said, that as a representative of one of the western counties of Ireland, he felt called upon to express his strong objection to the names which had been proposed to be put upon this Committee. The western districts were especially unrepresented. It was meet that those who were oppressed by the unfortunate working of the system in the country, should have an opportunity of making it known, and endeavour to have all those errors corrected.

said, he thought hon. Members had some reason to complain of this matter. He had no objection to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), or to any other of the Members of Her Majesty's Government, being placed upon the Committee, especially as the noble Lord stated yesterday that he was prepared to explain to the Committee what were the plans which Her Majesty's Government meant to propose for the amendment of the Irish Poor Law. At the same time, he could not forget that the noble Lord also stated, that if the Committee should differ from him in opinion, he would not pledge himself to be bound by their conclusions, but would propose his own plans to the House; so that it was plain the Committee was to be made the authority for the Act if they should happen to agree with the noble Lord; but if they did not, then their opinions were to be altogether disregarded. Now, how was this Committee proposed to be constituted? There was a large proportion of Ministers and of official persons. There was the First Lord of the Treasury, the right hon. Baronet the ex-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir James Graham), the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland; there was the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Clements), who had been an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner; and there was the hon. Member for Herefordshire, who had been one of the English Poor Law Commissioners, and who was now Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. Then Ulster was disproportionately represented on the Committee in the persons of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cavan (Sir John Young), the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Robert Ferguson), and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Shafto Adair), who had largo property in that province. The south also was represented by the hon. Member for Mallow (Sir Denham Norreys), the hon. Member for Cork city (Mr. Fagan), while Limerick county might be said to have two represesentatives in the person of its hon. Member (Mr. Monsell), and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford); but the county Clare was totally unrepresented, though a more efficient Member it would be difficult to find than the hon. Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien), who now represented it. Besides, there were two Members placed on the Committee—the hon. Members for Dublin and Mallow (Mr. Reynolds and Sir Denham Norreys)—who were absent from the House. It was necessary that they in the west should have their interests considered, and that they should not be sacrificed to the supposed interests of others. He might also mention, as persons who would have proved themselves efficient Members, the names of the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh), and the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Sadleir). There was also his hon. Colleague (Mr. Grace), who, as chairman of a board of guardians, had acquired great experience as to the working of the law. Upon the whole, he thought they were entitled to protest against the selection of names that had been adopted.

said, every one who had had experience in the nomination of a Committee must be aware of the difficulty there always existed in making out a list that should be free from exception; and in the present case the difficulty had been greatly increased. His hon. Friend (Mr. French) seemed to think that every Gentleman who was not on the list was branded with a stigma, as if he were unfit to serve. Now that was not the case. On the contrary, the Government had been most reluctantly compelled, on account of the limited number of the Committee, to exclude many Members from the Committee whose services they were most anxious to obtain; and two days' notice of the Committee had been given in the hope that if exception were taken to any one, some notice of amendment would be given to them. He supposed that no objection would be made to the nomination of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) at the head of the Government. With regard to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), his great practical experience rendered it a most desirable thing that they should obtain his services. When that right hon. Baronet placed his services at the disposal of the Government, they could not help feeling it as a favour conferred upon the House and the country. The hon. Member (Mr. French) had counted up the number of Ulster men upon the Committee; but he begged to remind him that he had placed the hon. Member for Cavan (Sir J. Young) upon the Committee because of his general knowledge and experience. Though Cavan was certainly in Ulster, yet the administration of the law there was very different from what it was in Londonderry. Of the hon. Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) he could only say—[Mr. FRENCH: I do not object to the hon. Member for Portarlington.] Very well: Then the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) had been selected for his practical acquaintance with the working of the law. The hon. Member (Mr. French) had no objection, he believed, to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland. He did take an objection to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Poulett Scrope); but looking to the necessary amount of landlord influence on the Committee, he thought it was but fair that the hon. Member for Stroud, who had paid so much attention to the subject, should not be omitted. Then with regard to the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Clements), he had been an assistant poor-law commissioner, and he (Sir G. Grey) had always heard that his district had been remarkably well managed; and, besides, the hon. Member was, in fact, a representative of the west—the county of Leitrim being one of the border counties of Connaught. With regard to the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. C. Lewis), it was thought that his great practical experience in the administration of the English Poor Law, would be of infinite service in the Committee. It was true that there were two Members on the Committee who were not present in the House; but Sir Denham Norreys had written to him to say that he was willing to serve if the House chose to elect him. He admitted that there was some foundation for the objection that there were four Irish Members from the province of Munster, whilst there were only two, strictly speaking, from the province of Connaught. He also admitted that it was intended originally to have made an equal distribution, and that there should have been three Members from each of those provinces. It was strongly pressed that it was desirable to obtain the services of the hon. Member for Kerry, in addition to the services of the hon. Member for Limerick. As to the appointment of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. Grace), he could only say that he was in the list originally made out, and that he should be happy to have the benefit of his services.

said, it appeared to him that the landed interest of the country was not sufficiently represented. There were only eight Members of counties upon the Committee, and as the landed interest which they represented was the most pressed by the working of the poor-law, he thought they ought to have more representatives. He certainly did not object to Mr. Scrope's name; but as that hon. Gentleman had voted against the Committee last year, he did not think that Mr. Scrope would have consented to serve on a Committee which he had voted against. Other Members were objected to because they entertained decided views in support of the worst parts of the Irish Poor Law. For himself, he did not object, because he thought, however decided a man's views might be, when he came to hear the evidence adduced he would change them. He would only add, that it was not supposed but that every man named on the Committee was fit to be there; but they knew others who were still better qualified. He would not recommend any substitute for them, but he would follow the example of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and say, that if the Committee did not agree with his views, he would dissent from the Committee.

suggested that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should reconsider the question of limiting the number of the Committee to twenty-one. During last Session there were several cases in which they had imposed considerable inconvenience, upon themselves from restricting the number of Members on Committees. He (Sir R. Peel) knew it had been felt of late years that there was an advantage in limiting the numbers; but there were certain cases of great importance to the country where a great advantage had been gained by extending the numbers. Take the case which occurred last Session, where there was certainly loss occasion than at present for extending the numbers, when twenty-six Members were appointed upon the Bank Committee, and not the slightest inconvenience was felt by extending the numbers beyond the ordinary rule. The Committee attended most punctually, and the greatest attention was paid to the proceedings. Now, if there were any parts of Ireland not fairly represented in the Committee, he thought it would be better to act upon the principle to which he had referred, and have an extension of the numbers of the Committee.

suggested that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) ought to bear in remembrance the first sentence in the first of the three remarkable reports furnished by Mr. Nicholls—that whatever general knowledge or general views might be formed from books and reports, it was absolutely necessary that you should have the advantage of personal examination into the state and condition of the poor of Ireland in order to acquire that knowledge which would qualify you to suggest any practical measure for remedying destitution in Ireland. That was the spirit of the first sentence in the report. He thought they ought not to confine the Members for Connaught to the two smallest divisions of that province, but that it would be advisable also to place on it the representatives of the two largest counties. He thought that these two points ought to be considered in the selection of the Committee. It was also worth remembering that, however important a practical experience in the working of the English Poor Law might be, practical knowledge of the working of the Irish Poor Law was still more important. He felt it as most desirable that Gentlemen placed in the position of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) should be on the Committee, because they combined acquaintance with the practical working of the poor-law in Ireland, and an equal knowledge and experience of the working of a similar law in this country.

said, that the Committee excited a great deal of interest in Ireland, but it was not likely to give satisfaction. It was a question whether it was not better to divide the unpopularity amongst as many as possible. It was very wrong to leave out those important counties, Mayo and Roscommon, in both of which the full working of the present system was very striking. His own opinion was, that it was impossible to amend this law; and the best thing to be done was to place Gentlemen who were acquainted with the various parts of Ireland on the Committee.

also took the liberty of pressing upon the Government the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), and thus admit several highly respectable Gentlemen who were at present excluded. The Government had honoured him with a request to serve upon the Committee, and he undertook the task most willingly, and would devote his best attention to the subject; at the same time, he felt that all he could do would not be sufficient to press upon the Committee the extreme distress of the western counties.

said, as the Motion stood, the Committee was restricted to twenty-one Members; but if the House would agree to the Committee as now named, he had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and name some additional Members.

said, as it seemed settled that there were to be additional Members, he hoped the Government would see the desirableness of adding some Scotch Gentlemen to the Committee; and he would also suggest that the predecessor of the right hon. Baronet in the Irish Secretary-ship (the Earl' of Lincoln) should be added to the Committee.

hoped the Government would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman with regard to Scotch Members, because the administration of the poor-law there was very different from what it was both in this country and in Ireland. The name of Lord John Russell was then agreed to, as were those of Sir James Graham, Sir John Young, Colonel Dunne, Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, and Sir William Somerville. On the name of Mr. Poulett Scrope being proposed,

repeated his notice, that when the additional Members were nominated he would move that Mr. John Bright be one of the number.

explained, that the Member could not move any name in substitution; he must confine himself at that stage to objecting to any Member nominated.

than moved, that Mr. Scrope's name be omitted.

defended the nomination of Mr. Lewis, as that Gentleman had lately written a book upon the subject, which showed great acquaintance with the matters that would come before the Committee.

contended that this was not entirely an Irish question; and be thought the real ground of complaint was, not that there were too many, but that there were too few English Members on the Committee. If any additions were to be made to the Committee, he would endeavour that some independent English Members should be added.

said, that some objections had been made to Gentlemen holding strong opinions; but he must observe, that there were others who held opinions as decided in an opposite direction who were selected Members.

then withdrew his Motion, and the Committee, as originally proposed, was appointed.

in rising to move that there be a call of the House for the 9th instant, said, be did not know if Her Majesty's Ministers would object to the Motion. If there was not sufficient time for this call, the case did not rest with him, but with those who had fixed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act for that day. There was, besides, a piece of sharp practice in this case; for the Bill was fixed to be read a second time, though it had not yet been printed. An alteration in the rules of business had recently been made relative to the printing of Bills; and as the new rule was not to have the Bill printed until after it had been read a second time, he wished the House to recur to the wholesome practice of having the Bill printed after being read a first time. He wished to have Irish Members present on Friday, when an important question was to be debated. He thought there was the more necessity for this call of the House, because on Tuesday last there were no fewer than fifty-five Irish Members absent.

thought there was no necessity for a call of the House, as, in all probability, the Irish Members who had been absent on Tuesday would be in their places to-morrow. He would take that opportunity of mentioning that the debate on the Habeas Corpus Act would stand first for to-morrow.

complained that the Bill was not as yet in the hands of Members.

said, it would be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow; but it would be precisely the same as the Bill of last year.