, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, thought it the most judicious course to state, explicitly, that the measure now introduced was, in all its main principles, much the same as that which the House had fully discussed on a previous occasion. The principal alteration was, that it was proposed to place insolvents and bankrupts upon the same footing, and thereby to get rid of a very invidious distinction which existed between Members insolvent who were traders, and Members insolvent who were not traders. The opposition raised to the Bill in its previous form, and in nearly its final stage, had been raised solely upon constitutional grounds. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, for instance, was clearly of opinion that the Members of that House should be as amenable to the law for the payment of their just debts as any other men. The only difference which existed, was as to the mode in which the object they had in view in common should be carried out. He thought it quite impossible that a Member of Parliament, if annoyed by his tailor or his washerwoman, could pay that attention to his legislative duties which he otherwise would, or that he could expect to maintain that respect to which his position entitled him. It was said that tradesmen were very often induced to give credit to Members of Parliament because of the respectable position the latter held; but that was no reason why any obstacle should be thrown in the way of the recovery of just and lawful debts. One objection to the former Bill was, that it precluded an insolvent Member from re-election; but, according to the present measure, it was provided, that an hon. Gentleman was eligible for re-election provided he obtained his discharge from the Insolvent Debtors' Court. He would briefly explain to the House the process by which, under this Bill, creditors would have an equal chance of recovering debts due from Members as from persons who had not privilege of Parliament. Thus if any Member found judgment debts against him which he was unable to satisfy, he would have the opportunity of filing a schedule of all his debts in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and claiming the protection of that court; the process of rendering his person and filing the schedule could always be done in twenty-one days; upon which an immediate hearing of the case is ordered by the Commissioner, and his discharge granted, unless fraud is proved against him, or very strong circumstances of suspicion, as to withholding or fraudulent concealment of a portion of his property. Thus, in the course of about four weeks, any Member who may have, by his own imprudence, or the dishonesty of others, been thrown into pecuniary difficulties, would be at once cleared of them, and the House be spared the discreditable imputation of being a refuge for dishonest insolvents, or, what was still worse, of harbouring within its walls Members who, destitute even of the means of daily support, were peculiarly obnoxious to those pecuniary temptations which their position commanded, and their urgent necessities required. Consequently, it would be seen that, under the provisions of this Bill, the rights of constituents were carefully preserved, excepting in the case of a Member proving a knave and swindler: in such cases, undoubtedly, the Insolvent Debtors' Court would withhold its discharge, and the Member be incompetent for present re-election; but he had yet to learn that constituencies were fond of being represented by rogues, and least of all by pecuniary rogues. He regretted, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, instead of giving notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, had not rather given notice of some amendment by which the object they professed to have in common might be better carried out. It had been asked by some, "Why do you interfere at all; the existing system does no great harm?" He (Mr. Moffatt) thought, on the contrary, that it did a great deal of harm. It involved a very doubtful principle of morality, and was calculated to lower the character of the House in the estimation of the country. He could not help expressing his surprise that he should have encountered any opposition in attempting to carry out such a desirable measure, and he considered that his motives had been very much misrepresented. The case was simply this—a remedy was proposed by which fraudulent insolvents would no longer be able to make the House their sanctuary; the remedy was only applicable in the case of proved or judgment debts; and it was now for the House to decide whether so worthless and rotten a privilege should be retained or abandoned.

moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He gave the hon. Proposer full credit for the motives which had induced him to introduce the measure, but in his (Sir W. Clay's) opinion, it was objectionable alike in principle and details, and he felt it to be his duty to offer to its further progress a determined opposition. Since he had originally interfered to delay the passing of the Bill (and his first interference was in a great measure accidental), he had conversed with many hon. Friends to whose opinions he attached great weight, and the result of such and of his own reflection was, that the measure deserved fuller consideration than had yet been bestowed on it by the House. The objects of it were, that if any hon. Member should be indebted by the judgment of any court of record in any sum not secured by a lien on real property, his creditor might apply to the court to fix a peremptory time for the payment of the debt; the court might then fix a day for its payment, not less than 21 days distant; and if payment were not made in conformity with the order, the creditor might apply to the Insolvent Debtors' Court in England or Ireland, as the case might be, and serve on his debtor a copy of the affidavit and notice to pay; and the Insolvent Debtors' Court must order payment to be made in six months; and then if payment were not made, a certificate to that effect was to be transmitted to the Speaker, and the Member's seat would immediately become void. The adjudication would bring into operation all the stringent powers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court; and the unseated Member would be ineligible for re-election until he was purged by that court. He (Sir W. Clay) did not recollect any measure which had been ever introduced to the House of a more objectionable nature than the present. He was not opposed to giving increased facilities for the recovery of debts from hon. Members of that House; and if this measure had merely contemplated the giving of such facilities, by means less objectionable than those now proposed, not only would be not oppose it, but any provisions of the kind would receive his cordial consent. He should support any measure which enacted that after certain conditions of application to a Member for payment of a debt had been made, the powers of the Insolvent Debtors' Court should be called into operation, so far as regarded an entire cession of property; but he would not consent to the sacrifice of the seat of a Member. It appeared to him that, by excluding Members who did not pay their debts, Parliament would be stepping out of its legitimate sphere, would be meddling with matters which did not belong to them, and would be infringing one of the most important and valuable privileges of the people—viz., the privilege of having an unrestricted choice of persons whom they considered most fit to represent them. The Bill proceeded upon the assumed ground that such exclusion was "necessary for the preservation of the dignity and independence of Parliament," But he contended that in attempting to enforce such exclusion, they were doing what they had no right to do, and which, even if they had the right, it would be highly inexpedient to do, inasmuch as they could not do it efficiently. He confessed he had no high idea of the "independence" which was secured by Act of Parliament. He believed that independence depended far less upon external circumstances than upon innate qualities of mind and heart. There were many other circumstances which affected the morality of the House much more than the payment of debts. Some hon. Members might desire to get appointments for their friends—they might look for office for themselves; in either case the preferment might be the reward of a legitimate ambition, or the base hire for dishonesty and corruption. But how was the House to judge? The Bill had this great defect—it punished alike the innocent and the guilty. The House could not decide whether any man contracted debts honestly or dishonestly; they could not judge of his moral guilt, and, therefore, they could not say it was contrary to the dignity of the House that one of its Members should be unable to meet a pecuniary demand. But supposing they could do so, was it for them to say what amount of moral delinquency ought to incapacitate a man for sitting in that House? He had thought the discussion on Wilkes's case had settled that question long ago. But the details of the measure were still more objectionable, if possible, than its principle. It subjected the privileges of the House of Commons more to the discretion of courts of law than any measure he ever knew. It would be in the power of the original court to decide when the period of payment should commence; and, therefore, that court could determine when a man should cease to be a Member of that House. In the same same way the Insolvent Debtors' Court could influence the fate of Members, and decide when they should be capable of being re-elected. There was another grave objection in the enormous power the Bill would give over Members of the House. It would be in the power of any wealthy individual or corporation interested in a Bill which they had reason to believe would be opposed by some active and energetic Member, but who was under some pecuniary pressure, to buy up a debt owing by such person, and having taken the preliminary legal steps, to have his seat in their power. For his part, he did not wish to extend mammon worship in this country—to give one additional pang of humiliation to honest poverty—or to extend the power of mere wealth. A similar measure had been opposed by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and Lord Althorp in 1832: that Bill, after passing through several stages, was lost; and he trusted the present Bill would meet with the like fate.

Sir, this is a question of considerable importance in its principle, and, feeling that importance, I will take the liberty of saying a few words on the reasons that will guide my vote on the occasion. If any one looks over the Parliamentary history of this country, he will find that the privileges, in certain cases, of the Members of this House are of considerable antiquity—nearly as old as the assemblage of the Commons of England. In those early days, these privileges were of much importance, as this House, at that period, required all the props it could obtain, to withstand the powerful influence both of the Crown, under the Tudors and Stuarts, and also of the great barons by whom the other House was composed. I say, in every point of view, those privileges of the Commons were then of the utmost moment to keep up the tottering influence of this House against the preponderant influence of the other branches of the Legislature. But how much the relative position of the three branches of the Legislature has altered since these days that are gone! This House is now, perhaps, more powerful than it ought to be, when compared with the other branches of the Legislature, and stands not in need of most of those privileges by which it was formerly surrounded. It is a maxim of law, Cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex. Now, let us for a moment see how these privileges have gradually diminished, and are now gradually decreasing. I will add, and it is worthy of remark, that while the influence of the House of Commons has for the last century and a half been constantly increasing, what are styled the privileges of the House and its Members, have been decreasing in nearly equal proportion. Now, for instance, it is little more than a century that it was a great indignity to report what was said in this House. On the 13th April, 1738, the House resolved, "it was a notorious breach of the privilege of this House for any printer or publisher to give any account of the debates or other proceedings of this House." In 1771, the debates began to be published, and a contest arose between the publisher and the House, which occupied the House for three weeks, to the exclusion of all other business. Here again the House gave way. Again, in the case of Mr. Alex. Murray, in 1751, as mentioned by Horace Walpole, who refused to kneel at the bar, a long debate ensued, and all sorts of punishments proposed in the House, for the man who refused to kneel. On 18th March, 1772, a standing order—a very appropriate order—was made, that all persons brought to the bar should be reprimanded standing. Now, Sir, can any one admit that such a privilege as that of nonpayment of debts should remain in the nineteenth century in this House? Dr. Paley has truly observed that all privileges given to any class, must be given for the good of the community, otherwise they inflict injury on the public. Now, what possible benefit to the country can it be to have insolvent Members in this House? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge said, the other night, speaking on the subject, that both Pitt and Fox were in debt, and could not have been in Parliament, had a Bill like the present existed. This seems a wrong conclusion from the premises. These great men were in debt, and, in the event of this Bill being the law of the land, their party or their friends would have come forward and paid their debts. Now, to the case of individual Members of this House as relates to themselves, if there are any such, which I much doubt—what possible benefit can any one do himself by remaining in this House, if unable or unwilling to pay his debts? Had he not better give up his tinkering at legislation, and turn his attention to his own affairs? If he cannot manage his own affairs, is he likely to arrange those of the nation? As regards this House, is it not desirable that every individual Member of which it is composed, should be deemed in in a condition to pay his debts? It cannot for a moment be imagined that this privilege will continue; it cannot possibly continue ten years; we may, therefore, as well have the credit of giving up the privilege at once. Considering therefore, Sir, that this privilege is injurious to the respectability of this House; that it answers no purpose; that it prevents individuals from attending to their private affairs, and that it cannot long continue—I shall give my vote in favour of this Bill. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said, some time since, when this Bill was first agitated, that he would give his support to the measure, if the details could be satisfactorily adjusted. Now, can any doubt be entertained that these details in Committee can be arranged, with such a host of learned Gentlemen of high standing in their profession, Members of this House? Without detaining longer the attention of the House, I will only add, that by passing this Bill, which you must do within some years at farthest, you will not obtain the credit with the people of giving up an useless privilege, and yielding to the strong sentiment of public opinion.

wished to point out that the distinction which some hon. Gentlemen wished to draw between the principle of this Bill and its details was far from being a practical or sound distinction. The principle of this measure was made up of the details, and the details involved the principle in every line of them. The question was not whether it was better that reprimands should be given at the bar sitting or standing; but whether they would lay it down that the length of an hon. Member's purse should constitute the standard by which to measure public morality and private purity. He was afraid those who thought so were too much disposed to measure respectability by the length of a man's purse, and that they and his hon. Friend the Member for Lymington were too ready to adopt the argumentum ad crumenam. Many a man might have an estate burdened by private debts and judgments against his ancestors—the property might be onerously loaded by the accumulation of jointures and family settlements; and, although from no fault of his own, it might be impossible for him to go into the money market and obtain the means of relieving himself from his embarrassments; and would it be just to say that such a man was not as worthy in point of morality to sit in that House as any other individual? When they talked of immorality, criminality, or culpability, who, he asked, had a right to go round the House, and measure the moral guilt, or whatever they liked to call it, of his fellows? As to the argument that insolvent Members had better be attending to their own affairs than meddling with duties of legislation, without offering any disparagement to any one in particular, he would ask whether there were not many hon. Members now in that House, coming from the north, south, east, and west, who would have quite enough to do in looking after their own affairs, without attending, at great personal sacrifice and inconvenience, as many of them did? And the same argument that was used against insolvent Members was equally applicable to them. But, after all, the real question they had now to consider was this—was the evil complained of, of such frequent occurrence, that to find a remedy we ought to incur the dangers of altering the whole commercial law of the country "at one fell swoop," and cause a continual collision between that House and the constituencies? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said, the House did not enjoy the respect of the people at present.[Mr. MACKINNON explained that what he had said was, that the adoption of this Bill would increase the respect of the people for that House.] He would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell them arithmetically how much was added to the existing stock of disrespect for the House by hon. Members refusing to pay their debts? Ought the House to embark in such contingent danger for an object not deserving of support, and not worth the amount of contingent mischief that the Bill might entail? The clauses about the service of notice upon individual Members, would operate most mischievously. A man might be absent from the country without any intention to abscond, when a notice might be left at his home; and all the ignominy and disgrace that might properly attach to a person under different circumstances, would be inflicted upon him. He maintained that it would be impossible to work the Bill for any useful purpose; and in the long course of his experience in that House, he had heard so little of hon. Members claiming the privilege of protection from arrest for debt, that he believed the benefit the measure would secure, would not be anything like commensurate with the risk of legislative and constitutional evils which its adoption would create, and therefore he must strenuously oppose its second reading.

considered the object of the measure to be a good and legitimate one; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartmouth would arrive at his object by means of this Bill. He believed it would put greater power over the House into the hands of creditors than it would be safe for them to possess, and, instead of rendering Members liable to exclusion from the House for insolvency, he believed, if they were made liable to arrest during the recess up to a short time before the meeting of Parliament, no one would enter the House for the sake of protection from his debts.

would support the Bill, because he believed that persons who were not independent in their circumstances were destitute of one of the essential qualifications of a Member of that House. Bankrupt Members were not now allowed an immunity from the claims of their creditors; but with regard to insolvent Members there was an entire denial of justice to the creditor. The insolvent Member could dispose of his property without being liable to be examined before the ordinary tribunals of the country as to whether he had fraudulently made away with it or not. It had been objected to this Bill that it would exclude Members guilty of no immorality themselves, but whose estates had been heavily encumbered by their predecessors. But the fact was, that no man was personally responsible for the debts of his ancestors; and if the owner wished to go to the money market to relieve himself from his embarrassments, he had only to let the creditor know that he was ready to give the security of his estate, and the creditor would be glad to accept the terms.

would support the Bill, because he thought the reason for these privileges had ceased, and that if they were retained they ought not to be allowed to be exercised for discreditable purposes.

considered that their privileges formed a very important subject, securing as they did the independence of the votes of the Members of that House; and he held that that object could not be secured consistently with this Bill. For what was the principle of the measure? Why, to enable the creditor of any Member of that House to take steps in a summary way that might deprive that Member of his seat. And let them just conceive what would be the position of any Member liable to such proceedings by an individual creditor who wished to secure his vote on any particular question. He said, that anything more degrading than the situation of that Member whose independence might be thus struck at, it was impossible to conceive. That consideration of itself was sufficient to induce him to give his decided opposition to this Bill; for while he admitted that at present, in a sense, an injustice was done to the creditor, at the same time the paramount consideration he had mentioned ought not to be lost sight of. And he must say, that he was not aware of any case of practical inconvenience suffered by a creditor by reason of the privileges of Members of Parliament.

stated, that the clause had his concurrence, but had been proposed by the hon. Member for Abingdon. The effect of the proviso would be to prevent the repetition of what had taken place last Session on more than one occasion, namely, that on the trial of an election petition bribery at a former election had been proved. In the similar cases of Horsham and Cheltenham, the Members were unseated on account of bribery or treating. In both cases contests took place on the avoidance of the first elections. Petitions were presented, on the trials of which charges of bribery were brought forward, referring, not to the elections in question, but to the elections of the previous year. In both cases, the extraordinary course had been taken of giving notice to the electors that their votes would be thrown away in consequence of bribery at a former election. In the case of Horsham, the Committee decided by a majority of three to two that the notice to the electors was good, and they seated Lord Edward Howard, who had the minority of votes. By a mere electioneering trick a candidate might be cheated out of his seat, to the gross violation of all justice. In the Cheltenham case, the Committee held, and properly, that they would not seat a candidate who had a minority of votes in consequence of those notices having been issued. By a majority also of three to two, that Committee came to an opposite conclusion from the Horsham Committee.

opposed the clause, on the ground that it would subject an unsuccessful candidate to an inquiry into his conduct at the election, without his previously receiving notice that charges were intended to be brought against him.

, as chairman of the Cheltenham Election Committee, begged to make a few observations. The question had come before them as to whether it was competent for them to inquire into the alleged acts of previous bribery, and they were of opinion, after hearing counsel, that it was competent for them to do so, so that a man might be called upon to defend himself against a charge of bribery committed four or five years before. The clause before them would, he considered, obviate the difficulty, and he approved of the objects of it.

announced, that it was his intention to withdraw the clause for the present, with a view of meeting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University; but he would bring up the clause in its amended form on the report.

considered that due notice should be given to an unsuccessful candidate against whom a petition had not been presented, in case it was intended to prefer any charge against him.

would suggest, that if it were desirable that such charges should be rebutted, it should be done in the same way as if it were done under a petition.

requested the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich to reprint his Bill, as he now proposed to make a material alteration in a new clause, and there was considerable misapprehension on that side of the House as to what portion of the measure he intended to retain. Let the House have an opportunity of seeing the Bill in the shape in which the hon. Baronet intended to proceed with it.

, referring to the second Cheltenham Election Committee, last Session, said, that he had on that occasion been impressed with this consideration, that, whilst they were every Session endeavouring, by a sort of rambling legislation, to prevent bribery and corruption, they were wholly neglecting one important course of proceeding, by the adoption of which they might do much good, namely, that of settling by law those points in regard to bribery and treating which were constantly coming before them. He should be glad to see the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the actual state of the law on those subjects, and to see the points in which it required amendment. Last year, as was well known, two Committees came to different decisions on a question of this nature at the same time, and each Commit-tee by a casting vote. The clause before the House left this most important question just as much open as before; and it was possible that a candidate, being in a minority, and having, perhaps, only some thirty or forty votes, might, in the event of his opponent being unseated on the ground of bribery and treating, be declared the sitting Member in his place. If they left the law in the state in which it was, it would lead to endless petitions in future Parliaments. For his own part, he believed that the decision which had been come to in the Cheltenham case was the correct one, and that the decision in regard to the Horsham election was wrong. If he might offer a suggestion on this case before he sat down, he would say that they must decide this question in one of two ways—either declare that in no case should a Committee, pronouncing a Member disqualified from want of property, or for bribery, give the seat to a candidate who might be unable to place himself in a majority; or else declare that, in such a case, a candidate who had obtained a certain portion—to be hereafter determined upon—of the suffrages of the constituency, and whose hands were free from bribery, should be the sitting Member.

, as a member of the Horsham Committee, begged to state that they believed they were bound by the existing state of the law to come to the decision at which they had arrived; it was their opinion, at the same time, that the state of the law was unsatisfactory, and he believed that was the opinion of every one who had carefully inquired into the subject. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not be induced to abandon the two principles of his clause, and that the clause would be retained, with the amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. He also considered that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was most valuable, and concurred in the propriety of removing all doubt, and settling the question.

Do I understand the hon. Baronet to postpone the clause?

I propose to postpone it to meet the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University; but I will bring it for-ward again on the report.

hoped that the House would be prepared in the ensuing Session to institute an inquiry into the subject, by means of a Select Committee. He really thought the fact of bribery and treating depended much loss upon any positive enactment than upon the view taken of the matter by any particular Committee. He thought, for instance, there was a most important distinction in fact—and it might be doubtful whether there ought not to be a distinction in law—between refreshments honestly given to voters, and money and riotous entertainment supplied to voters in towns. He hoped that his hon. Friend would agree to the suggestion which had been made to have this. Bill recommitted; and he would also suggest that the title and preamble of the Bill should be modified. In his opinion they were both rather too comprehensive.

considered that the clause was one of vital importance; and he thought no other alteration was required except a provision for giving notice to the unsuccessful candidate that his conduct would be inquired into.

said, that he was firmly of opinion that the system of giving refreshment tickets was one that was absolutely necessary, and impossible to be dispensed with. The people who came great distances to vote for a person, would think they were treated in a mean and inhospitable manner if those tickets were to be withheld. He did not see, either, that there could possibly be any corruption in so doing; as, if all the can-dates did the same thing, it could not operate unfairly to the interests of any one of them. He believed the system was nothing more than a little innocent harmless hospitality.

said, that he should regret that the Bill should be said to have passed with his concurrence, as he believed its effect would be most injurious, and, if passed, they might as well shut up the courts of justice at once. In every civil case, the parties to any proceeding were entitled to have the best evidence they could get, given before the court on the most solemn veracity of the witness. If this measure were passed, any person might present himself who had possessed at one time a good character and a good half-crown, and deprive the parties of all the benefit of such evidence.

complained of the haste and absence of discussion which had marked the progress of this Bill. He did not wish that it should go forth to the public that the vote which had just been given should be considered as the deliberate act of a full House, but that, owing to accidental circumstances, the passing of this Bill had been facilitated in a manner most extraordinary. If the principle of such a Bill as this was good, it tended directly to the abolition of all oaths; and the sooner that abolition took place the better, as to invite parties to take oaths, after oaths had been declared to be unnecessary, was to invite them to do that which might be almost considered a crime.

said, that this was a measure which struck at the root of testimony given in a court of justice. It not only went to relieve tender consciences from giving genuine and true testimony, but it carried with it the expression of the opinion of the House of Commons, that evidence given under a less solemn sanction than that of an oath, was entitled to equal faith with testimony on oath. He was satisfied that those who were concerned in the administration of public justice would feel that this was a blow struck at the very root of that administration. He hoped that it would not be so: but this he knew, that the most hardened criminals had often shrunk from giving that testimony on oath which might have relieved their companions in the dock from the consequences of a conviction. He well knew the effect produced upon witnesses when they were reminded that they were speaking under the solemn obligation of an oath. He had himself frequently seen the difference of demeanour which such reminding had upon the witnesses in the box. If the person to be exempted from an oath were a Dissenter, a Separatist, or a Quaker, well and good; that was done, and could not now be undone; but here the person to be excused was a person professing to belong to the Church of England, who, if he consulted the pastor of his own church, would be told that it was not only not according to his duty, but that it positively was his duty, in matters affecting the discharge of public justice, to pledge his veracity upon the solemnity of an oath. What would be the practical effect of the measure? As often as a person thought he might be called as a witness, and that much might depend on his evidence, he could give it in a much looser manner than tinder the solemn obligation of an oath. He might be reminded that a man's life might be taken upon the affirmation of a Quaker; but this was no reason why persons professing the faith of the Protestant Church should be sheltered by a certificate. Depend upon it, if they passed this Bill, appeals would be made to juries to ask whether they could place the same reliance on evidence given under the protection of a certificate, and that given under the obligation of an oath. He spoke on the experience of twenty years, and he implored of the House not to make this dangerous experiment.

opposed the passing of the measure. He spoke after considerable experience in the police courts of the city, and he knew the great effect that the oath had upon the lower class of witnesses especially. In some of the city courts there were two Testaments, one with a cross upon the back, and one without, and he had found, in a vast number of instances, that Roman Catholics would give evidence upon the Testament without the cross, but refused to do so when the Testament with the cross was handed to them. Holding these opinions, he had twice recorded his opinion against the passing of this measure, and if any division now took place, he would adopt a similar course.

said, that from information which he had received, he had been led to believe that there had been an irregularity in the passage of the Affirmation Bill to the House of Lords. He had been informed by one of the officers of the House that the title of the Bill had not been distinctly agreed to, nor put as a substantive question from the chair. The question, "That this be the title of the Bill," was necessary to be put, as he submitted, in order to perfect it. Other business had since been introduced, and as that question had not been audibly put at the time, the Bill had been irregularly sent up to the House of Lords.

said, that he recollected putting the question that the Bill be carried to the House of Lords by Mr. Wood, and his impression was that he had previously put the question relating to the title of the Bill; but if not, the title of the Bill might be added now, its omission would not vitiate prior proceedings.

humbly submitted, that the question with respect to the title of the Bill was now out of order altogether, other business having intervened.

was of opinion, that if by any accident the question had not been put, the House should allow the Speaker to put it now. Of course, nobody would think of dividing on the matter.

had submitted to the chair, that it was the duty of those who had charge of the Bill, to see that the question respecting the title was put as a substantive Motion. As a question of precedent, he would suggest to the House that it would be dangerous to omit any question on which a debate might arise, or the sense of the House could be taken.

said, that the usual course was, that the question could first be put, "That this be the title of the Bill;" and then the question that it be carried to the House of Lords. If this Bill had been actually taken to the House of Lords, there might be a difficulty; but the order of the House to that effect had not been yet obeyed, and the Bill was consequently still in the hands of the House.

said, that the question depended upon what had fallen from the Speaker. If the title of the Bill had been put from the Chair, then there was an end of the matter; but if, unfortunately, by some inadvertence, this had not been done, then the point was as to whether or not a question had been omitted on which it was possible for the House to divide. It was desirable to know whether on the title of the Bill it was competent to take a division. He hoped, before the debate proceeded further, they would have the opinion of the Chair on this point.

said, that he understood the first question of the hon. and learned Member was, whether the title of the Bill would not be affected, as it had passed. He had replied that the last question had nothing to do with the title of the Bill. He really should have said, that his own impression was that he had put all the questions, and this was the opinion of the competent officers at the table. This question was almost a matter of course, and might have been put in a hurried manner. He recollected perfectly well putting the last question, as to the Bill being sent to the Lords, because he had the hon. and learned Member for Oxford in his eye at the time he put the question.

observed, that he was close to the chair at the time, and his own impression was that the Speaker did put the question; but he would not take his oath on the point.

considered, if there had been any inadvertence in this case, it was not a question which. touched the Gentleman who had charge of the Bill. The point was, as to the effect of an inadvertence in a mere formal question as to the title of the Bill. He had never seen a division on this question since he had been in Parliament. He would submit it to hon. Gentlemen who had opposed this Bill, whether they bonâ fide intended to take a division on that question; and if not, whether, from a more inadvertence, they would press their objection.

said, if it was admitted that there had been some inadvertence as to putting the question as to the title of the Bill, the matter would stand thus: an hon. Member had been directed to take the Bill to the Lords, but it had not yet left the House, and it had not been signed by the clerk, therefore it was not too late to put the title to it. His own impression still was, that he had put the question.

observed that he would not press the matter further.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that he did not anticipate any serious opposition at that stage of the Bill, although several petitions had been presented against it; but these rather applied to the details to be considered in Committee, than to the principle of the measure. The Lord Chancellor had introduced, at the commencement of the last Session, a Bill very similar in its provisions to the present, but for some reason or other it had been allowed to drop without notice, and another measure was brought in, which also was not pressed. Why neither of these measures came down to that House, he could not say; but he referred to the matter with the view of showing that the Government had taken up the question last year. At the commencement of the present Session, he had asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure on the subject during the present Session; and on being informed that it was not intended to do so, he felt called upon to take upon himself the responsibility of introducing this Bill. In 1841, a Committee of that House had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject; and, after full consideration, it had reported that for the relief of the poorer holders of land it was most desirable that some measure for the enfranchisement of copyholds should pass. The report also stated, that it was the opinion of the Committee that copyhold tenure was not adapted to the circumstances of the present day, and that the existing system was a blot on the jurisprudence of the country. It added, that a measure for this purpose would not only be a public boon, but should be regarded as a national object. The Committee strongly urged the passing of a measure by which a certain number of years was to be allowed for voluntary enfranchisement, after which period it should be compulsory. In consequence of this recommendation a Bill was introduced in 1841 on this subject, which passed into a law, but this only went to the extent of voluntary commutation. On that occasion, he and many other hon. Members expressed their opinion that with merely voluntary enfranchisement little would be done, and they urged that the Bill, like the Tithe Commutation Act, should, if voluntary arrangements were not made before a certain time, become compulsory. They had been justified by the result in the predictions they then made, for although some manors, or portions of manors, had been enfranchised, and those chiefly under ecclesiastical tenure, yet, comparatively speaking, little good had been effected. The returns on the table would show that a very small proportion of the land held under this objectionable tenure had been enfranchised. Having had nearly nine years' experience of the voluntary system, he conceived he was justified in calling on the House to proceed a step further. The copyhold commissioners had reported, that after more than six years' experience they found that there had been a slow but gradual advance in the enfranchisement of copyholds held under ecclesiastical lords of manors; but great dificulties had attended the enfranchisement of those held under lay lords. He (Mr. Aglionby) was aware that there were exceptions to this. For instance, the hon. Member for Devonport, who held several manors in the north of England, had rendered great advantages to his tenants by the facilities which he had afforded for the enfranchisement of copyhold tenures on his estate; but this was almost a solitary instance. The commissioners also said that a general and immediate system of compulsory enfranchisement might be found to be objectionable; they therefore recommended that a more gradual system should be adopted, by which this objectionable tenure might be got rid of. They also recommended that a commutation should take place, by a fixed annual payment, in the place of the present fines and heriots. In another report, made in November, 1848, the commissioners expressed a similar opinion, and recommended that a certain course should be adopted, which would be found embodied in the measure before the House. The Bill, with few exceptions, followed that which was introduced by the Lord Chancellor, on the part of the Government, at the commencement of the last Session. He alluded to the first and not the second of the Bills introduced into the other House. The latter proposed a general and immediate enfranchisement of all copyholds. He certainly could not be a party to such a Bill, because he believed that it would be neither desirable nor practicable. His Bill, therefore, resembled the first Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor. The first exception he proposed to make in that Bill was to get rid of the clause which enacted that after two-thirds of the tenants were enfranchised, it should be immediately compulsory to confer it on the other third. He did not see the advantage of this, and it might be found to weigh heavily on the poorer holders. The other clause in the Bill of the Lord Chancellor to which he objected, was one which enacted that the expense of the enfranchisement should be divided between the lord of the manor and the tenantry. In his (Mr. Aglionby's) Bill he proposed that the whole of the charge should fall upon the tenant, for the latter received the advantage. There had been no indication of a strong feeling against his measure, for although the number of petitions in its favour was six, while the number presented against it amounted to thirty-two, yet the signatures in its favour numbered 132, while those against it were only sixty. He was ready to give ample time for the consideration of the measure prior to the next stage, and every facility for the fullest discussion of details in Committee; and he earnestly hoped the House would at least admit the principle, and not reject the Bill at this stage.

said, that the Government, in whose blinds alone the measure should be placed, if at all, had already twice attempted to effect the object of the hon. Gentleman, and wholly failed, so complicated were the obstacles which in all directions presented themselves. The measure before the House presented the important objection, that it was a wholly one-sided legislation in relation to a species of tenure in which both parties connected with it were jointly interested. He did not himself desire to prevent the Bill from going into Committee; but he warned the Government and the House that there were exceeding difficulties in the way of dealing satisfactorily with this subject.

was not opposed to well-considered amendments of the law; as a proof of which, he might state, that if Her Majesty's Government did not take measures for the improvement of the Courts of Equity, he should think it his duty, next Session, to bring in a Bill for that purpose. He entertained very great objections to this Bill, however, and believed that nothing could be done by Parliament more prejudicial than to interfere, by means of commissioners, with the rights of property in this country. If there could be said to be any principle at all in the matter, he should say it was this, that the Legislature ought not to interfere unless a clear case of public necessity were made out. If such a case could, in the present instance, be said to exist, it must be considered equally to affect the landlord as the tenant; and, therefore, the proposed arrangement ought to be made compulsory, if made at all. As such a measure ought to rest upon general policy, he should not then enter into the details of the Bill, and should now confine himself to observing, that the measure before them left copyright tenure precisely in the same state in which it previously stood. He wished further to say, that in all cases of copyhold tenure, where mines and minerals existed, a great grievance was left unredressed. Upon these grounds, he thought it his duty to move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

was anxious to state the reasons which would induce him to vote in favour of the second reading. In his opinion it would not be respectful to the commissioners who had inquired into the subject, not to attempt to reduce into some shape those recommendations which were embodied in the Bill. The Bill also contained many of the clauses in the measure introduced into the House of Lords last Session by the Lord Chancellor. For these reasons he should support the Motion; but he reserved to himself, and to those with whom he was acting, the right of rejecting any of the details, and ultimately, if they deemed it necessary, to vote against the third reading.

said, he should give the most strenuous opposition in his power to this Bill, because he conceived it to be unnecessary and mischievous. It was also partial, inasmuch as it exposed certain manufactures to penalties, whilst it exempted others. He therefore, without further comment, moved that the Bill be read the second time that day six months.

reminded the House that this identical measure had already gone twice through the House of Lords, and that during the last Session it passed the second reading in that House. The principle of it, therefore, had been affirmed by Parliament, and he did not think that upon examination it would be found so objectionable as the hon. Gentleman seemed to consider it.

acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leamington had shown the greatest courtesy towards all parties who had made representations to him upon the subject of the measure. He (Mr. Thornely) had himself introduced to the hon. Member a deputation from South Staffordshire, upon whose representations he had agreed to exempt, in Committee, iron works, coal works, and glass works, from the operation of the Bill. But, although the particular objections of those gentlemen were thus removed, there were others of a general character, which, as it appeared to him, it would be difficult to obviate. He could not see how a general measure could be made applicable to all the various manufactures of the country. In his opinion, the best course would be to empower the municipal council of every borough to undertake the prevention of nuisance by smoke, seeing that they, from their local knowledge, were best calculated to consider the circumstances of the place with regard to manufactures.

said, it was because municipal boroughs could not make regulations for the prevention of smoke, that a general measure had been deemed necessary for the purpose. When the House remembered that the smoke clauses were taken out of the Public Health Bill, he hoped they would not consent to the rejection of this measure at the present stage. At that period there was almost an unanimous opinion that it was necessary to pass some measure, though great difficulty was felt in adjusting the details. All, however, which the present Bill affirmed was, that something should be done to prevent the unnecessary issue of opaque smoke after the year 1851. That was the principle of the measure, and it would be matter for future consideration whether its provisions should or should not he carried out by the municipal councils. Under these circumstances he trusted the House would assent to the second reading.

had, upon every occasion since he had been in Parliament, opposed the progress of all Bills under this denomination. Every Session confirmed his opinion that general legislation upon this subject was not practicable, and that if it were it could not be advantageous. He was pretty sure that the parties who had drawn up the Bill did not know much about the question, otherwise they would not have proposed it in its present shape. It included nobody but the manufacturers of the north of England. Collieries, ironworks, glass-houses, which produced infinitely more smoke than manufacturers' chimneys, were expressly excluded from its operation. But, if the Bill were necessary upon any general principle affecting the public health, it must be just as applicable to those establishments as to manufactories; and he had no sympathy with those legislators who, after having seen one deputation, cut out three-fourths of their legislation, and left the remaining fourth applicable only to a particular trade. But to come to the details of the measure. The Attorney General evidently did not know much about smoke from factories, and it was well known that the clause in the Health of Towns' Bill had been withdrawn on account of its wholly impracticable nature. As to the Bill before the House, he believed that it would be found to pass human comprehension to decide what was opaque smoke, and what was not opaque smoke, as it issued from a chimney from 20 to 80 yards high. It was provided that this opaque smoke was not to be allowed to issue for a longer time than was necessary to kindle the fires; but was the hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill aware that the fires were kept up from week to week, and were never allowed to go out, except when it was necessary to clean the boilers? He would ask how would they meet a case where all the flues of three or four mills, each having perhaps three or four furnaces, went up a single large chimney, and where the men were in the habit of applying fresh coals to each furnace every four or five minutes? How could they, in such a case as that—and it was not an unusual one—decide who was the guilty party when opaque smoke was seen to issue from the chimney? The Bill would, he was convinced, become a dead letter, after first exposing the manufacturers to great difficulties and annoyances.

said, that scientific men had failed to discover any effectual way for burning smoke. All the attempts that had as yet been made were deemed entire failures in the manufacturing districts; and until men of science could be found to agree among themselves on the matter, he did not think that the House ought to interfere.

said, he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was deserving of great attention, that every district should be at liberty to decide whether its smoke was a nuisance or not. The only proper way for lessening the amount of smoke was by increasing the boiling room; but in a crowded town like Manchester that was impossible. Wherever there were manufactures of metals they must have smoke, and with regard to this class of works, he thought the provision in the eighth clause of this Bill much more objectionable than the preceding Bill had been. The clause subjected the manufacturers to vexatious interference where smoke could not possibly be avoided.