appeared at the bar, and, by Her Majesty's command, presented papers relative to the affairs of Canada.

rose and said, he hoped in what he was about to do he should receive the pardon of the House, for the matter was of very great importance. The country had naturally been very much excited by the statements that had appeared in the public journals of the previous day; and he, in common with others, was startled by the intelligence. He had since received private information from a gentleman living in Canada, which might relieve in a great measure the anxiety of people who felt that a great colony was interested in the matter; and he hoped he should be excused for bringing that information before the House. The riot, it was well known, arose in consequence of a Bill which had passed both Houses of the Canadian Legislature for compensating persons who had incurred losses during the disturbances in 1837, and subsequently. It was known, also, that there being two sets of population, English and French, returning members to the same house, attempts had been constantly making to lead England to believe that all the questions in dispute were questions not simply of party, but of country or of race, between the French and English. He had in his hand a letter, which, with the permission of the House, he would read, and he had a statement of the divisions in the House of Assembly, and they ought to set at rest any doubt whether this was, as was often attempted to be made out, a question of race:—

rose to order. He exceedingly regretted to interrupt his hon. and learned Friend; but Wednesday being devoted to the business of independent Members, inconvenience would be caused if a debate arose upon Government measures before the first Order of the Day. This question would, probably, draw observations from other hon. Members, who were at issue with his hon. and learned Friend, and so a discussion would spring up which must necessarily occupy much time.

said, there was a question before the House, namely, whether the papers relative to the affairs of Canada should be laid upon the table. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was, therefore, perfectly regular. The only mode of effecting the object of the hon. Member for Berkshire, was by a Motion that the debate be adjourned; but such a Motion could not be made or entertained before the hon. and learned Gentleman had concluded his remarks.

accordingly resumed. His desire was to relieve the public anxiety, which he knew was very great; and he would at once close the remarks which he wished to make if it was the desire of the House that he should do so, for he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of hon. Members proceeding with their Bills; but he did assure the House that this was a much larger question than they imagined, and that they ought to take the first opportunity of obtaining all the information that was required to settle the public mind on the subject. He would confine himself as much as he could to a simple explanation of how the matter stood at present; and he hoped that in doing so he should not be supposed to be taking up unnecessarily the time of the House. He believed, then, that when the hon. Member for Berkshire interrupted him, he (Mr. Roebuck) was explaining that the parties who were chiefly responsible for bringing forward this subject were the Ministry of Canada. He could not imagine that the Colonial Office were not cognisant of all the facts of the case: they must have been aware of the state of things in Canada before the appearance of the papers which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had sent round to hon. Members that morning, and which of themselves showed that the groundwork of this proposition was perfectly well known to the Colonial Office, and that it had their sanction and approval. He (Mr. Roebuck) could not now enter into a discussion whether this Compensation Bill was a right or a wrong measure. When the proper time came he should be quite prepared to justify the conduct of the head of the Colonial Office on that subject; but he did entreat the House to be cautious how they interfered in this matter against the determination and the natural and properly constituted expression of the feelings of the Canadian people. He hoped that the Legislature of this country would not interfere in such a way as to make this question what it was not—a question of races. With these observations he begged pardon for having occupied the time of the House.

Sir, I think it would be extremely inconvenient to raise, at this moment, any general discussion upon the subject adverted to by my hon. and learned Friend. The Government have taken the very earliest opportunity to lay the papers relating to Canada on the table of the House. I have only to-day been enabled to bring up a despatch from the Earl of Elgin, which it is intended should be circulated with the other papers having immediate reference to the events which have lately occurred in Canada; and I, therefore, think that it would not be fair to enter into a general discussion until hon. Members have had an opportunity of reading those papers, which, of course, I have had an opportunity of reading, but which they have not yet had time to peruse. Under these circumstances I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not think I am acting discourteously towards him if I express my opinion that the House ought to wait until all these papers shall have been circulated, before they call upon Her Majesty's Government to enter into a full explanation of the recent events.

I entirely concur, both in the letter and in the spirit, with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; but I am sorry to say that the remarks which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield are of that nature which I do not think it consistent with my duty to pass over altogether. I do not dispute the rectitude of the intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor do I deny at all the wisdom of endeavouring to calm the public mind of this country, and to warn individuals, and this House itself, against premature interference either in the affairs of Canada, or in any other public affairs whatever. But I am sorry to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman, whilst he has attempted to dissuade the House from such interference, and warned us against undertaking it, has himself, perhaps unconsciously, done much to prejudge the question—upon which he admits, and which I also feel, we are as yet imperfectly informed. I confess, when the first intelligence of these transactions reached this country, my mind, like that of many others, was deeply interested and deeply excited by it; but a review of that intelligence, imperfect as it is, convinced me that we were not and cannot be in possession of the merits of the case. We are not and cannot be in possession of the grounds necessary to form a judgment, either upon the Rebellion Losses Compensation Bill, or upon the conduct of my noble Friend the Earl of Elgin—a nobleman whose friendship I have had the honour to enjoy from his earliest youth, and of all whose acts I feel the strongest disposition beforehand to form the most favourable judgment. Until we shall be put in possession both of the Earl of Elgin's own despatches, stating the grounds of those proceedings, and likewise of the previous history of the case, and of the principles which may or may not have guided the former acts of legislature, we shall not be able to form a judgment. For this reason, for many weeks past, and indeed so lately as yesterday, I have abstained from putting any question, or taking any part in this matter, which might have a tendency to produce excitement. And now, Sir, I shall endeavour strictly to confine myself to the observation of the rule I have laid down, whilst I notice some words which have fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall endeavour to avoid anything that may be in contravention of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman warns this House against interfering with the Rebellion Losses Compensation Bill; and upon what principle? If he gives that warning upon the ground of the imperfect information which we possess, I heartily concur with him; and, for one, I will give no opinion upon the Bill, or upon the conduct of the Earl of Elgin, or the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. But when I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman, not content with warning us against interference now, laying down a principle as the ground of his warning, which principle will be as good when we are fully informed, as it is now, when we are imperfectly informed; and when I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say, "the people of Canada have been voting the money of Canada, and therefore I warn you not to interfere," I protest against a doctrine which interferes with the supremacy of this country over all imperial concerns. Why, Sir, it might be that England might be at war with some foreign Power, and that some colonial legislature might be found voting a subsidy to that foreign Power. Would that be a reason, because it is a question of the money of the colony, and not the money of this country, against the interference of this House? I confine myself strictly to this point. I protest against the warning of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I contend that this House has a perfect right to interfere in all imperial concerns. It is a question of policy, wisdom, and prudence, whether this House will interfere or not; but the fact of the money concerned in this Bill being the money of Canada, will not be, of itself, a conclusive reason against our interference, provided our interference shall seem, upon other grounds, to be called for. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman gives an analysis of the divisions in the House of Assembly, and perhaps he has demonstrated thereby that this question, which now disturbs and agitates Canada, is not a question of race. Again, I will give no opinion whether it is a question of race, or whether it is not; hut I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the statements he has read do not touch the point at issue. I have read much in the public journals and private communications upon the subject. I have seen a hundred times over the allegation that this question is a question of race. But never once have I seen it stated that it is a question of race in the House of Assembly. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have demonstrated it as not a mere question of race there. Everybody knew that the French Members of the House—the Members of French origin—were in a minority in that House, and that the question of whether this is a question of race was not within the walls of the assembly, but without. That question we shall have to consider when we are in possession of full information; but, in the mean time, I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman he has done nothing whatever towards elucidating or settling the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that this measure—for I must vindicate the right of the House of Commons, although I will not go one step further—and he says truly—was introduced into the Canadian Parliament with the sanction of the Crown. I apprehend that about that there can be no doubt whatever. Being a matter involving money, it would have been impossible, according to the constitutional forms of the province, to have introduced it without the sanction of the Crown. The sanction of the Crown means the sanction of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. It matters not one rush whether there were previous instructions or not. The responsibility of the Government for the acts of the Earl of Elgin is also unquestioned and undeniable; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must see that, if the sanction of the Crown is required in matters affecting the government of the colony, the very effect of that sanction, so required to be given, must bring them under the cognisance and jurisdiction of this House. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will review the grounds which induce him to think that under no circumstances should there be any interference by this House. I do not enter into the question whether there should be any interference or not; but I protest against alleging these general grounds, which would exclude, at all times and under all circumstances, the interference of this House, and hinder the right and the duty of this House to have supervision over all colonial affairs; although I should accompany the hon. and learned Gentleman all lengths in asserting the principle that our interference ought to be strictly limited to matters that are of imperial concern, and that the discretion of the local authorities ought to be left entire and unimpaired over matters that are not imperial. I, like others, have received this morning papers containing a full history of the previous proceedings in this case; but I have not been able as yet, since I got them, to make myself fully acquainted with their contents. I trust hon. Members will, before arriving at a conclusion upon this question, upon one side or the other, feel it an imperative and solemn duty to examine, with the most dispassionate care, every step of those proceedings; and that they will pass no judgment whatever upon the Executive in the colony, or upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers here, until they have carefully examined the whole of the papers, and endeavoured therefrom to form a wise and dispassionate conclusion.

I should regret if any further discussion were to arise upon this subject, with the imperfect information that we necessarily possess upon the details of these transactions. I do not rise myself to continue the discussion. I only wish to state that I did not consider the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield to deny the right of this House to interfere. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that right is unquestionable. The power which the Crown has of disallowing any colonial act, after it has received the consent of the Governor General, necessarily implies the right of Parliament to tender its advice to the Crown with regard to the exercise of the prerogative. I really do not think there is any difference between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the university of Oxford and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in their views as to the right of Parliament, although they have expressed themselves in different language. If I had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to deny that right, I should have felt it my duty to protest against it as much as the right hon. Gentleman. But I only understood him to caution the House of Commons against hastily, and without some necessity, interfering, and not to deny its jurisdiction. I hope, therefore, the discussion will now end, and that it will not he resumed until Parliament is in possession of the fullest information.

If I said the hon. and learned Gentleman denied the right of Parliament to interfere, I am not aware of it; but if I did so, I did him an injustice. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not deny the right of this House to interfere. What I meant was, that I did not look to any abstract doctrine he laid down, but to the reason he gave for not interfering, that this was the money of the colony, and that, therefore, they had, upon that ground a right to spend it as they thought proper.

hoped the House would not proceed without information. The question was between those who had defended the connexion between Canada and this country, and those who had sought to destroy that connexion. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had given M. Papineau's version of the division, and he wished to guard the House against it.

said, the analysis he had given was of the names as they had voted.

thanked the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield for having given the House information which tended to calm the feelings of the country upon this matter. He had also warned the House against any rash and inconsiderate proceedings. This he (Mr. Deni-son) thought was likely to give an impression to the country that something had occurred in the House which showed a disposition to act in that manner. That would be a very false impression; for nothing had occurred which showed that the House was disposed to act either hastily or inconsiderately. The papers were then laid on the table.

moved that To-morrow, being Ascension Day, no Committee do meet and proceed with business before two o'clock. He said he saw no reason why the same rule as existed with respect to Ash Wednesday should not be applied to Ascension Day. He was utterly at a loss to see why any distinction should be made between the two days. He trusted, therefore, no opposition would be offered to the proposition.

seconded the Motion.

was afraid he must disappoint the hon. Gentleman in his expectation that his Motion would meet with unanimous approval, for he felt himself bound to oppose it. He would be glad to know where these interruptions to the business of Parliament were to end. Last year they proposed to adjourn, and did adjourn, over the Derby day; and the anniversary of the day on which an unfortunate monarch had been beheaded had often caused an adjournment of the House. This last was intended to allow Members to go to Church, though he believed very few went—he meant on that day. He hoped all Members of the House were disposed to regard the momentous event which Ascension day was understood to commemorate with proper feelings; but he could see no reason why the House should suspend its business on that day. The hon. Gentleman interfered on behalf of Committees. He (Mr. Bright) was on one—a most important one, the Irish Poor Law Committee, and he knew that there were now some gentlemen in town from Dublin to be examined before that Committee, and who would probably be detained here over Sunday if the business of the Committee were interfered with. But he opposed this Motion chiefly on the ground that he did not know where these propositions would end. Different sects had different days which were held important. Next year they might have some other hon. Member proposing some other day as sacred, and on which the House should not sit. The Irish Gentlemen might claim an adjournment for some of their numerous saints, and, for aught he knew, Wales might put in a claim for its patron saint. He should be glad to hear the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department on this question. The right hon. Baronet might have conceded the point to the hon. Mover; but he (Mr. Bright) was sure that if he had allowed his own good sense to be his guide, he would have opposed it. He looked upon these Motions as symptoms of growing feebleness in that House, and of a disregard of their duty with respect to the important business of the country.

said, that the hon. Member's proposition was originally for an adjournment over to Friday; but he (Sir G. Grey) had told him that Government would oppose it. He had then suggested to the hon. Member the plan taken with regard to Ash Wednesday, which would enable hon. Members who were so inclined to attend divine service. He had added, with respect to the private Committees, that if no inconvenience was expected from the detention of witnesses, Government would offer no opposition to the Motion.

said, he had made up his mind to attend divine service on Ascension day. Members of Railway Committees had conflicting duties, and he called upon the House to reconcile them. He denied that there was any analogy between Ascension day and any day devoted to amusement, or even one consecrated to any human being, however holy he might have been. If the House acceded to the Motion of his hon. Friend, he should be happy to sit on his Committee until six o'clock, if it were necessary.

suggested that the matter should be left to the Committees themselves. He denied having attempted the analogy alluded to by the hon. Member; he had merely mentioned the cases, to show how the number of holidays was increasing. Ascension day was not generally observed as a holiday.

said, he should object to the words in the clause giving the tenant compensation for the purchase of food for cattle or sheep. The effect of the clause, if adopted, would be to give a facility to the tenant to injure or deceive his landlord if he wished to do so. For instance, the tenant might sell the produce of his farm, and then buy an inferior kind of food for his sheep and cattle, and send in the bill to his landlord to pay the amount. He would propose the omission of the words referring to the purchase of food for cattle or sheep.

said, that he believed the hon. Member objected merely to the form in which the provision was worded, but that he agreed in the principle. He considered this to be a most important provision, and in fact that it was the very corner-stone of the Bill. A power of increasing the quantity of meat produced on a farm, would have the effect of adding millions of quarters of corn to the produce of the country, as all who were familiar with farming proceedings must be aware of. He wished to treat landlords as men of common sense, and he had no fear of leaving it to them and their agents to enter into proper and reasonable arrangements with their tenants. He had adopted the suggestion thrown out on the last day by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, to the effect that only such articles of food and manure should be allowed for as were included in the original agreement. He begged therefore to move an Amendment to that effect.

repeated his conviction that the clause, even as proposed to be amended, would still leave it in the power of the occupier to deceive his landlord.

said, he thought the words which he had suggested were an improvement, and he could see no objection to their adoption after the principle of the Bill had been once agreed to. He had objected to the words "artificial manures," because it was doubted whether that would include such an article as lime, though it was well known that the greatest improvements were effected in some parts of the country by the use of lime as manure. In the same way with regard to the purchase of food for cattle and sheep, he believed it was admitted that one of the greatest elements in the improvement of agriculture consisted in increasing the number of cattle or sheep fed upon a farm. Supposing that the landlord and tenant were mutually anxious for the improvement of the soil, and that the landlord had only a life interest in the land, was there anything unreasonable in providing that such an agreement as that proposed should be sanctioned by law, and made binding on the successor to the property? As no claim could be preferred except where an agreement was entered into, and where the articles of food were specifically mentioned, he did not apprehend that any abuse would take place.

thought it a most dangerous principle that a tenant for life should be allowed to bind his successor for perhaps twelve years, when the incoming landlord might not find his finances in such a state as to warrant those extra expenses. He was fearful that the consequence of such a measure would be unceasing litigation.

said, that the hon. and learned Member's objection was to the principle of the Bill, which had been already agreed to. They were now in Committee, endeavouring to make the Bill as perfect as possible.

said that the hon. and learned Member did not appear to know the nature of the measure. If a tenant laid out 1,000l. in improvements, the compensation would be paid at the termination of his holding, not by the landlord, but by the incoming tenant; and this practice was already the custom in many counties in England, where it had all the force of law.

objected to the engrafting on the leases or agreements in Kent, Surrey, and other counties, all these various kinds of manures, in addition to the dressings for which the incoming tenants were now liable by a custom which had all the force of law. This proposal was wholly inapplicable to his part of the country.

observed, that if there were such customs in the hon. Baronet's county, there would be no reason to enter into such special agreement. The agreement was not compulsory.

said that when the tenants had a right, by custom, to compensation for manures and dressings, they would have no claim under this Bill.

thought the tenant for life should not have the power to deal with the interests of his successor in the way proposed.

said, there was evidently every desire on the part of the House to take care that the occupying tenant should be compensated for all that he did to the land; but he saw no provision in the Bill for compensating another party—the owner of the land. It was obvious that a farmer might do great mischief as well as great good to a farm, and he would like to see some means of protecting the owner against any direct injury to his land on the part of the occupying tenant.

referred the hon. and learned Member to the sixth clause of the Bill, where such a case as he had referred to was specially provided for.

supported the introduction of the words proposed, as being calculated to deal in the most satisfactory way with a most difficult question.

moved another amendment, in effect to allow compensation for farm-buildings for fourteen years. His amendment would be in line 5, after the word "fences," to insert the words, "or by the erection of substantial farm buildings;" and in line 10, to strike out the word "twelve," and instead thereof to insert the words, "as regards such buildings as aforesaid fourteen years, and as regards any such other improvements as aforesaid seven."

objected to the amendment, thinking it better to adhere to the recommendation of the Select Committee.

considered that the amendment would place the tenant in tail, in many cases, in very great difficulty; and therefore he should oppose it.

then moved that "nine" years be substituted for "twelve" in line 10, which would have the effect of limiting the compensation to be given for improvements on entailed estates to a period of nine instead of twelve years. The object of the clause was to extend to other parts of the country the custom existing in Lincolnshire; but that custom limited the period to seven years, and in proposing nine years he went further than was customary in Lincolnshire.

felt bound to oppose the amendment, and said that in the Isle of Wight, where the Lincolnshire system had been introduced, the period had been extended to ten years, and as that had been found advantageous, he proposed still further to extend it to twelve years.

moved some verbal amendments, the effect of which was, that the tenant should not be entitled to compensation for drainage improvements, unless they were proved to be good and efficient in the judgment of the valuers to be appointed under the Act. These amendments having been agreed to, and the question put that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,

said, he considered that this clause would only lead to litigation, and that Clause 0 contained everything that was necessary. He therefore moved that it be struck out.

expressed a fear that it would operate injuriously towards the incoming tenant to be obliged to pay the money immediately on the making of the award. After a few words from Mr. PUSEY, the clause was agreed to.

proposed, that the third valuer should be appointed by the other two, not by the Inclosure Commissioners.

said, the necessary effect of this would be, that each party would name a partisan, and the selection of the umpire would be left to chance. By the following clause the award was to be made a rule of court; consequently, it might be set aside on any informality, and all the complicated legal machinery of awards would be introduced into the agreements between landlord and tenant. Attorneys would necessarily be employed to draw up the awards, and great expense would be incurred. He hoped these most dangerous clauses would not be pressed, for their necessary consequence would be to shake all confidence between landlords and tenants.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared only to object to the award being made a rule of court. If the custom of the country were adhered to as formerly, there would be no difficulty, and the results would be, as they had hitherto been, most beneficial.

considered that the present system was open to great abuse, which the clauses in question would remove. There appeared to be no objection to any part of the provision except that which made the award a rule of court.

thought it would be better for the arbitration to be conducted by the umpire jointly appointed, or appointed by the Tithe Commissioners, if the parties could not agree.

said, the arbitration clause had been very fully considered and unanimously approved by the Committee of a former Session. He could not withdraw the clause without overturning the decision of that Committee.

said, it was quite clear the tenantry of England had had a narrow escape of getting into the Queen's Bench, and they were to be placed in a worse position by the 12th Clause, which referred matters in dispute to the Court of Chancery. He thought the best plan would be for the Chairman to report progress, with a view to the clauses being remodelled.

thought, unless these clauses were withdrawn, to report progress was the only alternative. The clauses were not those of the Committee of last year, but of the year preceding; and they had been embodied in a Bill which was thrown out by the House. If the hon. Member withdrew the clauses for consideration, he would also have to consider the bankruptcy laws, as he did not state whether, in case of bankruptcy, the assignee would have to pay the landlord as the landlord now had to pay the assignee.

was opposed to the reference to the courts, and suggested that Mr. Blamire, the Tithe Commissioner, should have a final decision in disputed cases.

said, he did not attach any undue importance to this Bill, but knowing the difficulties under which tenants laboured, and the importance of encouraging the application of capital to land, he could not consent to withdraw the clauses, or postpone the Committee for another month. He hoped the learned Attorney General would suggest some mode of meeting the difficulty, and not throw on him the responsibility of remodelling the clauses.

said, his objection had been from a sincere desire to improve the Bill; he thought the omission of these clauses would be a decided improvement. He suggested the addition of two or three words to another clause, declaring that the compensation should be awarded as was usual in such cases.

was willing to adopt this alteration, and withdraw the 5th and 6th Clauses.

proposed to add to the end of the clause the following proviso:—

"Provided always, That no owner of any farm, of which he is not possessed in fee-simple, shall have power, under this Act, by agreement with the tenant of such farm, to render any future owner of such farm liable for any principal sum, by way of compensation for improvements, which shall exceed two years' rent of such farm, according to the annual value thereof at the time of making such agreement: Provided also, that no tenant of such farm shall have power, under this Act, to recover, by virtue of any such agreement, from any future owner, any such principal sum, by way of compensation for improvements, except by seven equal annual instalments; and at the time of the payment of each annual instalment, interest at the rate of 5l. per cent per annum upon the whole amount then due shall likewise be paid; and the first of the above instalments and payments of interest shall not be due until one year's rent of such farm shall have been paid to such future owner."

hoped his hon. Friend would not press the proviso, which seemed to be based on a misconception that the farmers were so desirous to invest their capital in land that it was necessary to restrain them in every way. That was quite contrary to his experience.

considered that malversation would take place if the Bill did not contain such restricting proviso as that which he proposed.

doubted whether the limitation of the liability proposed was a valuable provision in general cases, but he thought it might be desirable to introduce some such proviso in respect of glebe farms.

said, the proviso would destroy the whole effect of the Bill, for nobody would of course lay out a considerable sum in the improvement of land, if he was only allowed compensation for two years.

said, he was willing to extend the time. He would consent to extend it to compensation for four years, though he confessed he thought two years' compensation was the proper proportion.

said, the doubt thrown out by the hon. Member for Warwickshire was a doubt with regard to the principle of the Bill, and that was not the time to discuss the principle. He confessed he had doubts about the principle, and if the Bill had been to be compulsory, he would have opposed it. He should wait to see what the Bill was when perfected by the Committee, and he should reserve himself as to how he should vote on the third reading. He could not assent to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Warwickshire.

moved the insertion of the words "after obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing."

thought the clause altogether objectionable. He could not admit that the tenant for life should have power to authorise the erection of whatever buildings he pleased. He could imagine many cases in which such a power would operate injuriously. He knew instances in which a tenant for life would perhaps be disposed to empower the tenant in occupation to erect buildings in front of a mansion.

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in reference to this clause. He considered it to be open to great abuse.

said, he had moved that the record of the judgment in the case of William Smith O'Brien be printed; on Friday he should move that it be taken into consideration, and that William Smith O'Brien be expelled that House.