recommended his right hon. Friend not to persevere with this Bill at the present late period of the Session, more especially as it had already been under the consideration of the House in conjunction with other measures, and had been negatived by implication. Subsequently to the passing of the Reform Bill, many measures were brought forward to improve the representation. Those measures were invariably postponed; but, though postponed, their importance had not been forgotten. Last year a measure for extending the franchise was again brought forward by the hon. Member for Montrose; and upon that occasion many Liberal Members, and himself among the number, refused it their support, on the ground that the time for it had not then arrived. He believed now, however, that circumstances had altered, and that it was their duty to press on such a measure upon the consideration of Parliament, more especially since the principle of extending the franchise had been sanctioned by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The Motion now before the House affected the duration of Parliaments; and here he must observe, that they were attempting no novelty, and that he thought a Bill of that nature might be passed with much advantage. He felt bound to express to the Government the strong dissatisfaction felt by the people at the rejection of every measure calculated to extend the franchise and improve the representation. He trusted that the noble Lord would not persevere in such a course, and that next Session some measures would be adopted to give effect to the very natural, though long-postponed, desires of the people for the extension of their political rights. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had in the present Session brought in a Bill to extend the franchise in Ireland. That Bill had been silently withdrawn; but he hoped that next Session a measure comprehending both countries would be introduced by the Government, and pass that House.

entirely agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend at the head of the Government when the Motion was made for leave to bring in this Bill, that there did not exist in the country any practical discontent or dissatisfaction with regard to the duration of Parliaments. The right hon. Gentleman had been praised for having left a blank in his Bill; but, though such a course might be prudent, he did think that it would be very desirable that they should learn what the term was to be. The reduction to three years, for example, would, he thought, be attended with great practical inconvenience, because the first Session was one in which there were many new and inexperienced Members in Parliament; and the last Session was also one not calculated for the despatch of business, because Members were then naturally looking forward to the circumstances of their re-election. Looking to the great increase of business which had taken place of late, and the necessity of postponing measures from one Parliament to another, it was of great importance that those measures should be considered by the same Members who had them under consideration at their commencement. But now he asked if any practical inconvenience had arisen from the present duration of Parliament? It was notorious that the average duration of Parliaments had not exceeded six years. From 1826 to 1841 there were no less than six Parliaments: the average duration being only two years and a half. He thought it was pretty evident, from the smallness of the numbers on the division when the Bill was brought in, as well as from the present thin attendance, that there was not very much interest on this subject throughout the country, and that public opinion did act wholesomely and benefically upon Members under the present system. Not having heard any answer to the argument of his noble Friend against this Bill, he recommended his right hon. Friend to withdraw it. If he declined to do so, he trusted the House would not sanction the further progress of the Bill; and he would move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

said, the real answer to the noble Lord's speech was the division that followed upon it; because, notwithstanding the arguments which he used, and the appeal made to the House, the House decided that the Bill should be brought in; and he contended that it would not be treating the past proceedings of the House with respect if they were to decline now to discuss this measure calmly and in a manner becoming the importance of the subject. Let him observe, too, that these divisions were not quite accidental. Last Session there was a majority in favour of the ballot—oh, quite an accident! This Session, a majority for shortening the duration of Parliaments—again, it was said, a mere accident. But those majorities occurred in this way: Gentlemen were unwilling to record their votes against the extension of popular rights. Their absence was partly intentional, although he did not mean to say that they would not be pre- sent if urged to it by the leaders of a party; but there was a meaning which should not he lost sight of in those occasional majorities in favour of popular rights. With regard to the question itself, he certainly did think that a shorter period of time for the duration of Parliaments would be a very wholesome check on the proceedings of that House; and he thought that it had become more necessary now than it had ever been. Let them look at the great increase of power possessed by the Executive Government. Look at the taxation of 60,000,000l. which they now levied, the patronage incidental to it, and at the large amount of patronage in Crown lands and Church livings, East Indies and colonies, all of which were means of corrupting and influencing Members of the Legislature, at least of raising their expectations. He said that as the power of influencing increased, the case became stronger and stronger that there should be more frequent appeals to the constituency, and a more wholesome control over Members of Parliament. The means of corrupting Members of Parliament had increased to an enormous extent, and unless they were prepared to consider Members as angels of purity, or exempt from the infirmities of the rest of mankind, their common sense must tell them that the duration of their tenure of seats in that House should be shortened. What might be the inducement now for Members to go into a borough, after previously nursing it and spending large sums of money in it, but that they held their seats for six or seven years—that they knew there was a copious fountain of good things at the Treasury and elsewhere—and that they calculated they had only to "vote right," and to pull away at the Secretary of the Treasury, to make the money they had spent become a good investment. He called upon the House, if they were sincere in their desire to prevent bribery and corruption at elections, not to lose sight of that comparative fixity of tenure by which they held their seats in that House. He believed, moreover, that they would raise the political character of Members by such a measure as was now proposed. It would be no longer necessary to make all those definite pledges which constituencies now called for; because they would know that their Members must return to them in a comparatively short period, and again solicit their votes. But when a Member was returned for six or seven years, it become necessary to look far into the distance, and to obtain pledges from Gentlemen on measures not then, perhaps, before the country. He looked upon the system of pledging as not a very creditable one; and he believed that it would be materially lessened by passing the present measure. If they repealed the Septennial Act, there would be no necessity to pass any now Bill, because the Triennial Act Mould be revived, and was already upon the Statute-book. There would be no delay whatever, if the Septennial Act were once repealed. He did not think, therefore, that the period of the Session was an argument against the measure. One word to hon. Gentlemen opposite. This reform question was a rock ahead for them. He warned them to be more cautious with regard to the Reform Bill, and to make no inconsiderate pledges that they would adhere to the existing constitution and duration of Parliament. They might depend upon it, as sure as he stood where he did, that before long they would have to entertain this question. This question was daily assuming the position and features of the corn-law question. It was fermenting throughout the country, and they might depend upon it that the moment the old Tory party should resume the reins of power, that question was the one which would present it-elf in the most formidable shape for their consideration and solution. He warned them, then, to be prepared to meet that question, and, if they wished to retain power, to be prepared to yield to the just wishes of the great mass of the people. With those views, he should support the second reading of the Bill.

said, that being of that anomalous class to which his right hon. Friend had referred, he should certainly not record his vote on the present occasion. Being still of that hybrid class, he should go out without voting on the Motion then before the House. But having long-known his right hon. Friend both publicly and socially, he might be permitted to tell him in all kindliness that he wondered that a Gentleman of his ability and upright intentions should have taken up such a line of argument as he had that day pursued. How could his right hon. Friend talk of Members of that House having "a pull at the Treasury?" Would his right hon. Friend come forward, and in the face of truth and facts maintain that he had done justice to the Members of that House when he thought proper to speak as he had done about their not being angels of purity? He did not hesitate to tell his right hon. Friend that that mode of dealing with such a subject, was a humbug and a delusion. Considering the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, considering his extensive acquaintance with the Members of that House, he surely ought to have known that they were not accustomed to have "a pull at the Treasury." They were no doubt bored to make applications—many of them useless applications; they were often driven by their constituents to present themselves at the doors of the Treasury, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that that was not a tide which set in for their own personal advantage. As to the doctrine of pledges, he repudiated that as heartily as any man could—he should consider himself disgraced by giving pledges, and so might any Member when he condescended to give pledges. But on such subjects the minds of electors should not be hoodwinked—they should be taught to look at the matter more seriously; they should be made to know and feel that if a Member of that House performed his duties in Parliament purely and efficiently, he was entitled to the respect, the gratitude, and the affection of his constituents; but in repudiating the doctrine of pledges, he also repudiated the practice of speaking in that House to his constituents. Although he should not vote on the present Motion, he saw no reason against the ballot; he had already voted for the ballot, and he was favourable to every measure which he thought calculated to purify that which some Gentlemen had thought proper to call an Augean stable; but he should not confine his measures of purification to the walls of that House. Let those temptations be repressed which candidates offered to constituents, and those which, in return, constituencies presented to Members. It was well known that injudious friends often ruined the prospects of Members of that House. He should not say that if the proposition of his right hon. Friend were accompanied by other measures, he would not support it; but unless measures were introduced tending to cut down corruption amongst electors, he should neither vote for or against such a Motion as the present, but he should always raise his voice against any attempt to delude constituencies, by telling them that the Members of that House sought only their own interests.

apprehended that the hon. Member for Devonport, the Secretary to the Treasury, might, if he thought fit, tell a very different story from the hon. Member for Rochester as to the nature and extent of Treasury influence upon Members of that House; and if the hon. Member had been present, he (Mr. Hume) should have liked to have asked him a question or two on the subject. His hon. Friend might very well feel himself exempt from the imputation, and the great body of the House might be an exception to the principle; but no one who had sat any length of time in that assembly could be otherwise than aware that resistance to Treasury seductions had been very far from an universal rule there. His hon. Friend had very truly stated that to shorten the duration of Parliaments would not alone suffice, but that much else must be done to reform the representatives within the House, and the constituencies without. The extraordinary thing was, that his hon. Friend, entertaining this opinion, and being favourable to the ballot and to the extension of the suffrage, had not supported him when, some weeks ago, he proposed to the House the adoption of those reforms. It had happened very unfortunately for the progress of reform, that Gentlemen in that House seemed so little disposed to come to an understanding in relation to the various reforms they desired to introduce: one set of men were favourable to the extension of the suffrage, but would not listen to the ballot; others approved of the ballot, but saw no necessity for extending the suffrage; some would not reduce the duration of Parliaments to three years, but were willing to say four years instead of seven, the great object in most of these cases being to avoid coming to the real question. The real question was whether the representation in its present state was in a condition satisfactory to the country. He himself entertained what were called extreme views on this subject, probably because an experience of thirty-five years in that House had shown him that half-measures would not answer; but when a definite measure, like the present, making clear progress in the right direction, was proposed, he most gladly accepted it. This proposition would be a test of the sincerity of the reformers in that House; if they would not, for one reason or another, adopt such a cumulative measure as that he had proposed the other day, lot them at least take this distinct proposition. He would make an earnest appeal to Her Majesty's Ministers; they had over and over again, not only when in opposition, but in office, declared themselves the advocates of progressive reform of Parliament, and more especially so the noble Lord the occasion of whose absence he much regretted; but as to practical measures, they were standing still—neither introducing any such measures themselves, nor accepting the proposals of others. He, for one, must be distinctly understood as declaring that he could not continue to support a Government which thus refused to effect all kinds of reform—a Government which would not advance one step towards those great objects which so main a proportion of their supporters demanded. Any other Government would be preferable to such a set of men, even the most Tory that could be got together—for then there would be a good chance of a large, united opposition, exacting those sound reform measures which the country required—whereas, cut up into all sorts of sections, as the House now was, the friends of reform were actually supporting a no-reform Government. This was the conviction to which facts had forced him, that until the friends of reform had seceded from the present Government, and took up a position of their own, and voted wholly as they thought fit, no distinct movement in the right direction would be made. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had admitted on a recent occasion that it was desirable that the suffrage should be extended to the working classes. If such was the noble Lord's real opinion, why did he not act upon it? There were millions of men in this country upon whom the strength and prosperity of the State depended, but who were contumeliously excluded from any share in the representation, who were practically put beyond the pale of the constitution. This oppression he warned the Government might be acted upon too long. He recollected the day when Mr. Huskisson, on the Motion to give the franchise to Birmingham, stood up in his place, and said, that he had beard in the course of the debate arguments so convincing for the enfranchisement of that town, that he would rather retire from the Cabinet than not support the Motion. The Cabinet was pertinacious in rejecting the Motion; Mr. Huskisson was as firm in his resolution to adopt it; he spoke and voted for it, and the next day he quitted the Cabinet. What followed? Why, that in a very short time reforms took place as a matter of necessity, reforms of the most wholesale nature, re- forms much beyond anything that reformers had previously contemplated. So it was with the corn laws. He was one of the minority who voted for a duty of 10s.; a duty which ought to have satisfied any man; the House was not satisfied with it, and before many years went over, the House was fain to be satisfied with no duty at all. These were examples which the Government and the Gentlemen of that House would do well to hoed. He, for one, so utterly hopeless had he become of reform at the hands of the Government, was ready to quit that portion of the House, and, going to the other side of the gangway, to leave the Government to the tender mercies of the protectionists, or of any other party they might get hold of. It was really impossible for an honest man much longer to go on with a Ministry, which, having while in opposition, been vehement for reform of every kind, seemed now determined not to concede reform of any kind whatever, general or particular. Either the present Government or some other, must go onward in the direction which the general sense of the country indicated; he trusted that in the course of the recess, the pressure of the people would be such as to convince the Government of this necessity, for he would gladly see the men who had effected the great reform of 1833 carry out that measure to its complete fulfilment. Let not England, once the pioneer of freedom, be seen to stand still while all the rest of the world was advancing.

said, that when an hon. Member opposite told the Ministers that they would certainly themselves if out of office carry another reform in Parliament, he must say that it was hardly a civil speech for him to make to his brother Whigs. Before the Reform Bill became law, he (Mr. Drummond) had been a supporter of triennial Parliaments, but he was now going to take an opposite line. He had voted for triennial Parliaments last year, but he should not do so on the present occasion, seeing the condition to which the House had been brought by the operation of the Reform Act, and he apprehended, in the present state of the representation, if they were to have triennial Parliaments, that the public business could not be transacted at all. He altogether objected to diminishing the duration of Parliaments, and expressed his belief that it would be better to have annual Parliaments at once. He could not help noticing the earnest and emphatic manner in which the Ministers of the Crown were called on to bring forward a Government measure of reform, and were threatened with the loss of support if they did not do so, and in effect told that they ought to resign. It was, further, not a little remarkable that the earnestness with which certain hon. Members sought to drive Ministers from power, was in the inverse ratio to their own capacity to govern. The rarest gift of Heaven was the talent to rule; and he very much questioned if it would be possible to carry on the Government of this country if the change now proposed were brought into actual operation. He should not, however, dwell upon this point any longer, neither should be go into the whole question as to the necessity of enlarging the franchise, but even then he must say to the House respice finem. They bad been told that France presented the beau ideal of representative government, yet he could not help expressing his surprise that all the advocates of the five points of the Charter were those who described the persons who had tried to effect the counterrevolution in France as suffering martyrs, with whom the public ought to avow sympathy. He hoped that the public never would sympathise with those who had laboured to disturb the public peace all over Europe, and who had made no secret of doing so. He would ask, did not the hon. Member see evidence of those statements in the organs of that party? [Mr. HUME: No, no!] he wondered if the hon. Member ever read the Northern Star. If be did read that journal, he would find such sentiments expressed there. He did not believe it would be possible to preserve in this country a House of Lords and an hereditary Sovereign if they gave that which some hon. Members in their secret souls wished to give, namely, the whole power of the Government to that House alone.

rose to deny altogether such an inference, and he challenged the hon. Member for Surrey to point out a single line which he had uttered in approval of such doctrines.

said, that the hon. Member stated the other day in his debate ["Order, order!"]—well, the hon. Member on a certain occasion had used this expression, that all the world was in advance of ourselves; that we were formerly in advance of all the nations of Europe in representative institutions, but that now we were on the lowest step of the ladder, while France was on the highest.

said, that the last man to whom the term, "pulling at the Treasury bench," could apply, was the hon. Member for Rochester, who had got into so needless an excitement about the matter. His right hon. Colleague, however, was perfectly justified in the suggestion that the Treasury exercised a very important influence upon the House, in one way or another; not in direct bribery, he would admit, but in the distribution of favours and of honours which answered the purpose. It was not at all likely that the Treasury exercised the patronage of an expenditure of 60 millions per annum besides honorary distinctions, which, in the eyes of some were worth as much more, and of so large an amount of Church benefices of various kinds and degrees, without influencing a body whom it was so useful to a Government to influence as the House of Commons; and as a matter of fact, it was perfectly well known that this influence was exercised. It were equally futile to say that a Parliament of seven years gave no more occasion and opportunity for the exercise of this influence than a Parliament of shorter duration. In the year 1720, Swift, writing to Pope, laid down the principle that Parliament ought to imitate the wisdom of that gothic idea which made Parliaments annual. His right hon. Colleague had alluded to pledges; there could be no doubt that to give what was generally understood by pledges, was not wholly to be approved; but what he himself understood by hustings pledges was simply that the candidate therein expressed his conviction of the justice of particular principles, and his intentions to act up to them. If Parliament sat for seven years, it was additionally necessary for the constituencies to take this sort of inventory of their representatives' principles. But it was desirable and proper that the representatives of the people should not be shackled by what were generally called pledges. One thing was certain, that pledges did not answer the design of those who exacted them; there had been notable examples within the last few years of Members of that House turning round and voting in the very teeth of the principles they had started with. The security against such conduct as this was that Members should have to appear more frequently before their constituents. As it was, the system of influence in operation in that House had rendered it an appanage, a tool, to a large extent, of the influence predominant in the other chamber. He earnestly entreated the House to take steps to remove this crying evil; for he could warn the House that, unless the remedy were speedily applied, the feeling which was growing up in the country against the misgovernment of that House, would, in the excitement of its inevitable triumph, not only destroy the abuses which had created it, but might prove dangerous to the long-existing institutions of the country.

said, if the Bill was not encumbered with the clause relative to the time of three years, he would support it. He considered that the question of time should be discussed in Committee. He would not then go into the arguments in favour of shortening the duration of Parliaments, which he believed would be advantageous and necessary he did not approve of the Septennial Act, which threw an irresponsible power into the hands of representatives for a long period. He thought, also, that so far from frequent recourse to elections increasing bribery, it would have the effect of putting a check upon it.

was surprised at the silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question. During his Parliamentary experience, which extended over a period of upwards of twelve years, the leaders of the Opposition benches had been in the habit of taking part in the discussion on all important subjects brought under the notice of the House; but they now seemed to avoid this question he regretted that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, whose opinions, from his great eloquence, and from his position as a great political leader, were entitled to serious attention on this as well as on other subjects, had just quitted his place. The opinion which he (Mr. Berkeley) had formed as to the advantages of triennial Parliaments, had been very much strengthened by some arguments urged by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire on this question on a former occasion. He was not aware whether the hon. Gentleman was in the habit of eating his words—a vice prevalent in that House—but he trusted the hon. Gentleman had not abandoned his opinion as to "the good old fashion of triennial Parliaments." He had come across an address which the hon. Member had formerly put forth to the electors of Chipping Wycombe, in the course of which he laid the tar brush very unsparingly on Her Majesty's Ministers, as he was in the habit of doing at present—at least so far he was consistent—and he complained that Her Majesty's Government, at the time of the Reform Bill, had cheated the people out of their good old-fashioned triennial Parliaments. This was of much importance, coming from the source which it did. If the hon. Gentleman had changed his opinions on the subject, he should give some good and valid reasons for having done so to the House, to his constituents, and to the country. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had stated in the same powerful address that be considered the ballot absolutely necessary to check the unprincipled practices everywhere now resorted to at general elections, and added that he was aware that a system of terrorism existed at Chipping Wycombe. Now he (Mr. Berkeley) would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman's opinions on the ballot had undergone any change? However this might be, if the hon. Member's opinion was changed, he could not change the fact to which he had testified; and, although he might deny the remedy, yet, on a future occasion when he (Mr. Berkeley) should bring forward the question of the ballot, he had a right to quote the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire as a witness of the evils which rendered its adoption necessary. He should vote for the Bill for triennial Parliaments, as a part of a system of Parliamentary reform, which ought to be adopted by that House. Speak who might, he trusted they would have such a division as would show the constituencies of the country that it was regarded by some in that House in the light which its importance demanded.

impugned the conduct of the Government for treating a question of this nature in the contemptuous manner they had done. Some day, however, the people would show their sense of this conduct, and he would tell them it was not safe to persevere in disregarding the wishes of the people. He would be glad to accept any modification of the system now in existence as an ininstalment. He thought that if this measure was carried, it would make them better Members of Parliament. Sooner or later the voice of the people would be heard, and then they would find out the very great mistake they had committed, and that it was not safe long to disregard the loudly-expressed wishes of the people. He knew that occasionally they awoke a little from their apathy, and promised some concessions to the people; hut still all that could be got out of them was a slight glimmer of their future intentions. There must, however, be something more than shadows. The working classes of the country must have the pledge of a measure, and they would never he satisfied until Government came forward with a Bill for improving the representation of the country. The hon. Member for Truro had fallen into a mistake in supposing that this Bill enunciated the principle that the duration of Parliament ought not to exceed three years. It only declared the principle that at present the duration of Parliament was far too long a period; hut, for his part, although he admitted that the reduction of years would be an improvement in the system, he was decidedly in favour of triennial Parliaments; and if the House wished to make the representation of the people full, free, and effective, they must reduce the duration of Parliament to that extent. Of course such a measure ought to be accompanied by other reforms, such as the ballot, and an extension of the suffrage; and, in supporting this Bill, he was quite ready to give the people all the rights which they had so justly demanded of Parliament.

had no hesitation in saying in his place in that House, that the contrast between the professions of the present Government out of office, and its progress in office, was painful in the extreme. In the most open and avowed manner they this year disavowed the principles which they professed the last, and they scrupled not to abandon the political principles upon which they had been placed in power. Much as he disliked toryism, he also detested that spurious kind of whiggery which was open and free when in opposition, hut when in power was careless and wasteful of the expenditure of the country, and took no part in carrying out the wishes of the people. Such was his opinion of the present Government, and he thought no honest Liberal ought to sit on that side of the House. If he was asked why he did not vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire a few nights ago, he would answer—that hon. Member had attacked free trade, a measure in which he fully concurred, and to which he bad given his consent. But if the hon. Member had attacked the Government, he would have voted with the hon. Member. With regard to the Septennial Bill, he would observe that he considered it the most daring act of usurpation which had ever taken place; it was at the root of all bribery and corruption, and had been the means of increasing the national debt; and, finally, it gave hon. Members of that House six years for sinning, and only one for repentance. With these views, he would vote in favour of the Motion before the House.

expressed his conviction that the opinions of the people were growing stronger and stronger in favour of the general principles of reform, and that the House could not much longer refuse to accede to their reasonable demands. He represented a constituency consisting, in round numbers, of 60,000 people, of whom only 1,300 were upon the registry; and he wished to know whether an electoral principle, of which that fact was an example, could be called justice and honesty to the people of England at large? Some ten years ago, he believed that the country was disposed to place confidence in those who now formed the Government; but now many of those who had been willing to support them would not cross the floor to serve them, believing that they had deserted their principles, and were one thing at one time and another at another. There had been a period when he thought that the Government had made some sacrifices for the principles they professed, and he was never more surprised than when, upon becoming a Member of that House, he found he could not rely upon them for the honest support of any one principle they had ever professed. He advised the House to assent to the principle of this Bill, and to leave the consideration of details to the Committee.

appealed to the dignity and justice of the House, as an adherent of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, to be permitted, as he best could, to defend him in his absence from the series of violent attacks which, for some time, had been delivered against his character and policy. The hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for Ludlow, the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and the Member for Montrose, had shown very little generosity and delicacy in the moment they selected for a declaration of their long accumulated wrath, and slowly ripening hostility. Had the noble Lord been present, he would certainly have hailed the opportunity of meeting these aggressive manifestoes with the chivalry and firmness which on such occasions lie displayed. He was absent from domestic circumstances with which all the House would sympathise; and he (Mr. Campbell) would not shrink from the peril of addressing an impatient House, to defend him, under such circumstances, from reproaches as unfounded as they were ill-timed, presumptuous, and irrelevant. He (Mr. Campbell) denied, in the most uncompromising terms, in answer to the hon. and gallant Colonel, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had at any time, in office or out of office, intimated any disposition to encourage, or given any promise to espouse, the democratic principles against which, as Prime Minister, he had so powerfully reasoned and so manfully protested. He defied the hon. and gallant Colonel to point to a speech, a letter, or a treatise, in which the noble Lord had led the public to imagine that his return to power would accelerate the repeal of the Septennial Act, or the introduction of the Charter. These, however, were the undisguised objects of the party, who never missed an opportunity, and seldom found one so secure or so convenient as the present, of pouring out their bitterness upon the noble Lord, because he felt some regard for the opinions on the British constitution which all his life he had professed, and for the great edifice of government, which, in accordance with those opinions, in 1832, he had consummated. The Member for Montrose, departing from the subject of debate, had that day endeavoured to fix a charge of weakness, inconsistency, and bad faith upon the noble Lord, because he had conceded as an abstract principle, that civil power was a means of educating the understandings and affections of the lower orders, and because he had not introduced a measure to extend the franchise. What could be clearer to an ordinary comprehension than the position of the noble Lord on this class of topics? Night after night he had expressed to them, in his capacity as Prime Minister, political inquirer, and writer on the British constitution, that universal suffrage was a system to which he was emphatically hostile, inasmuch as it was calculated to ruin any country which adopted it, and more particularly that in which we had the happiness to live. All the propositions for extending the suffrage which had yet been advanced, had a clear and demonstrable, and a very feebly disguised, tendency to a catastrophe in which the noble Lord dis- cerned the death of our liberties, our glory, and our civilisation. It remained to be considered by what delicate arrangements, what ingenious combinations, it was possible to give a working man a participation in elective functions, and at the same time to keep at as great a distance as it was at present, the fatal domination of numbers over mind, and of force over virtue and intelligence. Had the hon. Member for Montrose, whose mind, as he assured them, had now been steadily employed for five-and-thirty years upon organic questions, resolved this problem? Was it reasonable to expect that the noble Lord, who had Irish difficulties to consider, the affairs of Europe to revolve, the state of our finances to investigate, the future of our colonies to settle, who declined no burden, and avoided no path of statesmanship, should withdraw his mind from the hourly calls which passed around him, for the purpose of effecting a refined and complicated system, the very theory of which was, as yet, imperfectly elucidated—a system which would do very little, even if it was effected, to satisfy the moral wants or elevate the physical condition of the working classes. He (Mr. Campbell) adverted to the lucid way in which the right hon. Member for Manchester had demonstrated that if the Septennial Act were repealed, as it was now proposed to repeal it, the system of triennial Parliaments would by law come into immediate operation, and therefore that the question to be decided on to-day was, whether at the end of three years Parliaments should uniformly terminate. On the 23rd of May, the noble Lord, with great ability and clearness, pointed out the inexpediency of such an alteration; and by the arguments the noble Lord delivered, he (Mr. Campbell) was ready to abide, and thought the House of Commons would be satisfied. The hon. Gentleman concluded by an eulogy on the patriotism of the House, and a reflection on the inconsistency and weakness of the democratic party.

, in reply, said, that the question now before the House was not as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell) supposed, whether the duration of Parliaments should be three years, but whether it should or should not be less than seven years. The simple repeal of the Septennial Act would restore triennial Parliaments; but the form of the Bill before the House would leave the specific term of duration open for future decision in Committee. He concurred in much that had been alleged regarding the extreme disappointment which prevailed in the country, caused by the course taken by Her Majesty's Government. He had hoped better things of them. When it was remembered that the Reform Bill passed seventeen or eighteen years ago; that his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury had more than once stated his conviction that the suffrage ought to be extended more largely among the working classes of the country—that the same noble Lord, on a former occasion, in 1837, and recently, on the introduction of this Bill, had expressed the opinion that five years would be a proper period of duration for Parliaments—it was astonishing to see him and his Government sitting with their arms folded, and saying that they had no measure of reform, or any notion of the necessity of any such measure. The argument of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as to the duration of Parliament having been practically short, inasmuch as there had been six Parliaments which had determined at periods of two or three years in each case, had no weight in favour of the system of septennial Parliaments, but, on the contrary, told against it. The charge against septennial Parliaments was, that Members entered that House with a long term of impunity before them: that they were soon seduced from a sense of responsibility by the blandishments of a Government, or the temptation of advantage for themselves or their families; and that it was only towards the close of a Parliament that they manifested independence and diligence; so that by any unexpected termination of the septennial period, all the evils were incurred, while the country lost the compensation, such as it was, which the full term might have brought with it. He thought that when moderate propositions of this kind were made—propositions sanctioned by the usages of Parliament, and not alien to the constitution of the country—the Government should, at least, abstain from treating them in the flippant manner which had been displayed by his right hon. Friend; for such a discouragement of fair and practical measures tended to lead the minds of the people astray after strange and wild fancies.

said, he opposed the Bill on the ground that it would seriously interfere with the manufactures of this country. His objection to the measure was this, that the science of combustion was not in that state that they could legislate in the belief that in those manufactories, the subject now of complaint, they could dispose of their own smoke. The mere statement of the facts connected with the case was sufficient to show that they were utterly unable to do so. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington said, only keep up a steady lire, and all that was consumable would be consumed; but he (Mr. Roebuck) knew otherwise he knew, that in the iron and steel manufactories of Sheffield, such was the process, requiring different degrees of heat, now low, and again suddenly increased, that it was quite impossible for them to keep up a steady fire, or to avoid raising a considerable amount of smoke. By the 8th Clause of the Bill, however, it was provided that in case of opaque smoke being seen issuing from any chimney for a longer time than was required for kindling a fire, any one might complain and compel the owner of the chimney to show that he was not guilty of a nuisance under the Bill. What, then, was opaque smoke? What would the hon. Member do with Sheffield? he might say, take it out of the Bill, hut there were other towns similarly placed; and with regard to Sheffield, the Bill was quite incompatible with the business of that town being carried on. Their profits now were chiefly made up of small items economically saved, but which a steady fire, regularly worked throughout the process under the compulsion of this Bill, would entirely eat up, so that the manufacturers must either break through the law, or give up their business. What he said was, that he was against any attempt at legislating upon this subject in the present state of the science of combustion. He should therefore move that the Bill be committed that day three months.

said, the manufactory with which he was connected must be entirely shut up in case the Bill were allowed to pass. He opposed it from no desire to foil its object, for he had himself expended 1,200l. on various patents for consuming the smoke; hut, he was sorry to add, they had been unsuccessful in effecting the purpose.

was well convinced that the smoke of manufactories in crowded towns was a great nuisance, which the manufacturers themselves were desirous of remedying, but had hitherto failed in doing. He recommended, however, as experiments were making for the purpose, that his hon. Friend should withdraw the Bill for the present Session, and bring it in next year, when the results of those experiments might be in a more satisfactory state.

said, he should vote for going into committee on the Bill, if his hon. Friend persevered. The object was one requiring their attention; and if the Bill was not perfect, they ought to go into committee to amend it as far as possible. He knew that society was impressed with the desire of having this great and growing nuisance put down. He heard with regret that the manufacturers of this country were making small profits, and were unable from foreign competition to tear the operation of such a Bill as that, He heard it with regret, but not surprise; and he answered, that while it was no argument against the Bill, it was conclusive against those who differed from him in their commercial policy. The time was come when they must attend to the health of Her Majesty's subjects. Much had been said of burial in towns, and much of the inconvenience arising from the graveyard immediately in the vicinity of the House; hut he was convinced that much of that inconvenience arose from the manufactories in the very neighbourhood of the palace they were in, from which a nauseous effluvium had been pumped in upon them since the debate began. He appealed to Mr. Speaker whether he had not often reason to complain of that nuisance, and he appealed to the House whether they ought to go to extravagant expense for the purpose of having such an atmosphere pumped in upon them. The evil grew every year, and whether from manufactories near the House or across the water, he could show from the dead or dying state of a noble avenue of lime trees attached to Westminster school, that the atmosphere was most unhealthy. He hoped the House would not reject the Bill.

hoped the House would not consent to go into Committee on the Bill. Some of the healthiest trees possible were to be found in St. Paul's Churchyard—a locality one would suppose extremely likely to be visited by smoke. The measure would tend to drive manufactures out of the country. Much had been done towards effecting that object already. There were the inspectors of factories, with their spies and informers, and there was the Ten Hours Bill, one of the most mischievous measures ever passed into a law. He regarded the noble Lord at the head of the Government as deeply responsible for that measure, inasmuch as it was entirely contrary to the commercial principles which he had ever professed. There was no end to such kind of legislation, and, if persevered in, there might, in time, be a Bill to prevent expectoration in the streets.

said, as some had spoken of the difficulty of effecting their object, he should instance in Mr. Cubitt's steam engine on the Grosvenor estate, which he saw in full action, without emitting any smoke whatever. That was an instance of success in the effort to prevent smoke.

said, that there were two or three reasons why he objected to this Bill. In the first place, the first clause was one which was worded in a manner which would prevent the Bill being of any use except to annoy those with whom it would interfere; and he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General to express his opinion on this point. If the hon. and learned Member would turn his attention to the last three lines of the first clause, he would find the word "opaque" mentioned, about which there was the greatest difference of opinion. He was not sure whether smoke being opaque or not might not depend on the colour of the sky beyond it, on the different circumstances of temperature, and on the different positions in which it was seen by an informer. The clause said, "that opaque smoke shall not be permitted to issue from any chimney of a furnace for any longer period of time than is bonâ fide necessary for the kindling of the fire of such furnace." With regard to the greater proportion of furnaces to which this Bill would apply, this did not meet the case; the smoke was not caused by any process of kindling the fire; because, in the manufacturing districts, fires were not allowed to go out except once in two or three weeks, when the boiler and flues were being cleaned. It was necessary, even when a steam engine was not at work, and during the night, that there should be steam in the boiler to heat the manufactory and premises. The smoke was not made when the fire was being kindled; that so rarely happened that it was not worth thinking of; it was when the fire was being stirred up; when fresh coals were being placed upon it—and there were a multitude of cases in which, from the overloading of steam engines, from the defective nature of the draught, and from the inadequacy of what is termed boiler room for raising a sufficient steam easily, it was absolutely necessary to poke up the coals; and smoke would be caused under all possible circumstances. He defied any two men to come to any settled opinion as to what time was necessary. It might depend upon the shape of the furnace to some extent, the height of the chimney, the strength or weakness of the draught. It might depend, also, on the very material which they were burning, and with which, in cases to which the words of the Bill specially referred, they were attempting to light their fire. He did not hesitate to say, so far as the clause was worded, that if he had the strongest opinion in favour of a Smoke Bill, it was impossible this clause could have the slightest effect, except to irritate those in all trades who would be likely to be brought under the operation of the Bill. That was one part of the question decisive against the Bill. He believed that no one would get a conviction from an honest magistrate if this Bill were to pass. The hon. Member for Lymington had in his possession a curious old book, which he had shown to him (Mr. Bright). It was written by Evelyn in the time of Charles II., 1661; he complained of the smoke being such a nuisance in London, that although he came to Whitehall to refresh his eye by the presence of His Majesty, it was impossible for him to do so. He wrote about glass-houses, sugar-bakers, and against the establishment of fire-engines at London-bridge and York-buildings. He said that the health of London was very much deteriorated, and that it required 10,000 persons from the country every year to keep up its population. He said further, that in 1644, when Newcastle was besieged, and few coals were brought to London, there was an excellent crop of fruit in orchards in the Barbican, and the Strand; but that after that time, such was the influence of smoke in the city, that it would puzzle any gardener to find such fruit there. There was an exaggerated report that at that time a gentleman felt the smoke of the city to be so deleterious to him, that when he came from Hampstead to attend the Royal Exchange, he had his horse saddled at the door of the Exchange, and when the pros-sure upon his lungs became too great he mounted and rode even for his life, and he described nothing to be equal to the desperate condition of London except the Grotto del Cane or some other subterraneous habitation. All this was as true now as it was then. He believed that extravagant statement at the opening of the Bill, as to its being expendient to take measures to prevent the injury to the health and comfort of the people which was occasioned by the smoke issuing from certain chimneys and furnaces, was a gross exaggeration. It was not stated that the health of towns was any the worse in consequence of the existence of manufactories and the prevalence of that smoke which manufactories produced. The hon. Member for Lyming- ton was so anxious to pass this Bill, that he was not very particular whether he included anybody or nobody. He excluded the constituents of the hon. Member for Sheffield; and he (Mr. Bright) was not sure that if he sat on the other side of the House, he should not be excluded also. If it were true that smoke could be prevented at a moderate expense, and that it would be an actual saving to the proprietors of these furnaces, he was quite sure that such was the competition amongst the manufacturers of this country—such the anxiety to save money, and such the anxiety also to purify the atmosphere and benefit the public, that these projects, if feasible, would have spread throughout the whole of the trade; but when there were fifty different methods of doing this, and not one of these had been found applicable to the great variety of furnaces that existed, he thought it might be fairly taken that hitherto science had not discovered a mode of putting an end to the smoke nuisance, except such as made it almost impossible for manufacturers to submit to it; and he could give several cases in which the Bill would be unable to be worked, because it was impossible for the most ingenious magistrate, or the greatest number of witnesses, to prove who was the guilty party. He was acquainted with a case which would set this Bill at defiance. He knew a mill in which there was no chimney, but the smoke passed through underground tunnels into another chimney, and issued with the smoke belonging to quite a different firm. How would it be possible to say who was responsible for this smoke? He knew a ease in which twelve or sixteen boilers and furnaces connected with three different mills, were brought by different flues into a largo chimney. If a person had nothing to do but watch the concern, it would be impossible to discover who made the smoke, and who was responsible under the clauses of this Bill. He asked the hon. Gentleman to leave this question to those ordinary motives which had promoted so many improvements in this country. If he Would leave this question to the good feeling of the manufacturers, who would not willingly put the; public to any trouble or nuisance, it would be found that, whenever science should offer them a mode by which it could be done at a moderate expense, without endangering the durability of the boilers, the manufacturers would adopt such plans as were offered. There were persons who were now endeavouring to prove that certain plans were efficient, and as soon as this proof was offered the plan would be adopted. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was going to say, hut he did not think that he was in a position to comprehend the difficulties of this question he thought the House would not consult its dignity by legislating on matters of this kind.

, having been referred to in this debate, thought it right to make a short explanation. His brother had the object of consuming smoke much at heart; he had laboured greatly at it, and certainly with some success, hut at a very great expense. Recently he had spent 400l. or 500l. upon it. He (Mr. Cubitt) also had steam-engines in his works, and he would give a great deal to purify the atmosphere of London; for that was certainly a much more important object than economy; hut he could not consume the smoke which his engines produced. The subject, however, occupied the attention of many active minds; science was making rapid strides, and he hoped the day was not far distant when the object would be accomplished. He should be glad to assist in promoting such a purpose; but under these circumstances the present measure appeared to him immature.

said, that though the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had proposed that this Bill should be postponed, at all events to a future Session, and though he was willing to admit that any opinion of his own on a matter of this scientific description was of very little weight, he had come to the conclusion, if the hon. Member for Lymington should think it worth while, at this period of the Session, to go into Committee on his Bill, of voting for his Motion to that effect. And he should do so on the ground of a report emanating, not from a Committee of that House, but from a commission appointed to inquire into this subject at the instance of the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk, when on the Woods and Forests, consisting of Sir Henry De la Beche and Dr. Lyon Playfair. He confessed that the opinion he was inclined to entertain was, that it would be practicable, without any great difficulty or very great expense, to oblige parties in a great degree to abate the nuisance of the production of smoke in such large quantities as was in many instances the case. At the same time he would say, that if he thought that by attempting to do this they would be incurring the slightest risk of diminishing employment, it would be an act of insanity to try to effect anything of the sort. But from this report of these competent and impartial persons he could hut think that, under certain guards and limitations, the object of this measure was not unattainable, and one which the House ought not to refuse to consider in Committee on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then road a passage from the report in question, which did not recommend any attempt to meddle with open furnaces, hut suggested that the interference to be attempted should be confined to closed chimneys connected with boilers that worked stationary engines, exempting potteries, iron works, glass works, and some others. He considered that this report was a well-reasoned and sensible document, and a much safer guide for them than a Committee of that House could be; and if the Bill of the hon. Member was framed mainly on that report, and confined itself to the furnaces therein referred to, not meddling with those trades with which interference would be mischievous, he must say that, believing the time was come when, without undue interference with the industry of the country, they might do something to abate an admitted nuisance, he could not, if the hon. Gentleman thought proper, under the circumstances of the case, and at that period of the Session, to ask them to go into Committee, refuse, for his own part, to do so.

said, all regulations for the consumption of smoke ought to be left to the municipal authorities of each locality. The hon. Member for Lymington had, upon his recommendation, agreed to exempt iron works from the operation of the Bill; and it appeared he had also consented to exempt potteries. These exemptions, and the necessity for them, showed that the whole subject could only be safely left to local supervision. By that means the smoke would be consumed whore it could be; and where it could not, the parties would be left free. He suggested, therefore, that the Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session, and a measure introduced in the next, giving to local authorities the power of making such regulations as were suited to the particular district.

concurred in the suggestions of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. In many instances it was ut- terly impossible to consume the smoke, and any attempt to enforce such a Bill as the present would most certainly stop a great number of manufactories. He admitted the possibility of stopping the issue of opaque smoke from the top of the chimney; but to do so involved great expense and careful management. If manufacturers incurred the expense, how could they always ensure men of sufficient skill to work the necessary machinery? They had been told that mines and iron and lime works were to be excluded by the Bill; but as the clause now stood, the owner of any work where smoke was produced, must prove before a magistrate that it was impossible for him to consume his smoke before he could be exempted; and they all knew that it was only a question of expenditure, and that by going to enormous expense, the consumption of smoke would not be impossible in any case. They should not be guided in their legislation exclusively by philosophic principles, without any regard for practical matters. The Bill as it stood applied to mines, which were generally situated in districts where smoke could be no nuisance whatever. He believed there was not a single work the owner of which would not apply for exemption; so that the Bill, though nominally one for preventing smoke, would practically be a Bill for exempting all works from interference. He did not think there was a single clause in the Bill to which he would not feel bound to move an amendment, and he therefore thought it useless for them to go into Committee upon it.

thought his hon. Friend would save them a great deal of trouble if, after all that had been said against the Bill, he would consent to take another year to consider the objections that had been raised. His object in rising was principally to call attention to the fact that in the exemption clause there was actually no exemption, and he did not sec how any manufacturer in any town in England could escape under it as it now stood. Nobody liked smoke if it could be avoided; but it was absolutely necessary that they should carry on their manufactures. If any one could come forward and show that he had discovered a cheap and economic method of preventing smoke, the House would not be justified in refusing to adopt that method; but nobody could say that such a discovery had as yet been made. The gentlemen appointed on the commission were no doubt able scientific men, but they did not understand the manufacture of cloth, or the processes of working in metals. He had a much greater respect on such a subject for the practical opinions of the metal workers in the town which he had the honour to represent, than for the views of those excellent philosophers who had been quoted; and he knew that the opinion of those practical men was, that in consequence of the necessity of altering the heat during the different processes of the works, it was impossible that the provisions of this Bill could be complied with.

did not think that the opinion of the hon. Member for Manchester was in accordance with those of his constituents on this subject. He would beg leave to read a letter which he had received from an eminent scientific man, an engineer in Lancashire, in reference to this Bill. [The hon. Member read an extract from the letter, in which the writer stated his belief that it was quite practicable to consume the smoke in factories without the incurring of any great expense, and that the clause in the Manchester local Act worked well.] In his opinion, if manufacturers refused to consume their smoke, the Legislature was bound to compel them to do so.

said, that the Royal Agricultural Society, of which he was a member, and to which many hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt belonged, strongly recommended the erection of stationary steam engines on farms; but if the Bill passed, these engines would be compelled to consume their own smoke, though it could be no nuisance. He knew a case where, in a purely agricultural district, a miller had recently erected a small engine, to be used on the occasional failure of the supply of water, and yet that man would be left at the mercy of any discarded servant who might choose to lay an information against him. He thought it unfair to apply the same rule to a country district, and to a locality like London with a quarter of a million of houses.

said, if his hon. Friend divided in favour of going into Committee he would vote with him, though at the same time there were many of the details of the Bill in which he could not concur. He believed that in Manchester, for instance, it was very possible materially to diminish the quantity of smoke without incurring much expense; but at the same time he thought it would be advisable to try whether science could not discover some better process for the purpose than any that had yet been suggested. On looking over the Amendments of which notice had been given, he must confess that there was scarcely one of them to which he should not give his support. He could not see why the clause in the local Act of Manchester could not be made applicable to other towns in the manner recommended by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; and it should be recollected that it was only the great accumulation of smoke in manufacturing districts that was injurious to health, and it was to such districts only that their legislation ought therefore, in his opinion, to be directed.

said, he had only a single observation to make. He certainly thought there was a good deal of truth in the observation of Sir Robert Walpole, that the country gentlemen will, like their own sheep, lie down to be fleeced, but if you touch the manufacturing interests they will yield nothing but grunts. The hon. Member read an extract from the report of the Committee that sat on the subject six years ago, and said that both it and the report of the commission left no doubt but that it was quite feasible to prevent smoke in all cases.

said, that the measure was one which would overwhelm the manufacturers with ruin. The House had already hurt them severely by shortening the hours of labour; now they were about again to interfere with their liberty of action in a manner that would be hurtful to the master, hurtful to the poor, and consequently hurtful to the nation at large.

objected to the words "opaque smoke," and wished to have a definition of the term.

really thought the word "opaque" was so easily understood that he could not supply a better. "Opaque" was that which was not transparent, and which was not pellucid—that which you cannot see through—that through which when you looked, you could not see the sky beyond, nor the light. Really, hon. Gentlemen might as well ask him to define what was good and what was bad, as to require him to define the meaning of "opaque."

begged the Committee to remember that they were really about to do a very serious thing. They were about to pass an Act of Parliament the meaning of which wholly turned upon the meaning of this one word. His hon. Friend defined "opaque smoke" to be "smoke that you could not see through." But he (Mr. Roebuck) said that there was no such thing. There was no smoke of the kind. He had never seen smoke through which, however dense it was, he could not see the sky. But he had often seen volumes of very heavy smoke. Now, if they did not define their meaning accurately, there would be endless disputes and difficulties arising out of the construction of the Act. They had no gauge for smoke. It was not like heat, which could be measured by a thermometer. He considered the clause contrary to common sense.

said, it would be utterly impossible for any magistrate to decide upon the fact of whether the smoke were opaque or not, in the sense mentioned by the hon. Member for Lymington. He thought the definition should be left to the common sense of those who would have the carrying into effect of the Bill. But with regard to those persons who had been punished under the local Acts, he should say that they were usually old and known offenders.

said, that the carrying into effect of the Bill did not depend upon the meaning which would be applied to its terms by the common sense of the magistrates, but upon that which the informer chose to attach to them. It was the informer who would come forward and say that he had seen opaque smoke. There should be a closer definition in an Act of Parliament than that which they had heard from the hon. Gentleman.

observed, that if the clause were to stand, it would require amendment. Many hon. Gentlemen might desire to get at a definition of what constituted smoke, who could not vote for the clause in its present shape. He, for one, could not vote for the clause as it now stood. In fact, the clause and the Bill itself had been most inartistically drawn. It made smoke itself an offence. Whatever might be the difficulty in the way of defining opaque smoke, the present attempt at definition certainly made that difficulty greater; for it would necessitate a manufacturer having a witness outside his premises to rebut the informer, if the promoter of the Bill desired the success of such a measure, he must adopt one of two courses—he must proceed by common law for an offence, or he must require the informer to give notice on the spot of the existence of the nuisance; and if the nuisance were continued, it would constitue an offence.

said, that, had he been present on the occasion of the recent division on this Bill, he certainly should have voted with the minority against it. This was not a subject now for the first time brought under the consideration of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had no doubt unadvisedly used the bold expression that this clause was contrary to common sense. Did the hon. and learned Member know whence this Bill had come? Much was the criticism expended in another place on the manner in which Bills were sent up to the other House. The hon. and learned Attorney General, however, had stated that, apart from the merits of the clause, its construction was so inartistic that it defeated its own purpose. The clause, as it had come down from the other House of Parliament, was directed ad rem, non ad personam. Nothing could be introduced in the shape of prohibition which would not interfere with the most important branches of our manufactures. He had always felt great anxiety with respect to the application of a legislative remedy, hut had always come to the conclusion that the common law could supply the only remedy. If a nuisance became intolerable, the common law provided a remedy. Make this a statutable offence, and you interfered with the most important branches of that manufacture carried on by the means of these furnaces. A Bill more absurdly drawn it had never been his misfortune to witness. He was prepared to vote in favour of the rejection of the clause, and against the further progress of the Bill itself.

continued, He said, that, having the character of the House very much at heart, on the whole he was sorry to hear that the original draft of this Bill emanated from a Committee of that House; and he was much more sorry that the hon. Member for Lymington, after the experience he had had on this question, should adhere to the original form of the Bill, because they had had frequent discussions in that House, in which trade after trade had been successively freed from the operation of the measure, and each trade that was not exempted loudly protested against the Bill, as one the operation of which was injuriously directed against them, He therefore thought that experience would have taught the hon. member that the Bill in its present shape was altogether impracticable. But the discussion proceeded, and the more he heard of this matter, the more was he convinced that the objections to the measure were most grave; and he very much doubted whether these objections could be overcome by any attempt to frame a clause like this, affecting the vital interests of the manufacturing districts. The hon. Gentleman relied particularly upon the Acts applying to Leeds and Manchester. But statements had been made which asserted that by the adoption of the improved machinery for preventing the nuisance from opaque smoke, an effluvium had been produced of so noxious a character, that the parties would be liable to prosecution for one nuisance which they necessarily committed in endeavouring to avoid another! The more he heard this subject discussed, the more he was convinced that it was useless to attempt by statute to deal with an evil of this kind. By endeavouring to prevent it, they would do more evil than they could do good; and where the evil was of such a magnitude as to constitute a nuisance, and a jury were satisfied that the party was guilty of inflicting a public nuisance, there was a remedy at common law. He did not think that there ought to be a summary remedy; for he knew that the use of smoke to an immense extent was necessary to carry on the manufactures of the country; and he did not think the manufacturers should be subject to the vexatious proceedings of common informers, He did think, there-fore, that the remedy ought not to be too summary. on the other hand, where, from false economy or neglect towards the public, a nuisance was inflicted, the remedy of a trial before a jury was available. For the reasons he had stated, he was opposed to the further progress of this Bill.

had stated that he did not concur in the views of the right hon. Baronet. On the contrary, founding his opinion on a public document which he believed ought to carry the greatest weight—he meant the report of the commissioners appointed by the Government, Sir H. De la Beche, and Dr. Lyon Playfair—he thought in the manufacturing towns there should be some obligation on the part of those who produced smoke in large quantities, to adopt what he believed to be a cheap and easy mode of consuming their smoke. Therefore he was favourable to the principle of this Bill; but he had never wished to disguise from the Committee his belief that this was such a delicate and difficult subject, that it was necessary that any measure to be prepared on the subject should be framed with the greatest care and caution, otherwise greater evils would be done than those they attempted to remedy; and therefore, although he had voted for going into Committee, he did express a hope that the House would anxiously and carefully consider the provisions of the Bill. The discussion that had taken place, and especially the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, had satisfied him that the Bill was not such a Bill as, without very great and material alterations, the House, in justice to the great interests concerned, should allow to pass into a law. It appeared to him that it required altogether to be recast and reconsidered; and in the present period of the Session, he did not think that degree of attention which the Bill required could be properly devoted to it. Therefore, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw his Bill, and bring it in again next Session, in a form obviating some of the great objections which he thought very justly entertained against it in its present shape.

consented to the Chairman reporting progress.