wished to know in what order the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proposed to take the Bills relating to this subject.

bogged to ask, if the right hon. Gentleman would make any statement of the Amendments he proposed to make in the Mercantile Marine Bill?

, in reply to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke upon Trent, begged to say that he had no reason to believe he should alter the arrangement of the Bills as they now stood, taking the Merchant Service Bill first. With respect to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, it was quite impossible, consistent with the rules of the House, to lay upon the table the alterations in the Mercantile Marine Bill, until the Bill was read a second time. If the House assented to the principle of the Bill on the second reading, he would allow sufficient time to consider it in those parts of the country that were interested in the measure.

understood the case to be this—the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, for technical reasons connected with the rules of the House, had no opportunity of giving notice of alterations; at the same time, important alterations had been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, and so far entertained by him, as to be under serious consideration. Would it be possible to convey to the parties interested, through some channel or other, the nature of those alterations, to enable them to judge of the Bill at the time of the second reading? The principle of the Bill would be mainly contained in the details, and would turn upon the actual arrangement of those details; and would the right hon. Gentleman adopt some means of giving the parties interested a definite notion of what the Bill actually was, in order that they might know whether they considered that those arrangements constituted a principle to which they would assent or not?

had been in communication with the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Liverpool, as well as with merchants in Glasgow, London, and other places, and had endeavoured to state frankly to them the nature of the alterations; and he did not think, when they came to discuss the Bill on the second reading, that the Gentlemen who represented the sea trade would be at all in ignorance of the general purport of those alterations—alterations which, he repeated, were not at all directed to the principle of the Bill. That being the case, he thought there would be considerable convenience before he finally made up his mind to the alterations, in his hearing the discussion on the second reading. He thought it was better that they should adhere to the usual course, and not lay any formal statement of details before the House and the public, until they received the assent of the House to the principle of the alterations on the second reading.

begged to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, his object being to call the attention of the House to certain anomalies which exist with respect to the transfer of landed property in cases of intestacy, and to certain effects which still remain, when the causes for those effects have long since disappeared. In consequence of recent changes in their legislation, their attention was peculiarly called to the principles of free trade, the effects of which had been denounced by a very large and influential body in that House, and attempts had been made by that body to induce Parliament to re-enact protection. He would at once admit and deplore the fact, that very great and considerable in-convenience had been experienced by that party. A change, after all, in any system would at all times produce derangement until matters became adjusted; but the complaints that were made, and the demands almost insisted upon, forced upon their attention the necessity of considering what have been the causes of, and what are likely to be the remedy for the present state of things. The complaints had proceeded from a very large and influential body, but they bore only a lamentably small proportion to the rest of the population in this country, compared with other nations. It could not be said, however, that they were inadequately represented, or that their arguments had been unattended to. The House—consisting, as he might presume to say it formerly did, almost entirely of landed proprietors—did its very best to promote the interests of that body. Under its sanction one system of laws of more modern invention was continued with regard to real property; and another, and a totally different one of ancient date was revised with regard to personal property. The modern system, of encouraging a system of incumbrances upon land, had created in this country a body of nominal instead of real possessors, flattered their pride, and introduced with that pride the ordinary accompaniment of poverty, while the tendency of the system had been to increase wealth by the distribution of property in cases of intestacy. No obstacle whatever is placed in the transfer and distinction of personal property, but legislation appeared to have gone out of its way to increase the greater natural difficulties which exist in the transfer of land. In the one case the state acted with perfect justice by distributing the property equally; and in the other, endeavoured to persuade the younger children that it was for their benefit that the whole of the property should go to the elder. If the principle he right in the one case, can it be right in the other? There would be no great difficulty in obtaining an answer by comparing the effects of the two systems. At the present moment the commercial classes of the country were possessed of a large amount of capital. What was the condition of the agricultural classes? If they were to believe all that they heard upon the subject, they were in great want of necessary capital. The soil of the country was capable of producing to an almost unlimited extent; there was abundance of unemployed capital in the coffers of the Bank of England; and there was no doubt but that there was an abundance of labour, so much so indeed that this abundance of labour had almost come to be considered a curse, instead of a blessing. There was an extraordinary anomaly, the landlord starving in the midst of plenty, the soil crying out for capital, labonr requiring employment, and capital seeking investment, In too many of the agricultural districts of England, it would be found that the verse in the Proverbs would most forcibly apply:—

"I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding, and lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof."

To the existing monopoly of land, and to laws which tended to disunite capital from land, this state of things owed its origin and continuance. An intelligent American traveller, Mr. Coleman, speaking upon the subject, said—

"The monopoly of land in the old world is a serious evil. The traveller passes over miles and miles of unoccupied and unimproved land capable of sustaining its thousands and millions in comfort; and upon the borders of those immense tracts of land are found thousands of human beings perishing for want of employment. This tract belongs to the Government. That tract belongs to the Church. This tract is held by some powerful individual, who chooses to keep it in its present state for his game preserves. Another large tract is devoted to some object which, if it had its value centuries before, has now ceased to be of use,"

The tendency of the present laws, in the opinion of Dr. Arnold, was to place brothers and sisters in a wrong position with respect to each other, unduly exalting one, and making the rest unduly dependent. The origin of this law was to be traced to the feudal times; and if he admitted that the great principles of public utility, combined with the general welfare of the State, were consulted by the regulations then made, he asked the House only to abide by the spirit in which those regulations were then made, and to show the same wisdom now that was evinced by our ancestors. The general interests of society were consulted by the arrangements then made. Great possessions and territories were then a source of wealth and power, but now, without capital, the source of poverty. Sir Samuel Romilly said that these laws were framed rather with a view to the feudal than to any other state, and that it was wrong to continue them in the present altered state of circumstances. He would call the attention of the House to the nature of the division of property among the ancient Britons, the Romans, the Athenians, and the Jews, among none of whom was the same principle recognised with respect to division of property as that upon which the laws of this country were founded. The effect of the subdivision of land in France, he knew, might be probably used as an argument against his Motion. But in France there was no power of devise by will—the division was compulsory. It was not fair to compare France with England, because in France there existed, previous to the revolution, only two classes, a high noblesse and a wretched peasantry, while in England a middle class of society had existed for centuries; but if they were to compare France at the present time with France before the first revolution, a marked improvement would be visible: the value of the whole produce of that country was in 1790, 4,650,000,000l.; while in 1843, that of agriculture alone amounted to 6,000,000,000l. In Belgium, Switzerland, and in Norway, the anomalous state of things which existed in England was not known, and the character of the husbandry of those countries far exceeded that of England. Ireland might also be quoted as a country where Ià grande propriété is ravaging a whole country, and making it resemble what France was. There we find a whole nation sacrificed to the wills of men long since dead. He was aware that one great argument might be brought against him, which was, that the alteration of the law which he was anxious to carry out, would materially affect the position of the aristocracy of the country. Admitting a landed hereditary aristocracy to be essential to the welfare of this country, why should not the present system be confined to that portion of society? Why should 30,000,000 of people be subjected to a barbarous feudal system which violated one of the best principles of our nature? Good order in society no longer required the existence of a body of large landed proprietors. There was one body of persons in that House the members of the legal profession, of whom he confessed he was afraid, and whose objections he dreaded. This Parliament was once compared to a Parliament which existed many years ago, and which went by the name of Parliamentum doctum, so many lawyers having scats in it; but those learned gentlemen, instead of holding up a set of feudal principles that checked social advancement, would do much better if they showed their great abilities in removing the obstructions to the free transfer of landed property, instead of fighting behind barriers which they themselves have created. He agreed in opinion with Sir Samuel Romilly, that an aristocracy ought to owe its position to the virtues of its members, rather than to the operation of unjust laws. He trusted that the Government, seeing the good effects which had already resulted from an interference in the laws relating to landed property in Ireland, would give him its support in endeavouring to augment the number of landed proprietors in this country.

said, that he believed the principle of his hon. Friend to be not only theoretically sound, but one which, if adopted, would be attended with great practical benefits to the country at large. He wished it to be clearly understood, that neither he nor his hon. Friend wished to bring about a compulsory division of land. The time in which his hon. Friend had brought forward the Motion was, in his opinion, particularly adapted for the consideration of such a subject; for the time had come when land ought to be considered as any other commodity. It was absurd to suppose that land was not a commercial article as well as others, and equally subordinate to the laws of trade. The only point in which he differed from his hon. Friend was as to the mode in which the subject had been brought before the notice of the House. He considered that the better course would have been to move for a Select Committee to consider the laws of entail, and the laws which regulated the disposition of land in cases of intestacy. But although he was of that opinion, he still considered that the resolution was founded upon justice, and, believing 80, he would give it his most cordial support.

considered that the real tendency of this Motion was an attack upon the laws of primogeniture, and that mode of descent of property upon which the aristocracy of the country, as a body, depended. He believed that the hon. Member for East Surrey was a member of the National Freehold Association, which was but the Anti-Corn-Law League revived, and had been greatly aided by the exertions of that association in multiplying the number of small freeholders in that part of the country which he represented. It might probably be considered by some persons that it would be desirable to have a commercial succeeded by a social revolution, and he could conceive of no better mode of bringing about such a state of things, than by the adoption of the principle embodied in the resolution of the hon. Member for East Surrey. He should also wish to know whether the resolution had not an ulterior object in view, and was to be considered only as the precursor of that future movement of which the hon. Member for the West Riding had given them ample notice, for a complete alteration of the tenure of landed property, a change of the depositaries of public power—in fact, a social revolution.

thought that the hon. Gentleman who last spoke had made a reasonable request when he asked to be informed what the Motion meant. For his own part, he never wished for concealment, and though he could not pretend to interpret the views of the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, he could state what his own views were in supporting it. Fifteen years ago he had supported a similar Motion, brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make landed property of a person dying intestate equally divisible among his children, in the same manner as personal property. That was a definite step, and one which was involved in the question before the House. The principle of the alteration might be extended to the transfer as well as to the division of landed property; and he was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given relief to persons of small property by reducing the duties on conveyances. He (Mr. Hume) meant, by supporting this Motion, to intimate his opinion that the law of primogeniture should be altered. In no country in the world were there instances of greater wealth and prosperity, or of greater wretchedness, than in England. There was no country where there were so many men with princely estates, and so many persons living on eleemosynary aid. Why did that happen? He always coupled capital with employment, and employment with wages, and consequently he did not see why that discrepancy should exist. In 1821 the whole amount of landed proprietors in the British isles was only 50,000, while Denmark had 80,000, Prussia 200,000, Austria 650,000, and Switzerland 200,000, being four times as many as were to be found in this country. Spain also had 400,000 landed proprietors. Was he not, then, entitled to infer that the wretchedness existing in England was in some way connected with the remains of the feudal system? Every man who brought a family into the world was bound to provide for that family. It was not natural, not Christian, not humane, but cruel, that a man possessed of 10,000l. a year in land, and probably not of 500l. in money, should give all his land to one individual, and leave the rest of his family destitute. The law which his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey arraigned, was impolitic and unnatural and disastrous in its effects. The question then was whether the existence of the aristocracy was such a benefit to the country as to induce the House to leave them the privileges arising from the law of primogeniture. He understood the object of the Motion to be an alteration in that law. He was convinced that much expense was occasioned by the aristocracy saddling their younger sons on the public. On a former occasion he had quoted an extract from a nobleman's will in Doctors' Commons, who had three sons Members of that House, bequeathing them 600l a year till they could get employment under Government to a greater amount. Let the House look at the pension list and the dead weight at the present moment. He did not mean to say that the aristocracy alone was to be found there—far from it; but when there were 10,000 officers in the Army, and 7,000 in the Navy, it might easily be seen, by looking at the manner in which promotion was bestowed, that there were a large number of persons who never saw a day's service, or wished to see a day's service. This never would have happened if that House was differently constituted, and if there were not so many Members in it who had an interest in the continuation of the present system. He held in his hand a publication containing nothing but a list of estates which were to be sold in Ireland under the provisions of the Incumbered Estates Act, property which had hitherto descended from father to son, and the sale of which was demanded by the necessities of the country, though nothing but necessity could justify it. He did not propose the introduction of any compulsory Act which would require landed property to be divided against the will of the parent, and he should be very sorry to see land subdivided as it was in Prance. He would allow the parent to make his will as he pleased, but if he died without making one, then he would have it distributed like personal property in cases of intestacy.

thought the importance of the Motion had been much exaggerated. He saw no objection whatever to it; but if the law were altered as the hon. Gentleman proposed, it would be but little operative, because very little landed property passed by descent. But there was a great collateral advantage which would result from this Motion, and that was, that it would tend to abolish the notion which was so prevalent on the Continent, and which so many men encouraged in that House, namely, that there was in this country a law of primogeniture. It was important that it should be well understood that all the conditions of primogeniture rested solely on the habits and manners of the people of this country, and not upon any law whatever. The whole matter was entirely permissive.

did not rise to prolong the discussion, but he wished to ask a question of the hon. Member for Montrose. The hon. Member had stated that the law of primogeniture led to the maintenance of large military and naval establishments, for the purpose of supporting the younger sons of the aristocracy. He wished to ask the hon. Member whether he would be satisfied with an ensign's commission as his only means of support in life?

I am too old.

said, that the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey comprehended two subjects: first, facilities for the transfer of landed property; and, secondly, an alteration in the state of the law as to the division of real property. He was not prepared to say that the first object of the Motion was one which ought not to be supported; but hon. Gentlemen would remember that this subject had been referred to the Real Property Commission, from whom a report might soon be expected, and he did not think that at present any great advantage would be derived from the passing of an abstract resolution. With regard to the second part of the Motion, which proposed to alter the distribution of landed property in cases of intestacy, he did not agree with its object. He believed that, on the whole, as his hon. friend the Member for Pontefract had said, there was a general accordance of habits and opinions in this country with the present state of the law, and, therefore, he should feel bound to oppose the Motion.

said, that as had spoken a great deal on the subject of primogeniture outside the walls of the House, he was desirous of saying a few words before the House divided. He was not disposed to conceal the objects which hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were so timid on this question, might suppose the friends of the Motion had in view, but he would assure the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that they would not take a single acre of his property without paying him for it. They were not destroyers of property, as they had been called, but the improvers of it.

explained that what he said was, that during the recess the hon. Member for Manchester had been instructing the public that there ought to be a very large subdivision of landed property in this country.

The Motion did not propose to interfere with the manner in which a man might bequeath his estate, but that when there was no will the law should step in, and do that which was consistent with justice, and which natural affection would dictate. He allowed that the Motion tended in a direction along which he would probably travel further than many Members of that House; but he was sure that with our immense and growing population, the time was not far distant when they would apply to landed property the principles which applied to all other kinds of property—a change which would be attended by great pecuniary advantages to landed proprietors. He believed that freeing land from the restrictions imposed by the present state of the law would add seven or eight years' purchase at least to the value of landed property. In Prussia forty years ago there were estates which were not allowed to be sold to any but those who were of noble families, and the consequence was that there were very few purchasers to be found for those estates, which were almost unsaleable, and when sold were sold at very low prices. This law had been subsequently altered, and the advantages which had been derived from the change had been very great. With regard to the general question of freeing the land from restrictions, he would ask hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind that there was a large labouring population in the rural districts, very ignorant and often much demoralised, but he did not say they were more demoralised than workmen in a town, and he believed that the principal cause of their demoralisation was the hopelessness of their condition. He was obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey for bringing forward this Motion, and though there had not been a very animated discussion, and hon. Gentlemen did not seem to be willing to attend to the subject at the present time, he was sure that before long the necessity of the country would force them to amend the law.

did not intend to say anything which would in the slightest degree reflect on the aristocracy. He believed there were no possessors of property in any country who did so much for those on it, and who received so little remuneration from it, as in England. Much good, however, might be effected by facilitating the transfer of landed property. There were 30,000 acres of unimproved land within a short distance of the metropoils, which, if there were facilities for its sale, would furnish employment for several hundred poor labourers in its cultivation. In supporting the Motion before the House, he wished it to be understood that he did not concur in all the grounds urged in favour of it by the hon. Member for Montrose.

said, that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the Real Property Commission, he begged to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman a passage from the evidence which a gentleman gave before that commission. The witness said—

"I was fleeced when I came of ago, again when I was married, again when my son came of age, again when he was married, and when I die I expect that my family will be severely fleeced."

The existing law was a remnant of the barbarous policy of feudal times, and its maintenance was disgraceful to civilised society. The Real Property Commission had been appointed in 1832, and had not yet completed their labours, and it was not known when they would. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire alluded to the objects which he (Mr. L. King) had in view in bringing forward his Motion; his objects were that facilities might be afforded to capital to find its way to the soil.

said, he wished to bring under the notice of the House the Motion of which he had given notice, for a Select Committee to inquire into the rights of succession of the allied and dependent princes of India. The hon. Baronet addressed the House in such a low and indistinct tone as to be nearly inaudible. He was understood to say, that the question out of which this subject arose was considered one of the greatest importance in India, namely, as to the right of a native ruling prince to adopt an heir to succeed him, in default of his having children. The denial of this right on the part of the East India Company would limit the succession to the family of a ruler of a country. It might be necessary to state in the first place, that this question had arisen in connexion with a State, the administration of the affairs of which had repeatedly been before the House—he alluded to Sattara. It was the policy of the Government at the end of the war in 1818, to place a portion of the States of the deposed head of the Mahrattas, under the rule of the descendant of the original founder of the Mahratta dynasty. The House was fully aware of the circumstances which led to the deposition of the successor of that prince, who, at his death, having no direct descendants, adopted a youth as his successor. As to the feelings with which these adopted heirs were regarded, he would refer the House to the report of Mr. Frere, whose duty it was to communicate to the family of the deposed Rajah of Sattara the course which the East India Company intended to take with regard to the succession. [The hon. Baronet proceeded to read from this report, but he became so unwell, that he was unable to proceed, and was obliged to resume his seat.]

would suggest to his hon. Friend the propriety of adjourning the debate, as it was clear that he was then too ill to do justice to himself or to the subject on the present occasion.

having assented, the Motion was, by leave, withdrawn.

moved for the following returns:—Copies of the instructions from Sir Francis Collier to Commander Farquhar, alluded to in Mr. Farquhar's report of the 25th day of August, 1849 (page 9); of Sir Francis Collier's report, adverted to in Lord Eddisbury's letter of the 9th day of November, 1849 (page 11); of Sir James Brooke's despatch to Lord Palmerston, relative to the building of a fort at the entrance of the Sakarran river, noticed in Sir James Brooke's letter of the 1st day of October, 1849, and of the answer of Lord Palmerston thereto; and, of the depositions taken by order of Sir C. Rawlinson, Recorder of Singapore, respecting the pirates destroyed by a force under the orders of Commander Farquhar, on the 31st day of July, 1849, for which Sir C. Rawlinson has granted certificates for bounty. He said he was induced to do so, in consequence of finding the papers which had been presented had been garbled. He wished to know why the instructions given by Sir F. Collier to Mr. Farquhar had been withheld?

observed, that there was no objection to these returns as far as the Admiralty was concerned. He had been pressed for the former return, and he had given all the papers which were ready, and others would shortly be furnished. Some, however, which had been asked for were not yet in the possession of the Admiralty, but when they arrived in this country they would be produced, but it would be necessary to send out for others.

stated, that they would shortly be called upon to vote 98,000l. for head money for the destruction of pirates on the coast of Borneo, and, as he believed the proceedings to have been illegal, he wished for all the documents which could elucidate the matter or establish the charge, and if these papers were not in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, they had not acted in a way which was consistent with their duty to the public interest.

asked whether the Government had yet paid any portion of the 98,000l. to be voted for head money in the present estimates? He also wished to know whether they meant to call for evidence to show the number of pirates really killed, and for whom prize money was claimed. It had been stated that the number was 2,140; but no depositions had been produced or evidence adduced, to show that they were pirates. He, therefore, wished to know whether this money would be paid before it was proved that they were pirates?

replied, that the payments were made under a specific Act of Parliament, which it was now proposed to alter. It would not be fair to these parties to withhold payment under the existing law. When the estimates came on, his hon. Friend would have ample opportunities of discussing the question, when he would have in his possession all the papers in the possession of the Government. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow this Bill to proceed without going into the other question.

said, he highly approved of the Bill; but he protested against the money being paid until evidence was adduced to show that the persons killed were pirates. For his own part he was prepared to show that they were not pirates, but injured and innocent persons.

said, there was no power to withhold payment under the existing law. Under this Bill the decision for the future in a case of this kind would be left to the discretion of the Admiralty.

called the attention of the House to the constitution of the Committee with respect to filling up the vacancies. It was painful to raise questions of an individual kind; but his hon. and gallant Friend behind him the Member for North Essex had given notice of his intention to move two changes in the Committee list, and he (Sir J. Pakington) considered that there was ample ground for that Motion, and he should vote for it if his hon. and gallant Friend pressed a division. The right hon. Member for Manchester must admit that a Committee upon such an important Bill should be so constituted as to give no ground of objection. It was a measure to effect great changes, and would require serious consideration; and he appealed to the House if the decision of the Committee, whether it came back in the form of an altered Bill, or of a report, would not be entitled to more or less weight, according to the constitution of the Committee? The first element in its composition should be the competency of the parties, and, in addition to Members of the Government, it should have consisted of gentlemen of long experience as magistrates, and of lawyers, who would be influenced by their professional habits. He did not disparage any hon. Gentleman by merely saying that his life had not been passed in the discharge of magisterial duties, or that he was not a professional lawyer; but a great blot in the constitution of the Committee was, the want of professional gentlemen, and of gentlemen accustomed to act as magistrates. He did not wish to complain of the Government; but, looking to the circumstances under which this measure had been brought in, the House had a right to expect that the Committee should be so constituted as to give weight to its decision. But if the Bill went upstairs to the Committee now proposed, the decision would not have that necessary weight. He would suggest that, instead of going through the names seriatim, the whole list should be withdrawn, and the Committee remodelled.

said, that his object had been to get a fair and impartial Committee, and he thought he had accomplished that object by the nomination as it stood. There were county Members and chairmen of quarter-sessions upon the Committee. But the question now was the withdrawal of the name of Sir James Graham; and he then proposed to go through the rest of the names, and move their appointment.

said, that the object of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Essex was not a party object, and defended his proposition.

said, that although he saw by the state of the House what would be the result of a division, he was determined to persevere. His objection to the Committee was a fair and proper one, and he represented the sentiments of a large body of country gentlemen whom he had consulted, and who declared their belief that this was an unfair Committee in every way, the majority of opinions being on one side. He was, therefore, resolved to divide the House. If the Committee was constituted as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester proposed, the country gentlemen would feel that their wishes and opinions had been slighted, and the decision, by a small and paltry majority, would have no weight with the country. Every one would know what value to set upon it. He made this statement in the face of a tyrant majority, though a small one, which bad, somehow or other, been kept in the thin state of the House. There were two Gentlemen on the Committee who were connected with the county of Lancaster. He (Major Beresford) had been accused of a want of geographical knowledge, but he was not so geographically ignorant as not to know that part of the borough of Stockport was in Cheshire, although the remainder was in Lancashire.

moved that, in consideration of the then thin state of the House, the debate be adjourned. The Committee, as it then stood, would have no weight with the country.

said, it often happened that debates went on at that hour in as thin a House as that was.

said, the hon. and gallant Officer had, no doubt, a strong feeling upon this question, and had a perfect right to oppose this Committee, but it was rather extraordinary he should allude to this thin state of the House, caused by the absence of his own Friends. But when the hon. and gallant Member insinuated that hon. Members on his (Mr. Ag-lionby's) side of the House were pledged to get a majority in that Committee, he answered for himself, and he believed for the other Members around him, that they were present in the ordinary performance of their duty, in going through the public business set down upon the Votes of the evening. What ground had the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for saying that the decision of the Committee would have no weight? Were hon. Gentlemen on the other side to be alone the judges of what the opinion of the country would be? It might be asserted, with equal force, that the decision of the Committee would be received with entire confidence. He should support the list as it stood.

hoped that as there was already one Member for Sussex on the Committee, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Motion for adding another.

replied that it was somewhat extraordinary to object to two Members for Sussex, when there were three for Suffolk, and two for Lancashire.

believed that there had been great trouble in constituting the Committee, and that many Gentlemen of great practical experience, when requested to serve, had declined. He had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester to serve, and he would give the question the best attention he was able, for his constituents felt very warmly on the matter. What the Committee would have to do was to alter the Bill as much as possible to suit the different circumstances of different counties; and of which there was a great variety. In Lincolnshire there were three distinct commissions of peace, and Suffolk also had customs peculiar to itself in regard to the rates and expenditure; and the Committee would have no little difficulty in framing the Bill to meet these varying cases. However, if it was the wish of the House that the noble Earl the Member for West Sussex should serve, he (Mr. Frewen) was willing to resign in favour of the noble Lord.

hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would not press his Motion for adjournment, for there were sufficient Members present to debate the question, and it would be but fair to go into it. But at the same time he hoped that hon. Members would not go into the old debate again. With respect to the composition of the Committee, his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester had taken every means to make it a fair one, and he thought that the country gentlemen of England, acting as magistrates, were better judges of these matters by themselves than the lawyers; and of that body of gentlemen he would say that if he thought this measure tended to undervalue them, he would be the first to vote against it. But he did not think that such was its tendency, while it would satisfy the ratepapers that the rates were properly disposed of, and would, he be lieved, do much in the present state of the country to allay the feeling existing upon that subject. But what he had risen for was merely to ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

did not think it advisable to press the Motion to a division. He had felt much pain in the course he had been obliged to take in reference to the nomination of this Committee, but still he thought the Government were not free from responsibility in the matter; and when he saw a Committee constituted as this was, he did not hesitate to enter his protest against such a constitution. His opinion was more and more fortified that this change ought not to have been left in the hands of a private Member of Parliament, but if undertaken at all, should have been undertaken on the responsibility of the Government. He suggested, however, to his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He was extremely sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had not acceded to the opinion expressed on his (Sir J. Pakington's) side of the House. The constitution of the Committee would certainly be forced upon them, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that none but those whose views were the same as his own would approve of it.

expressed his satisfaction at the constitution of the Committee, and particularly at the circumstance of one of the hon. Members for Sussex being upon it. In his hands the inhabitants of Brighton would be safe. They complained, with great justice, of a system which compelled them to contribute enormous sums to the county without having the slightest control over their application. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not withdraw his name.

repeated his conviction that the Committee would not carry any weight with it as proposed to be constituted. Names had been suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, and if he would not avail himself of the facilities thus opened to him, the responsibility of a one-sided selection would rest upon him alone. He hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be withdrawn. He had to complain before of so few Members being in their places on his side of the House, and he complained of it now; but the fact of their absence would not justify the postponement of a decision that he could not but lament.

suggested that the names of the Earl of March and Mr. Deedes should be added to the Committee. The absence of lawyers had been remarked, and he could not but observe that, if some experienced members of the profession were not added, it would be a Committee in doctum.