begged to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board whether any inquiry had been instituted into the conduct of the master of the Bideford union?

replied, that he understood the question of the hon. Member to refer to the inquiry promised by the Poor Law Board into the conduct of Mr. Surman, the master of the Bideford union workhouse, with reference to the treatment of the poor girl whose shocking death had formed the subject of a late judicial investigation. In the course of that trial there was something said by Mr. Surman which induced the Poor Law Board, as soon as the report of the case appeared, to determine upon instituting an inquiry into his conduct, and he had stated, before the Easter recess, that instructions had been issued to that effect. When these instructions, however, went down into the country, it was found that Mr. Surman had already resigned his office as master of the Bideford workhouse, and, consequently, he was no longer an officer under the Poor Law Board. Of course, he was no longer amenable to the jurisdiction of that board, and it was impossible to pursue the inquiry, the object of that inquiry being to ascertain whether Mr. Surman was fit to continue in the situation which he held. Another reason for not pursuing the inquiry was, that another prosecution had been instituted against the Birds, and, of course, these matters would come under investigation before the ordinary tribunals. If, however, the question of the hon. Member referred to the general conduct of Mr. Surman, he had the satisfaction of stating, that the chaplain, the surgeon, and the board of guardians of the Bideford union, all spoke of him in the highest terms.

said, that a Bill was before the House which had for its object the raising of the income of certain deaneries from 1,000l. to 1,500l. per annum. Since the introduction of that measure, the deanery of Salisbury had become vacant, and he was anxious to know what course the Government meant to take with respect to it. He was also desirous of knowing whether the appointments to deaneries which had recently become vacant had been made on the understanding that the persons obtaining them must submit to any alteration of duties or income which Parliament might make?

said, it was true a Bill had been brought in for the purpose of raising the incomes of the deaneries of Wells and Salisbury from 1,000l. to 1,500l. a year, the holders of those preferments having accepted them on the understanding, and in the expectation, that by the existing law they were entitled to that sum. In future, however, the income of those deaneries, as well as all other deaneries, would be limited to 1,000l. a year. It was also the intention of the Government to propose that no dean appointed after the 10th of April should hold any benefice with the care of souls at a greater distance than three miles from the cathedral city in which his deanery was placed. If that regulation should be sanctioned by Parliament, it was impossible to expect that any person would accept a deanery having an income less than 1,000l. a year. Indeed, the Bishop of Salisbury was of opinion, that, taking into consideration the expenses to which a dean was necessarily subjected, and the sums which he had to disburse in charity, they would be placed in an embarrassing position if they had an income of no greater amount than 1,000l. a year. With respect to the other point to which the hon. Member had adverted, he begged to state that he had informed persons who had accepted deaneries that they might expect to receive a fixed sum instead of a variable income, in accordance with the report of the Ecclesiastical Commission; but he had not given them to understand that they would receive a less amount than they did at present.

was not sure that he correctly understood what had fallen from the noble Lord on one point, and, therefore, begged to ask whether the future Dean of Salisbury was to receive a larger income than other deans?

replied in the negative: all deans would receive 1,000l. a year each.

begged to ask the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, whether the Government had considered, or was willing to consider, the expediency of retaining the Vernon collection of paintings in the National Gallery, and accommodating the Royal Academy with rooms in Marlborough House? He did so in consequence of the Committee which had been appointed to report respecting the Vernon pictures of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was a Member, having recommended that the Vernon collection should be placed in the National Gallery, and that the Royal Academy should be allowed to remain there until it could obtain premises suitable to them elsewhere; but the course stated by the noble Lord the other evening appeared to be directly contrary to this.

replied, that it was the intention of the Government to act in conformity with the report of the Committee. It was intended that the Vernon collection should occupy a portion of the National Gallery, and accommodation should be provided for the Royal Academy elsewhere. This was in conformity with the report of the Committee, and it was certainly the intention of the Government. The question then was, what should be done at the present moment. It appeared far more easy, and better for the Vernon pictures, which were originally in the private house of Mr. Vernon, to be placed for the present in a house like Marl-borough-house, than to attempt to fit up that place for the exhibition of the Royal Academy. It would cause a great deal more expenditure to fit up that place for temporary accommodation of the Royal Academy than for the Vernon collection. It must be recollected that this was only a temporary arrangement, as Marlborough-house was destined to be the future residence of the Prince of Wales.

observed, that if the Vernon collection was removed to Marlborough-house it would require an additional number of persons to look after them.

stated that it was not his intention to persist in proposing the Amendment of which he had given notice, for the substitution of a 12l. for an 8l. franchise. He should not do so, as he had not received that support which he thought he had a right to expect in that House. His opinion, notwithstanding, remained unchanged.

said, the hon. Member for the county of Limerick had asked, before the Easter recess, the Government to take into consideration a plan which he suggested, for adding to the constituency of certain boroughs a number of qualified inhabitants of non-parliamentary boroughs in the neighbourhood. He had promised that the proposition should meet with consideration, and he would then state the course which had been adopted by the Government. The matter had met with very attentive consideration, and he had communicated with the Under Secretary in Ireland, and other parties who were supposed to possess some knowledge of the subject. The result was that many objections appeared to exist against entertaining the proposition in the present Bill. In the first place, there were two modes in which such a proposition could be carried into effect; both modes were very different in principle, as they probably would be in detail. The one would be the adding very large towns which had not members themselves to the existing boroughs; thus they would combine all the considerable towns in the various counties in the borough constituency of Ireland. The other plan was to add some of them to the very small boroughs, so as to give the latter a sufficient number of electors. The proposition of his hon Friend the Member for Roscommon proceeded on the former plan, and he proposed that not less then eleven boroughs, with more than 10,000 inhabitants, should receive an additional number of votes from the towns in the neighbourhood. He owned that it appeared to him that the principles was very objectionable. A great advantage, he conceived, existed in combining the inhabitants of certain towns as well as the country voters in county constituencies. If they collected all the towns, so as to make a complete separation between the county and borough representatives, he conceived that it would have a very injurious effect. He believed, by the mixing up of many electors residing in towns in the representation of counties, they gave a more popular effect to the county representation than would otherwise be the case. This was also a question which would give rise to considerable debate. The second plan confined the arrangement to those places where there was only a very small number of electors, and adding to these particular boroughs the inhabitants of other towns in the neighbourhood. Now, although that certainly would be a much more safe plan to adopt, he was afraid it would tend to lead to a considerable conflict of opinion, and would give rise to a great many local difficulties, and others of a difficult character. It would be a matter of some difficulty to decide which were small boroughs, and in the next to determine what towns should be included in them. This must give rise to very considerable discussion and difficulty; and although a scheme for the purpose had been drawn up and printed with the votes, and although it might be prepared as well as any other that could be suggested, he did not think that, without the most mature consideration, the House should be called upon to adopt it. The whole question, also, required more consideration at the hands of the Government than it had yet been able to afford it, and the Government thought that under the circumstances, it would be much better to adopt the Bill as it stood, and leave this question to be considered in a future Session. He then came to the objections to adopt the Bill as it stood. Great stress had been laid on the assertion that it would lead to a reduction in the constituency in the boroughs in Ireland; but this appeared to have arisen from a fallacy in the returns on which hon. Gentlemen relied, and he did not believe that it would lead to any reduction approaching the extent which had been supposed. Some errors had got into the former returns, and they had been taken as furnishing the actual numbers at present. He would not then go into details, but he would state that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had obtained some information on this subject. In the Parliamentary electors return for 1849 the general returns were not specified as they were in the return of 1848, of the number of 10l. holders, and also the compound franchise for the 8l. rating. It appeared the return of the 10l. householders did not give the actual return of those who would have the right to vote. He would give a statement of the probable numbers, as contained in the return which had been prepared under the direction of his right hon. Friend:—

agreed with the noble Lord in objecting to their excluding all the town electors in Ireland from the county constituencies. That was not his suggestion, and he had disclaimed any participation in it when the hon. Member for Roscommon brought the matter under notice. What he suggested was, that in ease of a borough constituency being less than 300, the franchise should be conferred on some adjoining towns to be added to it. The number of boroughs in Ireland which would have less than 300 voters would be 27, while in England there were only 11 boroughs possessing constituencies of less than that number. He was sorry that such a large proportion of the boroughs in Ireland should be left with such small constituencies as would be the case under this Bill. He therefore regretted the noble Lord had not adopted his suggestion. He had reason to believe that the borough of Portarlington, which now had a constituency of 150, would, under the new Bill, only have one of 86. He spoke with some confidence on this point, as the return which gave him this information had been prepared by the poor-law board at Portarlington. Was it just or reasonable that a constituency of 86 should return a Member to that House?

wished to correct an error of his hon. Friend as to the constituency of Portarlington. The number of electors under the Bill as it stood, would be, not 86, but 131. Since the subject was last before the House, he had been over to that place, and he found that the constituency would be greatly increased by a clause which he understood was to be introduced into the Bill.

objected to the words "if he thinks it reasonable and proper that such appeal should be entertained," which left it to the discretion of the barrister whether there should be an appeal or no. There might as well be no power of appeal; for these words made the barrister judge in his own cause. He moved that the words be struck out.

said, the words were copied from the English Act.

thought the objection of the hon. and gallant Member to those words was extremely well grounded; for it was clear that any one having strong opinions might be extremely desirous that his judgment should not be questioned, and might say there was no reasonable cause for an appeal. If his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had no better argument for retaining the words than that they were copied from the English Act, he should support the Amendment; for there was no reason for servilely copying the English Bill, and he did not think the words ought to remain in the Irish Bill.

had intended to say, not only that the provision was in the English Act, but that it had worked well in England, and that he thought it would work as well in Ireland.

must repeat his objections to the clause as it stood, and urged that, as a matter of policy, it would be better to give an absolute rather than a conditional right of appeal.

said, that whilst it was intended to assimilate the English and the Irish practice, a very important difference was preserved. In England the revising barrister was appointed from time to time, but in Ireland the assistant barrister was appointed for life, and was therefore beyond the influence of control.

Twenty shillings costs was no check to vexatious objections, and as the system of double appeal had been successfully tried in England, he hoped it would be extended to Ireland. Let Ireland have the same protection against irrational and vexatious objections as England. If there was a risk that the revising barrister might abuse his trust, there was also the danger that advantage would be taken of the unrestricted right of appeal to oppress and break down an opposing party, by persisting in vexatious objections. An increase of the costs would not save them, because it would check proper appeals. He thought the assistant barrister might be safely trusted with the discretion of allowing appeals where he thought proper.

said, that the assistant barristers did not hold their office for life, as stated by his noble Friend, but at the pleasure of the Executive Government. In the case of the municipal franchise, a power of appeal to the Queen's Bench was given; but it had not been much used, for he believed there had been only ten cases, a proof that it was not used for vexatious purposes; but the great advantage of an appeal was in the check it held over the inferior judge, of his decisions being liable to be reviewed by the superior courts. He felt the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon upon this question to be so forcible, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington did not divide the Committee upon the Amendment, he (Mr. Napier) unquestionably would.

said, it was certainly his intention to divide the Committee upon the omission of the words.

said, that if hon. Members would look at the 58th clause, they would see that it was impossible the power of appeal could be made an engine of oppression, because by that clause it was provided that in case of the party in whose favour the decision should have been given, declining to support the decision appealed against as respondent, the assistant barrister should name a respondent.

, without wishing to say anything very disparaging of the assistant barristers of Ireland, could not admit that they were entitled to the unqualified praise pronounced upon them by the hon. Member for Kerry. He assured the House he had known one that was blind, and many who had never had any practice at the bar whatever; and he must say that he, for one, was not prepared to intrust them with the power of deciding whether the judicial decision of such a body should be brought under the review of a higher tribunal or not. He had no fear of the power of appeal being used as a party instrument. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had referred to the 58th clause as containing one check upon that abuse, and he (Mr. Keogh) would refer to the 59th as containing another, namely, the power given to the assistant barrister to consolidate appeals upon the same points of law.

, in spite of what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, believed that there was not in the community a body of men who discharged their duty either with more satisfaction or more benefit to the public, than the assistant barristers of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman, although objecting to allow the assistant barristers to decide whether there should be an appeal, had apparently no scruples against giving that power to any factious person who might be at war with his neighbours, or who might desire to cripple the franchise.

had known frequent occasions of numbers of voters who had been rejected by the assistant barrister being placed upon the register on appeal by the Judge of assize. In one instance he knew as many as thirty had been thus placed upon the register. The right of appeal, therefore, did not restrict the franchise, but extended it; but he thought the appeal ought to be to the Judge of assize rather than to the Court of Exchequer in Dublin.

thought the clause ought to be passed as it stood, because it gave a double right of appeal to the claimant and to the objector.

, judging from English practice and English opinion, considered the present a wholesale provision, and, unless some reason could be advanced why the law in Ireland should be different from the law in England, he should insist upon their being made as nearly alike as possible. He believed that the Bill would be good for all parties.

said, the only ground upon which the clause was defended was that of analogy with the English Bill. If that analogy failed, there was an end to the argument by which the clause was supported; but before pointing out where it failed, he would observe that the House was gradually getting into the dangerous practice of leaving to judges the power of determining whether there should or should not be an appeal. This practice, which had only recently been introduced, should not be extended. In England the revising barrister was appointed from year to year; in Ireland the assistant barrister was appointed by the Executive Government, and could be removed at their will. The assistant barrister, being then an officer of the Executive Government, it was inexpedient that he should have the discretion of allowing or disallowing appeals from his decisions. Again, in Ireland the same barrister would revise the lists, and he would most probably give the same decisions; whereas in England a different person was selected nearly every year, so that the same legal points were submitted to a different judicial officer. The analogy did not hold in these respects; and, as the clause was objectionable with the words remaining in it, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would consider the propriety of not insisting upon them.

said, that as the law now stood there was no appeal except on the assistant barrister disallowing a vote, and he thought they ought to adhere to it; but where was the evil of a double appeal? It would by no means have the evil effects that some hon. Gentlemen anticipated, because it was confined to questions of law. There could be no appeal on questions of fact; and, under these circumstances, it was right the assistant barrister should have the power of deciding whether the appeal should be given or not.

also remarked that the appeal was confined to questions of law, and he observed that very few appeals could arise on questions of law if the protections were given, as proposed, that existed in the English Act. It had been said that the assistant barristers in Ireland were merely officers of the Executive Government—liable to removal. They were certainly not the fluctuating judges of a revising barrister's court; and when it was said they were removable by the Crown, he would only say that none had been removed by the Crown within his recollection. They must therefore be considered as holding their offices during good behaviour. He should support the clause.

said, that the clause provided that in cases where a voter's name should be omitted from the list, he might pay or tender the rate to the poor-law guardians, and then claim to be placed upon the list. But he wanted to know what tribunal would have the right to settle any disputes that might arise between the guardians and those persons who might claim to vote, but whose claim should be rejected by the guardians?

said, that he did not precisely sec the drift of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to the amount of rate charged upon the premises, the rate book would settle that question. About it there could be no dispute. The only question that could arise would be as to the occupancy, and if the guardians should refuse to accept the money tendered by a person calling himself the occupier, and to place his name upon the list, he might tender his vote; and if the election chanced to be decided by one or two votes, the question of occupancy would be decided by a Committee of the House of Commons. There was no occasion to appoint any other tribunal.

said, that he would divide the Committee on the question that the clause be negatived.

said, he did not expect that the noble Lord would bring forward so important a Bill at so late an hour. He had moved for certain returns on the 21st of February, with regard to grants and loans made to Ireland within the last few years, but he found that it was impossible to obtain them, though he had very good authority for saying that the Government were in possession of a great many of those returns. However, they had not thought proper, and they knew the reason why, to lay them before the House. On so important a matter, the whole of those returns ought to have been printed, not next week, but before the Motion for the second reading of the Bill was brought forward. He objected to any further grants being made, but not from an unkind, unchristianlike, or illiberal feeling, for he disdained any feeling of that kind. He objected to this grant of 300,000l being given by the people of England, because he had reason to believe that there were fully eight millions owing to them now; and when would they get it? He did not charge the sister kingdom, or any individual in it; with an unwillingness to pay, but they had not the means; and the misrule of the Government had placed that kingdom in its present unfortunate and melancholy position. He had a right to ask, on the part of the people of England, out of whose pocket this money would come—was it to be the last, and would the Government say it was not a bribe—a low dirty bribe to please the Irish? He would tell the noble Lord they were too honest men to be led away by such paltry bribery. The Government might lay traps and spring guns, but they would catch no game. They were not dunghill cocks; they were real game cocks in that country. It was the duty of the noble Lord to give those returns, or postpone his Motion until they were furnished; but no, forsooth, he should bring forward his Motion. However, he (Colonel Sibthorp) was too cautious for him, and was always on his guard. An important question of this nature ought not to be brought on in this manner at a late hour of the night, and with, in spite of the Treasury whips, a thin House. Sic volo, sic jubeo, was the Government motto, but, despite their bugles sounding in every quarter, and their threats of loss of place, they were unable to muster a full House. He decidedly objected to this grant, and should substitute for the Motion he had placed upon the paper, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, that the House do now adjourn.

hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would adhere to the Amendment of which he originally gave notice, and not put the House to the trouble of dividing on his present proposition.

said, that with respect to this Bill the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lincoln would recollect that he (Lord J. Russell) had wished to bring it forward a considerable time before Easter, and that he had more than once postponed it in accordance with the wish of hon. Members. He could not be accused, therefore, of now bringing it on unawares. He found that certain returns of the amount issued, the amount repaid, and the sum to be repaid, had been ordered in February. Those returns, however, had no immediate reference to this Bill, and of course it required a considerable time to prepare such accounts. An order for them had been immediately sent to Ireland, but they had not yet been received. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they were not kept back for any purpose of the Government.

thought the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend was not unreasonable, and that they ought to adjourn the consideration of this important question to a time when the House might be better filled and less fatigued than it was at that moment, and when the Members who composed it were less exclusively Irish than those now present; for on looking around him, he saw on that side of the House a majority of Members who could not, he thought, but come to the discussion of the question with a strong bias. Heretofore it had been said to them, when they were called upon to concur in some of those large grants, that they would be the last sums that would be asked; and the noble Lord now said again this was the last time he would call upon the House to make such advances. But he (Mr. Bankes) wished to ask were they to be given as grants or as loans? [Lord J. RUSSELL: This is an advance, not a grant.] He thought that whether they were given in the shape of loans or grants, the result would be very much the same. With regard to this particular case he did not clearly understand, when the noble Lord made his statement, the precise ground upon which he rested this additional claim. He was quite aware the noble Lord made a statement, but it was rather briefly made. For those reasons he concurred in the propriety of the Amendment, and he should vote for an adjournment.

was surprised at the remark of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with regard to the House being exclusively Irish. Certainly, of late, it had been a matter of serious disappointment to him, when questions of great importance to Ireland had been brought forward, to see nearly empty benches opposite, although, at the same time, he had not found much to console him in the presence of Irish Members on his own side of the House. He did not think that, in giving this grant, they had any guarantee that it would not be asked for again, and he was convinced that every Minister must ask for it so long as the ground which rendered it necessary—the Irish Poor Law—remained untouched. This was a part of the question deserving mature consideration, and for this reason he regretted that the measure came on for consideration at so late an hour. He had another reason for regretting that this measure had been brought forward at so late an hour, and that was that the application of the 300,000l. had never been well explained. The first account given by the noble Lord was most satisfactory, but subsequent conversations had not borne out that first statement, and the House had no guarantee as to how the money would be applied.

concurred in hoping that the debate would be postponed. He had documents with him which would enable him to disprove the assertion of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that loans to Ireland were tantamount to grants; but in order to do that successfully it would be necessary that he should go more into detail than he could well do at that late hour. He was prepared to show that the moneys which had been lent to Ireland had been fairly and honestly paid until the heavy misfortune of famine fell upon that country. He was further prepared to show, upon the evidence of Sir John Bur-goyne, that for a series of years there was a considerable profit made by England out of the loans to Ireland; and that even during the three years of famine Ireland repaid over a million of the money which had been advanced to her. With reference to what the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had said about the exclusively Irish character of the attendance that evening, he begged to say that it was not their fault that English Members were not present on that occasion—that Members who were usually foremost in every other debate should have deserted the cause of Ireland, and left the representatives of that country to the tender mercies of a Government whose actions they disapproved. With reference to the system of loans, he assured the House that no one condemned them more than he himself did, and that he believed they were caused solely by the disregard of the suggestions of those who best knew the true interest of that country.

also hoped the debate would be adjourned, in order to afford an opportunity to Irish Members to disprove the charge which had been made with regard to Irish loans. He believed it could be shown that, from the time the two Exchequers were consolidated up to 1828, the advances out of the Consolidated Fund to England and Scotland amounted to 16,000,000l., of which 6,000,000l. were repaid, while, for the same period, the advances to Ireland had been only 9,000,000l., of which 7,000,000l. were repaid.

deeply regretted to find the Irish Members asking for a postponement of this measure, because they, of all men, must know the importance of passing it without delay. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire was quite mistaken in calling this a grant; and he was equally mistaken in supposing that there was no difference between a grant and a loan. He entirely agreed with those hon. Members who had stated that the loans to Ireland had been repaid, when such a result could hardly have been anticipated; but he did not think they would be justified in postponing this measure, in order to afford the Irish Members an opportunity of proving what everybody who knew anything of the subject knew already. If the House were to go into the various questions suggested by the hon. Members for Kerry, Longford, and Portarlington, it would be impossible to say when they would be able to pass this Bill. He appealed to those hon. Members if it would not be absolutely cruel to those unions whom it was proposed to relieve by this Bill, to postpone it for an indefinite period, as they proposed. He could understand those who were altogether opposed to the object of the Bill taking advantage of the forms of the House to delay it; but he must say that Irish Gentlemen, who could not but know the importance of an early decision of this question, rather astonished him when they proposed such a course. The desire to vindicate their country had surely made them forget its immediate necessities.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the settlement of this question was of the utmost importance to Ireland. It was his strong conviction that this measure, small in amount, would do incalculable benefit to Ireland, and he believed the House would effect great injustice by delaying the progress of the measure.

protested against the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he sought to identify the body of the Irish Members with an attempt to retard the progress of this Bill. His right hon. Friend totally misunderstood the feeling of Irish Members, if he thought there was any intention of not supporting him in any measure brought forward for the benefit of their unfortunate country. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had thrown out an imputation against Irish Members generally; but that had been met by the hon. Member for Kerry, and it was also met by a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before Easter, and also again this evening, that loans granted to Ireland generally had been paid in a manner unprecedented, and most unexpected on his part, considering the circumstances of the country. With regard to his hon. and gallant Friend who had originated this debate, he would only say that he had sat with him twenty years ago in that House, and though rapid and Quixotic occasionally in his movements, his hon. and gallant Friend was always well-meaning and cheerful. He believed his hon. and gallant Friend always meant to do good, though he often effected much mischief; but when he told him that millions of his (the O'Gorman Mahon's) unfortunate countrymen had suffered severely during the late years of famine, that thousands of them had died of want, and that thousands more would suffer by any delay of this measure, he was sure his hon. and gallant Friend would consent to withdraw his Motion.

begged to assure hon. Gentlemen that he had intended to convey no imputation whatever upon the character of the Irish people. What he had said, and he had said it with regret, was simply, that although Ireland had no doubt repaid as much as she could repay, she had not repaid so much as he could have wished her to repay, and that he feared her powers of repayment were not likely to improve for some time to come.

agreed, that had the Government taken more active measures some time back, there would, in all probability, have been no occasion for this measure; but, as the occasion existed, he earnestly desired that the measure might be passed without delay, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would not allow their judgment to be so carried away by their feelings as to prevent that result. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would have full opportunity to bring forward his documents in Committee; all that was sought at present was to read the Bill a second time.

said, he had spent the Easter recess in the districts to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, and he could testify that such distress prevailed there as to render immediate relief essential. For his own part, he thought it would have been a much more profitable occupation of their time that evening to have discussed the present measure during as much as might have been required for the purpose of the seven hours which had been comparatively wasted upon the Franchise Bill. He trusted that the Government would not bring on the later stages of this important measure at twenty minutes to twelve, as had been the case with the present stage. The right hon. Member for Ripon had declared that the proper opportunity on which to discuss the whole question of the state of Ireland—a subject which had not been fairly brought forward at all this Session—would be in Committee on this Bill; and it was to be hoped the Government would provide that opportunity. If the noble Lord opposite would give some pledge to this effect, he thought it would be well to let the second reading take place.

said, he had been for a long time paying very close attention to two unions in his part of Ireland, and he found from his experience there that great economy in the administration of unions was perfectly practicable. At present, however, any efforts in this direction, as he had experienced, were thwarted by the commissioners themselves. For example, he had sent in a plan for reducing the salaries of the officers in the two unions to which he referred from 2,000l. per annum to 1,200l., the officers themselves being quite satisfied with the reduction; but the Commissioners had absolutely refused to abate one farthing of the amount. He hoped the measure before the House would not be delayed. The unions were in a perfect fix; the contractors would not go on supplying food, and the wretched paupers must inevitably perish unless immediate steps were taken.

said, that if the Government would give some pledge that a proper opportunity should be given for discussing the subject in Committee, it would be well to pass the second reading.

said, that certainly his own vote would depend upon such a pledge being given.

could only say, that if the House wished to delay the Bill, and to have a general discussion upon the affairs of Ireland, he was ready to bring on the next stage of the measure at an early hour of the evening, but he could not say that the evening of discussion itself would be, an early one. On the contrary, there were various measures left from last Session, which from the pressure of business had not as yet been proceeded with, but which must be taken, and he therefore could give no pledge as to the precise period at which the discussion now required could be entered upon.

begged to inform the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln that the returns to which he had previously referred had already been laid on the table of the House.

said they were not upon is table. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, that as the returns had been laid on the table, he thought, according to the usual course of procedure, that the Government should have caused them to be printed. He considered that the fact that those returns had not been printed was a very good reason for adjourning the further consideration of the Bill until the papers were in the hands of hon. Members.

said, that he had repeatedly asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury about these papers, as he was most anxious that they should be laid before the House; but he had not the least idea that they were already upon the table. He had, therefore, had no opportunity of moving that they be printed.

said, it was true that the hon. and gallant Member had repeatedly applied to him before Easter respect- ing the returns, but he was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had mentioned them subsequently. The returns in question were now upon the table; but it was not a matter of course that they should be printed.

said, that if the Bill was now read a second time the returns on the table could be printed; and if the House entered upon the further consideration of the measure at an early hour on some subsequent evening, a full opportunity would be afforded for discussing the whole question. Unless, however, the Bill was now read a second time, he could not say when it would be again brought before the House.

observed, that it was his impression that when papers having reference to a Government measure were moved for, the Government was responsible for their being printed. ["No, no!"] He believed that was the general usage. The Government had shown that they were aware of the importance of these papers by consenting to produce them, and it appeared that they contained information which Irish Members were most anxious, for the character of their country, to have published. He thought, therefore, that the House could not satisfactorily proceed with the discussion of the Bill until the papers were in the hands of Members, and he would vote for the adjournment.

said, that he believed some years ago the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had held an office connected with the Government in Ireland, and he had occupied a seat in that House for many years. He was, therefore, surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman maintain that papers moved for by an hon. Member must necessarily be printed by the Government without any specific Motion being made to that effect by the Member who required their production. He wished to have the decision of Mr. Speaker on this point, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether papers moved for by a private Member must necessarily be printed by the Government, without any Motion for their being printed?

said, that papers laid upon the table were referred to the Printing Committee, who decided whether they should be printed or not; but when any hon. Member wished to have particular papers printed, it was usual for him to express to the Printing Committee his wish that such papers should be printed.

considered that hon. Gentlemen who opposed the progress of the Bill were defeating their own object if they wanted to extract money from Ireland, because he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had postponed the repayment of advances until this measure was passed.

asked if he was to understand that the Irish people meant to pay us with our own money? The hon. Member for Ennis seemed to have made some mistake about his (Mr. Bankes's) having held an official situation in Ireland. He was not aware that he had done so, but, perhaps, it might appear in the papers that had been referred to.

begged pardon of the hon. Gentleman if he had made a mistake.

said, he would arrange that the next stage of this Bill should be taken at an early hour in the evening, when, the returns being in the hands of Members, a full discussion could take place. But if he was to understand that the intention was now to oppose the Bill by repeated Motions of adjournment, he would say, let a division take place, and let the real character of the opposition be seen.

had voted with the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln on the last division, because he understood that several Irish Members wished the debate to be adjourned; but as that did not seem to be the case, he would now support the noble Lord.