said: I rise to order, Mr. Speaker; and I rise to order upon this ground. As I understand from you, you have directed the hon. Member for the city of London to retire. He has taken the oaths at the table. [Loud cries from the Opposition of "No, no!"] He has taken the oaths at the table. ["No, no!"] He has, I repeat, taken the oaths at the table. If Gentlemen will hear what I am saying, they will hear me assert that the hon. Member has taken the oaths in that form and in those words which are most binding upon his conscience. The vote which the House came to last night expressly states that he should do so, as he had previously declared he would use such words as were binding upon his conscience. Having done that, he has complied with the requisition of the House, and therefore I object to his being directed to retire. I shall conclude by moving that the hon. Member do take his seat.

The hon. Member rose to order, and he cannot propose that Motion. I directed the hon. Member for the city of London to retire, because he did not take the words in the last oath which are prescribed by the Act of Parliament. I therefore desired the hon. Member to withdraw, in order that the House might come to a decision upon the case.

then moved—

"That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the City of London, having refused to take the Oaths prescribed by Law to be taken before a Member can sit and vote in this House, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of London, in the room of the said Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild."

seconded the Motion.

said: I do not know whether this is the proper time for me to move the resolutions of which I have given notice. I will not, of course, stand in the way of the business of the House; but I wish to know whether it is competent for me, upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, to move the two resolutions of which I gave notice last night.

Do I understand that the Motion for a new writ is seconded?

Yes, I had the honour of seconding it.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon has moved for a new writ for the city of London, and he has not vouchsafed to state to the House any reasons for the Motion. I shall take leave to move an Amendment before I sit down—that the seat of the hon. Member is full. I apprehend that this is a question which is of extremely deep importance to the privileges of this House, and one which not only concerns the privileges of the House, but concerns most deeply the country at large, and the rights and privileges of the electors of this kingdom. Sir, the electors of London have, I think, shown exemplary forbearance throughout the whole of this matter. It has been no wish of theirs to try the question in any way which would subject the House to that which seems to be more dreaded than, I confess, I think the House of Commons ought to dread it—the possibility of a difference of opinion between this House and any of the courts of law. The electors of London were quite satisfied so long as they were convinced that there was an intention to have the question fairly brought before the consideration of both Houses of Parliament. They were quite content not to insist upon a right which any party could question; but though they believed it to be their right to send Baron de Rothschild to this House, and though they believed it their right that he should take his seat in the mode in which we now insist he has taken his seat, yet they were perfectly ready to have the question removed from and placed beyond the possibility of all doubt, if there had been really any serious effort made to bring it to that issue. But, Sir, what has happened? A Bill was brought forward in the first instance, which would have removed and cleared away all doubts. It was passed by a large majority of this House, but it was rejected elsewhere. The Baron de Rothschild, with that straightforward conduct which he has pursued throughout, thought it right upon that decision to resign his seat into the hands of his constituents; he thought it right to lay the case again before the electors of the city of London, and to say to them, "You have elected a man as to whose power to take his seat it is said doubt exists, and an attempt has been made to clear it from all possibility of doubt; but that attempt having failed, I wish to know whether it be your intention to send me again as your representative, to contest the question?" The answer of the electors was, by an immense majority, in the affirmative, That being so, they waited patiently another year. In that year, another Bill was passed by a considerable majority through this House; but it was again rejected. The electors waited, perhaps, too patiently, for this third year. In the mean time, some facts had transpired with regard to the admission in a much stronger case, as I shall demonstrate before I sit down—the admission of Mr. Pease to sit in this House without taking the prescribed oaths. The circumstances of that case had only recently transpired, because unfortunately the records of them were burnt or destroyed during the fire which consumed the Houses of Parliament; and consequently full information of them only accidentally oozed out at the beginning of this year. Upon that information being obtained, it struck me, and it struck others also, who were competent to advise upon the subject, but who were not under the same influences that Members holding seats in this House might be, but who could give calm and deliberate counsel, that there were most important features in that case which deserved to be sifted and investigated as forming a precedent. I, therefore, as an elector of the city of London, moved for a Committee in order to obtain all the information and light which could be afforded upon the subject. In the course of that investigation I was precluded—and I complain of it in no way whatever—from offering in the report a single observation upon any of the facts that might be obtained. The report, therefore, I admit seems to be a not easily intelligible report; still it is intelligible to those who can give calm and continued attention to the subject, though it is not easily intelligible, from there being no less than some seven or eight and twenty Acts of Parliament bearing upon the point. Mr. Pease's case was investigated; and I shall be able to show the House from the report of that case, that under the existing state of the law, the House is not called upon to take any active steps in this matter as they did in Mr. Pease's case, but that, by what has taken place here now, the oath has been duly taken, and that whether duly taken or not, the seat is unquestionably not vacant. There are two points which the House will bear in mind—namely, that it is one thing to determine that the oath has been duly taken, and another that the seat is vacant. As I have already said, a Bill was brought into the House upon this report; and again relying upon the same forbearance of the electors of London, we have shown no anxiety whatever to precipitate the House into a collision either with the other House on the one hand, or with any court of law upon the other. They (the electors of London) are persons who have all along, as a body of electors, been distinguished and remarkable for their calmness. No body of electors in the kingdom have shown themselves more remarkable in this respect. But when they found, at the close of the Session, that the Bill which would solve and settle the question was about to be withdrawn, it was impossible the electors of London could remain in such a position during the whole of the third Session without bringing the case to a distinct issue. I am sorry to be obliged to enter into a legal argument, for it is always an irksome task; but I hope to be able to place the case in such a clear and distinct point of view that I think I shall carry some hon. Members with me from the opposite side, and I do not despair even of the noble Lord, who pronounced an opinion upon the subject before it was argued. I say I do not despair of carrying conviction to every mind, first, that this oath has to every intent and purpose been properly taken; but, secondly, if that be not perfectly established to the satisfaction of every Member of the House, that, upon the statutes, there is no vacancy in the seat. In order to arrive at this we must first of all divide the oaths into two distinct classes; and I will take the second point first—that with regard to the alleged vacancy in the seat—because it will place the House in the position of seeing how much they will be conceding if the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon be agreed to. The oaths must be divided into two classes with regard to this question, namely, those of allegiance and supremacy on the one hand, and that of abjuration on the other. By the statute 30th Charles II., the penalties were enacted which now regulate the oaths of supremacy and allegiance; that is to say, they are regulated by reference to the Act 30th Charles II. in this way. The statute 30th Charles II., directs the oaths to be solemnly taken at the table. The 1st William and Mary, c. l, repeals in words the Act 30th Charles II., but re-enacts it to the extent of the penalties by saying that these two oaths should be taken under the penalties of the statute of Charles II. These penalties are clearly and distinctly stated. If those oaths had not been taken, it is clear the seat would be absolutely va- cant. But nobody has any doubt but that the two oaths in question have been properly taken. I need not argue that, for they were sworn to in the mode directed by the House. Now the penalty, if they had not been taken (page 6, Report), was, that the party not taking them, should be disabled to sit and vote in the House of Commons. He should "be deemed and adjudged a Popish recusant convict," and "disabled from sitting and voting in the House of Commons, then and in every such case without any conviction or other proceedings;" and "the place or places for which they or any of them were elected is hereby declared void; and a new writ or writs shall issue out of the High Court of Chancery by warrant or warrants from the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being." Mark how clear the Legislature is, when it is intended you should move for a new writ. It does two things. At first it declares that the seat shall be void as if the party had never been elected; and then it says that a new writ shall be moved for. But now comes the oath of abjuration; and with regard to this oath the case is remarkably different. In the first place, you have the 13th Wm. III., c. 6 (Report, page 11); and the penalties which that Act prescribes if the oath of abjuration be not taken, are, that "every person so offending shall from thenceforth be deemed and adjudged a Popish recusant convict to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall forfeit and suffer as a Popish recusant convict," and "shall be disabled from thenceforth to sit or vote in either House of Parliament." Let the House mark these words—" shall be disabled from henceforth to sit or vote in either House of Parliament." Upon these penalties I can quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon raising an argument—though not, in my judgment, a valid one—and saying that a Member who is disabled by statute is in the position of a Member whose seat is void; and that, therefore, a new writ must be moved. But the oath of abjuration, as settled by the Act of William, was altered by the Act 1st Geo. I., c. 13 (Report, page 16); and the difference is very remarkable. It is stated by the Committee, that by the 17th section—

"The penalties are precisely the same in respect of Peers or Members of the House of Commons not complying with the provisions of the Act, as those contained in 13th William III., c. 6, except that the declaration that the offender shall be deemed a Popish recusant convict, and shall forfeit and suffer as such, and shall be disabled from holding or executing any office or place of trust, civil or military, is omitted."

But I am obliged to plead guilty to an omission from the report here, for there was another important variation. The Act of George omits the disability to sit and vote in Parliament. The House will find an important difference between the 17th section of it and the Act of William. The 17th section says that "any such person so offending shall be disabled," and so on; but it leaves out the words "disabled to sit and vote in Parliament." The House will see how strong this is with regard to the seat being void. You have it in the Statute of Charles, that if the party do not take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy he forfeits his seat; it is void, and a new writ may be moved for. When we come to the oath of abjuration in William's Act—and recollect this Act was passed at a time when a single vote might have been of the greatest consequence, for William was then upon his deathbed—it was thought necessary by Parliament to say, that persons refusing to take it should be disabled to sit and vote; from which it might be arguable that a new writ should be moved. But when you come to the Act of George I., when Parliament reconsidered the whole question, they deliberately omitted this disqualification. They came to a deliberate conclusion, that the party should not be so disabled and disqualified. They altered the oath. The old penalties therefore could not apply. They enacted a new oath, and rejected several of the former penalties. They rejected the penalties attaching to Popish recusant convicts—the disability for civil and military office, and disability to sit and vote. I say, therefore, that the oath of abjuration, as it has been taken by the hon. Member, does not disqualify him from sitting and voting in this House. He may be subject to penalties for sitting and voting, which any man may be entitled to recover, though I would not recommend any one to try the question in a court of law, but unquestionably he is not debarred from sitting and voting. I say, then, that this is tantamount to a legislative declaration that the Baron de Rothschild is not disabled from sitting and voting. I have now dealt with the question as to the new writ; and I will proceed to deal with my Amendment, that the seat is full. The question arises in this manner. Has the hon. Member for the city of London taken the oath of abjuration or not? The whole question, I apprehend, will turn mainly upon, this—whether these words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," are a portion of the adjuration or the invocation by which he sanctifies the oath, or whether they are a declaration and statement of Christian faith contained in the body of the oath. If they be words of adjuration, I have already shown the House, in the debate yesterday, and I shall only refer to it now, the universal concurrence of jurists of every country, beginning with the Digest, that when an oath is taken the only question is, not how it is sworn, but whether the thing be sworn or not. That is the principle contained in the declaratory Act at the end of the report; and the questions you have to ask are, has an oath been taken, and has it been taken with a solemnity that binds the party? If it has, then, to all intents and purposes, it is sufficiently well taken. Just let the House mark the case of the Quakers; for that will show most distinctly and plainly that these words are not part of the oath by legislative declaration, and that they are not in any sense the thing the man swears to, but the mode the man swears by. That is in substance my proposition. You must distinguish the two parts of an oath into what the man swears to, and what he swears by. But just see how the case stands with regard to the Quakers. It is this—you first of all had the general statute of 7th and 8th William and Mary. c. 34 (Report, p. 9), which is—

"An Act that the solemn Affirmation and Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an oath in the usual form."

After reciting that

"Divers Dissenters, commonly called Quakers, refusing to take an oath in courts of justice and other places, are frequently imprisoned, and their estates sequestered by process of contempt issuing out of such courts, to the ruin of themselves and families,"

It enacts that, after a given day—

"Every Quaker who shall be required upon any lawful occasion to take an oath in any case where by law an oath is required, shall, instead of the usual form, be permitted to take his or her solemn affirmation or declaration:"

Which said

"Solemn affirmation and declaration shall be adjudged and declared to be of the same force and effect as if such Quaker had taken an oath in the usual form."

Now, let the House pause here. Just see what you have done by this Act. You had taken this step, that whereas an oath had always hitherto been required, you indulged this sect with the peculiarity of permitting them to make affirmation instead of an oath. All the Act could do was this—it could only excuse them from "swearing" to anything in the oath contained. It is impossible to say the Act would justify a Quaker in omitting any part of the substance of the oath; it could only justify him in making a declaration in lieu of the oath, just as the common law allows Jews to swear in courts of justice in their own particular form in the place of the ordinary oath. You then come to an Act of Anne, which is of considerable importance. It is the Act 6th Anne, c. 23. This was an Act solely relating to a special case. It related entirely to Scotland. It was only to relieve the Quakers in a special case; and it enacted that the oath of abjuration should be taken with regard to certain matters in Scotland. Then comes the clause relating to Quakers—

"That any person who shall refuse to take the oath hereinbefore recited, or, being a Quaker, shall refuse to declare the effect thereof upon his solemn affirmation, as directed by the Act of William, he shall not be capable of giving any vote for the election of any Member to serve in the House of Commons, for any place in Great Britain"

How then does the case stand here? So far as I have gone, the Quaker would be precisely in the situation of Baron de Rothschild. There is the oath of abjuration, and there is an Act of William III., saying he may make affirmation instead of swearing, just as Baron de Rothschild wishes to swear in one form rather than other. The Act of Anne does not say the Quaker may omit a single syllable, but that he shall declare the effect of the oath. What then follows? Why, that if the oath be carefully looked to, we find not only the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," but also in the middle, several times, the words "I swear." It was natural, then, there should be some doubt as to the best way of taking the declaration of its effect by a Quaker; and it was necessary to deal with the difficulty. Then came the statute of the 1st George I (following that of Anne) c 6, which said that several disputes had arisen concerning the effect of the abjuration to be taken by the people called Quakers upon their solemn affirmation as directed by the Act of Anne; and for preventing the like inconveniences in future, it enacted—

"That in all cases, wherever the effect of the said abjuration oath may be legally tendered or required of the said people called Quakers, or any of them, he or they shall take the effect thereof in the following words."

The form is then given, and it concludes with these words:—

"And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, renunciation, and promise, heartily, wilfully and truly, omitting the words 'upon the true faith of a Christian.'"

We have here, then, a distinct legislative declaration upon the subject I set out with. I asserted that the whole effect and substance of the oath is embodied in the oath without the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." You have the thing to be sworn to distinguished from what it is sworn by. So says the Legislature. So does the Legislature clear all doubts. The Quaker does not use these words. But why was the Quaker excused from using them? Unless they were words he swore by, he had no pretext for being excused, nor had he the slightest pretence for omitting them. Therefore, if to affirm on the true faith of a Christian was objected to by Quakers, and that was not held an essential part of the substance of the oath, it was clear that they were free to except those words, and that by excepting those words they got rid of the difficulty. The Legislature said, "We will split the oath into two—the thing to be sworn to, and the thing to be sworn by; we will excuse the Quaker from swearing, because he says he won't; we will make him however affirm the substance of the oath, and adhere to it like anybody else." If the thing stood there, I say it would be utterly beyond all cavil or dispute; if it rested there, it would be unquestionable that those words were words of adjuration, and did not affect the other part of the oath, which contains its whole substance and effect. I will go on now to see how you dealt with the case of Mr. Pease, arising under the state of things which I have just described. Up to this moment you had, after all, only the Act, which said that difficulties had arisen under the Act passed in the 6th year of Queen Anne—a local Act referring to certain transactions in Scotland—which difficulties were cleared away by a special statute. But afterwards the Legislature was obliged to enact a new affirmation for Quakers, and for this reason: The Quakers, very naturally, were not altogether pleased with that form which the Act of William III. provided; it began by declaring, "in the presence of Almighty God." The Quakers did not like that form, it seemed to them some- thing like an oath; and accordingly you will find that in the reign of George I. they obtained relief from that particular difficulty by an Act which not only removed that difficulty, but went on to relieve them from any other difficulties that might occur—I mean the Act of 8th George I. c. 6. Some reliance was placed on that Act in Mr. Pease's case; but it will be found that it by no means clears away any difficulties that arose therein. It is called an Act for relieving the people called Quakers from any difficulties in taking oaths in cases where oaths are by law to be taken. It recites the form of abjuration laid down in the statute of William III., the inconveniencies that had been found to arise respecting its use, and says—

"Whereas the inconveniencies experienced by the people called Quakers in taking declarations are not sufficiently removed, be it enacted that in all cases where by law any Quaker is required to subscribe the declaration of fidelity in the form mentioned in the Act of the 1st year of His present Majesty, or to make a solemn declaration or adjuration in the form provided by the Act of the 7th and 8th of William III., or to take the abjuration oath in the manner prescribed by the Act passed in the 1st year of His Majesty's reign"—

Here I will pause to observe that that Act only remedied a special grievance which subsisted under the Act passed in the 6th year of Queen Anne, and it says—

"That in order to avoid the difficulties that have arisen under the Act for remedying this grievance, the Quaker, when he is required to take the oath of abjuration, shall take this form, instead of the form prescribed by the Act 1st George I."

The words of the form there given differs from the words given in the Act of William, but still they do not contain the words, "on the true faith of a Christian;" another proof that the substance of the oath is not affected by those words. But in Pease's case you did not stand on the Act of the 6th year of Queen Anne, nor even on the statute of George I.; you stood on an abjuration oath totally different in form prescribed by the Act 6th George III. c. 23. When Mr. Pease came to the table to be sworn, his abjuration could not be that provided by the statute of George I., because that form spoke of different things from those mentioned in the Act 6th George III. It spoke of the Pretender James, and the dangers arising from his machinations, and on account of this, the Act 6th George III. was passed, totally altering the form. When Mr. Pease came up to the table, you could not point to any form of words enabling you to dispense with the oath, except that of the Act George I.; and since that gave you a totally different form, not corresponding with the form in the Act 6th George III., it was impossible for Mr. Pease to take his scat, unless you went back to the old Acts, which said generally that Quakers may affirm instead of swearing. I do not complain of the decision in Mr. Pease's case; I argue on the assumption that it was right; but I say that that being right, it is impossible for the House to escape the conclusion that the oaths have been taken in this case. When Mr. Pease came to the table, he could not show in the Statute-book any form of declaration verbally and identically the same with that he wished to make, and which he ultimately did make. He could only show the old declaration of the statute of George I., which was totally inapplicable to the then state of things, and he relied on the general principle that Quakers may affirm, and are excused from swearing, and that not by the words of the Acts, but because, from the force and analogy of the Acts, they may be allowed to affirm instead of swearing. Upon that principle alone, I contend, this House proceeded, and seated Mr. Pease. We have Mr. Pease's evidence before the Committee that a new form of declaration was prepared for him, a totally new form. That is most important when you look to the form which Baron de Rothschild has now subscribed at the table of the House. Mr. Pease came to the table of the House in virtue of a resolution passed by the House not turning on any special form, which was this:—

"That it appears to this House that Mr. Pease is entitled to take his seat on making a solemn declaration and affirmation to the effect of the oath directed to be taken."

There was no law whatever which allowed the House to do that, unless you reasoned thus: "Quakers are allowed to affirm instead of swearing; 'upon the true faith of a Christian' is swearing; they, therefore, may be allowed to take the oath of abjuration without those words, on the true faith of a Christian;' they may take the effect and whole substance of it, and if they do that, they are within the statutes which enable them to take the effect and substance." Well, the resolution I have read was passed by this House. Now, I say, that is the; whole question. The whole question we have to argue is this, has Baron de Rothschild sworn the oath? I say the oath; a Quaker was obliged to affirm the substance of the oath—he had only liberty to escape from swearing; and, therefore, because he might escape from swearing, he was allowed to escape taking the words "on the true faith of a Christian." But Baron de Rothschild says, "I wish to take the oaths on the Old Testament;" the House says, "You have a right to swear on the Old Testament;" he then says, "Those words are not binding on me, and are not part of my mode of swearing; they are not binding on me, but I have done all that the Quaker has done, and more, yet you have given the Quaker greater liberty than me. Put me in the position of the Quaker to this extent; you let the Quaker affirm, and by your statutes and resolutions doing that, you have told us what affirmation is and what swearing is; you have told us that 'on the true faith of a Christian' is a form of swearing, and all that I ask is not to be called upon to swear in a form of words which is not applicable to my case." It has already been shown, by the constant dictate of all the celebrated authorities from Augustine downwards, as well as from the solemn judicial decision of Lord Hardwicke in the case of Omychund and Barker, which has ever since been held sound law, that all you have to require from a man who comes to be sworn is, that he shall be sworn by an oath attesting the existence of a Deity who will avenge the falsehood if he shall swear falsely. Every lawyer is aware that you are not even allowed to ask a man whether he is a Christian, or whether he believes the Gospels. The only questions you are permitted to ask arc, "Do you believe in a God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments?" When you find, then, words from which you have liberated the Quaker, simply because they constituted a form in which he refused to pledge himself by oath, you cannot refuse the Jew who has taken the oath omitting simply those words of adjuration. Now, we come to the declaratory statute of Victoria, which really only enounces what was the common system of jurisprudence all over Europe, and what was the common system of jurisprudence in this country. What was this? That in all cases where an oath may be lawfully administered to any man, whether as a juryman or a witness, or on his appointment to any office, or on any occasion whatever, such person is bound by the oath so administered if administered in such a form as he declares to be binding upon his conscience. Now, Baron de Rothschild has taken the oath in the form and with the ceremony which he declares to be binding upon his conscience. The House is now in a stronger position than that in which it stood in Mr. Pease's case. In that case too it might apprehend, as here, some danger of that so-much dreaded conflict with authorities out of doors. They might do so, but they were not deterred by it; they boldly did what they thought right in Mr. Pease's case, and seated the Member returned by the constituent body. What was this dreaded contingency? Does it not present itself in an hundred cases? A gentleman is petitioned against for being a contractor; the House determines he is not; but yet he may be sued, and he is liable by statute to a penalty of 400l. or 500l. if he sits, being a contractor. The court of law is not bound by the decision of the House on the case, and so the contingency occurs immediately. I say that this is a danger which cannot be avoided, when the Legislature enacts matters which concern this House and the public, and on which it is necessary for the House and for the ordinary judicatures to come to a conclusion. The House must take upon itself to decide the matter one way or the other, and ought to do it, I submit, quite irrespectively of what may be the ultimate decision of a court of law on the subject, of course endeavouring to decide it according to law, but not having any fear or dread of doing that which they conceive to be consistent with law and with the justice of the case. But the argument of those who oppose Baron de Rothschild's claim is this; they say that the Act 6th George III., under which the oath of abjuration is now administered, enacts that the oath shall be administered henceforth (abrogating the statute of George I.) in such form and manner as hereinafter set forth; and it is said that "form and manner" means totidem verbis. But those who maintain this are in a great difficulty. We do not swear to obey King George III., which is the form in the Act; we none of us swear to that; we swear to obey Queen Victoria. It is remarkable that in the courts of law this change was simply the act of the administering officer; but this House was not quite so easy. This House, on the accession of Anne, appointed a Committee to say how they were to deal with the oaths prescribed to be taken by the statutes of William III. That Committee recommended very large and extensive alterations in the oaths, all of which alterations simply came to this—that the oaths are to be administered mutatis mutandis. But if the oaths are to be administered mutatis mutandis, we get out of the otherwise insurmountable difficulty which embarrasses those who hold that they are to be administered totidem verbis. Mutatis mutandis, I say, can only mean, changing that which the nature and reason of the thing requires you to change. The nature and reason of the thing requires you to change the name of the existing Sovereign; in the same manner the nature and reason of the thing requires you, when you are swearing a Jew, to omit the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." Is there any one who can be absurd enough to defend a position so preposterous as that you should ask a Jew to be sworn "on the true faith of a Christian?" Baron de Rothschild has sworn on the Old Testament, as he was most properly allowed to do; and a now case having arisen, are we to be told that the House may not act as circumstances require? Lord Hardwicke had none of these scruples; he dashed out with one stroke of his pen the words "upon the Holy Gospels," and substituted "in such manner as the witness shall acknowledge binding." We have an over-scrupulous nicety prevailing in this House, I have observed, much beyond what prevails in courts of law, in which hon. Members have got an erroneous notion that niceties and refinements are carried to an extravagant decree of technicality. The consequence is, that when legal questions come before Local Committees, there is a reverence for technicalities far exceeding what prevails in any court of law. As the Chief Baron says, in Omychund v. Barker, "when a court finds anything positively and precisely laid down by the existing law, it must decide precisely according to the existing law; but if it finds a doubt existing, or a new case arising, it has recourse to the fountains of law, the principles of reason and common sense." The courts of law continually deal even with statutes in this way. There was a statute—now repealed—with respect to wills, enacting, in the most positive terms, that every person to whom a legacy was given, and who should be a witness, should have the will declared void as respected him, without any exception whatever. The courts of law, in examining the statute, asked what was the reason of it? The ground was, to prevent inconvenience of wills relating to real property being set aside, by a small legacy to any of the witnesses rendering them incompetent as parties interested; tin-Legislature said, in order to prevent the enormous inconvenience of everybody thus losing the whole property to which he is entitled under the will, we will take away the individual's property in the legacy, and then he will be an unexceptionable witness. But a case arose of a will of personal estate, and the courts of law pronounced the rule inapplicable to this class of cases, and said that the parties should have their legacies notwithstanding the words of the statute were general. That is the way in which, as I wish the House to see, the courts act, on the common sense and reason of the thing when a doubtful point arises. Well, suppose this case then to come before a court of law—they find the words, "on the true faith of a Christian" in the oath; a Jew has refused to take the oath in that form, but he has taken it in his own. They will ask, what was the occasion of this law? Was it levelled at the Jews? Why, no; they look at the meaning of an Act, and in order to discover the true meaning of an Act, and construe it properly, I admit you cannot go out of it; you have no business with anything extrinsical. You must look then at its contents; and you find that if the Jew does not take the oath in this manner and form, the Act pronounces him a "Popish recusant convict." I say, then, that any court of law in England would be perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that in that state of things this Act was not levelled at the Jews. They would say, "it is impossible that the Legislature can turn a Jew into a Popish recusant." But the matter does not rest hero. The court has to look to the inconveniences which may arise in the execution of the Act; and there is one monstrous inconvenience which would arise under the Act of George III., which contains penalties against all those who refuse to take the oath of abjuration. In the 5th section we find that any two magistrates have a right to go into the house of any person in the kingdom whom they conceive to be disaffected, and tender the oath of abjuration; if he refuse it, he is again a Popish recusant convict. Can we conceive that the Legislature intended that any two magistrates might go to a Chartist meeting, select a Jew, and say to him—"Take the oath of abjuration wholly and entirely; if you do not, you are a Popish recusant convict, and shall be dealt with accordingly." When the Judge came to look at the Act, he would say it was nonsense to pretend that there was any intention of applying it, to a Jew. If that is so, let us see if there is anything else in the Act requiring the oath to be taken on the true faith of a Christian. The Act says it should be taken "in the manner and form following;" but then you have the statute of Victoria, declaring that any person taking the oath in the manner which he declares to be binding upon his conscience shall be held to have taken it in the true manner and form. Then the only difference between us can be this—is the portion we call the form contained in the words "the true faith of a Christian," any more than can be said to be contained in I the words "the holy gospels," or in the ceremony of kissing the book? I have dwelt on this previously, and there is no occasion to re-argue the point. It appears to me, that any court of justice in the kingdom, going through the whole Act, and construing its sense fairly, finding that if it was levelled at any particular class, that class could not be Jews, and that a certain class of religionists, the Quakers, had been exempted from its operation on the ground of its being an oath, and permitted to give their affirmation instead—finding, also, that an individual had taken the oath in the manner he declared binding on his conscience, and therefore had taken the oath fully in the manner required by law must find in consequence that Baron de Rothschild had been sworn to the complete effect and substance of the oath. No court in the world could hold that he was liable to the penalties provided for breaking it. I now come to the argument which is, I believe, the only one that can be said to have any shadow of weight in it, and it is but a shadow. Our opponents say the Legislature has thought fit, on two occasions, expressly to enact that the Jews shall have this oath administered to them without the I words "on the true faith of a Christian;" and they add, if the Legislature has so enacted in two cases, it is necessary to enact similarly in every case; and if so, you cannot get rid of the difficulty without another Act. Those two Acts are, first, the 10th Geo. I., obliging all persons being Papists to register their names and real estates, and to take the oath of abjuration under penalty of forfeiting their estates; this Act says, that to persons professing the Jewish religion, the oath shall be ad- ministered, omitting the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in like manner as Jews are sworn in courts of justice. This Act does not at all show that these words are not words of adjuration. I can well understand, however, that the courts might at this period have had some difficulty in such a case; for the great case of Omychund and Barker had not yet occurred, by which it was decided that oaths were to he administered to every one according to the form of their religion, and it was therefore quite right that those doubts should be cleared away. The other Act is the 13th of Geo. II., passed after the argument in that case, and it is remarkable that this Act does not take upon itself to say positively that the Jews cannot take the oath. It is an Act for naturalising foreign Protestants and others; and the third section says that, whereas the words, "on the true faith of a Christian" are contained in the latter part of the oath, and whereas persons professing the Jewish religion may be prevented from taking the oath, &c.—observe, "may." It does not say that they will or must be so prevented, but suggests a doubt that they may be, and thereupon proceeds to point out how the difficulty is to be removed. The plain and clear sense is, that the oath is to be administered in the form which Jews admit to be binding. Hon. Members will find that Acts of Parliament very commonly enact much of that which is already law. Here you have only a prima facie case, suggested at a time when the matter was not settled, and the principles of law not so clearly understood as now; and after all, the Act only says, that the Jews may be prevented from taking the oath. Let us assume for a moment that this is the argument. If you find an Act of Parliament enacting that such and such a state of things should be law, and not a declaratory law, you assume that the law must have been different prior to the passing of the Act. Where would the House have stood in Mr. Pease's case? There was an Act passed afterwards, saying that the oath was to be taken in the very way in which Mr. Pease had already taken it, yet it was not declaratory. According to the argument I am supposing, before you passed that Act, the Quakers could not affirm the effect of the oath in the way Mr. Pease did affirm it. And yet Mr. Pease did so affirm, and the House allowed it. Just so in this case, according to the argument I am supposing, we find an Act of Parliament saying that the Jews may take the oath in a particular way; therefore we are asked to presume that they could not take it in that way before the Act passed. So much then for the apprehension of conflict between this House and some of the lower courts of jurisdiction. If you say that a man is to be deprived of the rights and privileges to which he is entitled by virtue of some doubtful Act of Parliament which may be thought inconsistent with them, I say that in Mr. Pease's case you had virtually no foundation to go upon when you determined that he should take his seat. But the truth is, you acted rightly in Pease's case. You acted upon a general principle there, and the case is most important. It is a very solemn duty we have now to perform. We are about to exclude a gentleman who, by the resolution we have already passed, is declared to have a clear and distinct right to his seat—who has been elected twice by one of the first constituencies of the kingdom, and who is admitted to be in every respect qualified as a representative; and to exclude him upon the narrowest technicality which the mind of man can conceive. I deny that there being a statute which introduces into an oath the words "on the true faith of a Christian," following in the wake of an old statute of King James for the suppression of Popery, and declaring that persons refusing the oath are Popish recusants, any court of law in the kingdom would say that the Act had any application whatever to such a case as that before us. I feel very great confidence that the only conclusion to which a court of law must come would be, that the oath must be taken in its full substance and effect; that Baron de Rothschild has been sworn in the form most binding upon his conscience; that he has, therefore, taken the oath in a legal manner, and is bound by it. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has said that the House must not take upon itself any dispensing power. The courts do not take upon themselves any dispensing power, but they act with large liberality in the construction both of common and statute law. The courts of common law got rid of the statute of Edward I. regarding entails, by their systems of fines and recoveries. In the case of Omychund and Barker, they got rid of a common-law writ which had existed for centuries; they got rid of the difficulties arising from the state of the law as to legacies. The courts of law look to the substance and true meaning of the Act, and are not to be diverted from giving it effect by miserable technicalities. When a party comes to be sued for pecuniary or other penalties, they will view the Act in the strictest possible way, examine every clause and every word, and rule every point favourably to the defendant. In this case, then, the courts would strain every point not against but for Baron de Rothschild. Here, in this House, the penalty is that of forfeiting the immense privilege of representing the electors of the metropolis. The person elected bears in himself the rights and privileges of that great body of electors, and we are bound, therefore, to give the Act the fairest and most reasonable construction. It is impossible for you, then—for the reasons I urged at the commencement of my address—to accede to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, which states that the seat is void. But I go beyond that, and say that you must accede to the proposition I have made, because, upon the whole effect of the statutes, and upon a liberal construction of them, the only question that arises is, "Has the Crown preserved to itself the security which those Acts were intended to give it?" All that you want is, that the succession to the Crown, which those Acts were passed to strengthen, should remain in unshaken security. Baron de Rothschild has taken the oaths in the manner which the Act of Victoria directs—the manner most binding on him in conscience and honour; he is willing to assent to the full protection which the Legislature declared the Crown should have, and which we all have a right to have against any invasion of our liberties by a pretender to the Crown. I ask you then to say, whether the whole effect and substance of the oath has not been adhered to in this instance, as required by law, and whether Baron de Rothschild is not entitled to take his seat.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he would express as shortly and distinctly as he could the views he had formed upon this subject. He had endeavoured to divest himself of every wish, of every feeling, he had previously entertained upon this question. The House was aware that on every occasion when the question came before the House, he had voted for the admission of the Jews, he had expressed his opinion in favour of their admission, and his intention to do everything he could in order to obtain for them admission. But, on the present occasion, he felt that he was bound to discard, as far as possible, every feeling of that description; the functions which the House had to discharge now being of a purely judicial character—not of a quasi judicial character, but of a purely judicial character, and nothing else. He expressed himself thus strongly, because it was impossible not to perceive—as it was perhaps impossible that there should not exist—a strong degree of personal feeling on both sides, whether the hon. Member for the city of London should be allowed to take his seat in that House. The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon had moved that a new writ should issue for the city of London; but he must say that he entertained some doubts whether that was the right course to pursue, even assuming that his hon. and learned Friend's view of the case was the correct one. He could not doubt that the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford was right, if it were once admitted that the view he had taken of the case was correct, In reference to this part of the case, they would perhaps permit him to refer to the case of Mr. O'Connell. He admitted that there was some difference between the cases, but still they were sufficiently similar for his purpose, Mr. O'Connell was called in on the Friday, and asked if he would take the oaths. He stated that he was content to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, but that he could not take the oath of supremacy. Thereupon the debate was adjourned, and on the following Monday, Mr. O'Connell was heard at the bar of the House. On the following day he was again called to the bar. The Speaker asked him if he was willing to take the oath. On his refusal, a resolution was come to that he was not entitled to sit in the House unless he took the oaths, and therefore that a new writ should issue. Now, it appeared to him that there was some distinction between that case and the present, because the hon. Member for the city of London had not refused to take any oath, but contended that he had taken the oaths in the form most binding on his conscience; but if the House should be of opinion that he had not taken the oaths in the form prescribed by law, still he was of opinion that, as in the case of O'Connell, he should be again called in, and that Mr. Speaker should again ask him if he still refused to take the oaths. If it was quite certain that the Member for the city of London would refuse to take the oath in any other form, then that proceeding would be superfluous; and if the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon should meet the concurrence of the House, then his Motion would follow. With respect to the question, he had come to a conclusion which was a very painful one to him; but he felt that, if he were sitting as a judge solemnly to decide the case under the obligation of an oath in such a manner as to administer substantial justice to both parties, he could not say that the hon. Member for the city of London had taken the oaths. He had listened with the greatest interest and pleasure to, he must say, the able legal argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford; and knowing, as he (the Attorney General) did, the sincerity and earnestness of his mind, it was with great regret he felt constrained to say that his hon. and learned Friend's arguments had not produced any effect upon his mind, and he would state his reasons very shortly; for really what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon had stated, taken with what his noble Friend at the head of the Government said yesterday, seemed to him to contain the substance of the whole argument. Here was a statute which prescribed an oath to be taken. Could they tamper with that statute—could they say that there was any part of the oath which was not of the substance of the oath—could they say, when they had an oath in which there was the common abjuration at the end, "So help me God"—could they say that the clause previous to that, "on the true faith of a Christian," meant the same thing, and was to be treated simply as a synonymous expression, and might therefore be dispensed with and struck out? He must say he was not able to come to that conclusion; and though a great deal of ingenuity had been expended upon the point by his hon. and learned Friend, nothing that he had alleged was, in his view, able to get over the plain and commonsense meaning of the statute. Here was an oath which was to be taken in certain set words—it was a statute they were bound to obey. They had not the power to vary it. That was really, as it appeared to him, the substantial argument in favour of the view of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon; and he could not get over it, nor would he weary the House with more than one or two additional grounds which appeared to him to strengthen this view of the case. It appeared to him to be a dangerous doctrine to hold that a particular set of words were merely in the form of abjuration, and might be got rid of as something distinct or different from the oath itself. And with relation to the present case, he thought that view was overruled by the two statutes 10th George I. and 13th George II. These statutes referred to oaths which in certain circumstances were to be taken by Jews; and as it was admitted that no Jew could take an oath containing the words "on the true faith of a Christian," the statutes went to alter the form of the oath by omitting these words, in order that they might take it. This was not a declaratory statute, as his hon. and learned Friend had attempted to show; it was in terms an express and distinct enacting statute. Then how could it be said that in the present case the Legislature had put words into an oath which might be dispensed with, when in another and analogous case it was held that these words could not be dispensed with without an Act of the Legislature? He would now refer to the case of Mr. Pease, and see how it stood. Mr. Pease's case did not appear very distinct, but he would assume that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were omitted—[Mr. B. OSBORNE: Mr. Pease himself says they were.] He would admit that; but it undoubtedly formed no part of the decision of Parliament. The only thing decided by Parliament was, that he should take an affirmation instead of an oath. It was notorious to Parliament, and it was notorious to the whole world, that a Quaker was a Christian. The question never rose, whether Mr. Pease was to be treated as a Christian. It was true he objected to the words "on the true faith of a Christian," because there was something in them of the form of an abjuration, and he objected to them as he would have objected to the words—"on the true faith of a gentleman." But if the question had been raised, and if it had been stated that he must necessarily affirm that he was a Christian, Mr. Pease would not have had the slightest hesitation to affirm that he was so. Then, he must say, that the observations of his hon. and learned Friend on the 3rd and 4th William IV., instead of assisting the present question, really appeared to have a contrary tendency, because it would appear from that Act as if Parliament had doubted whether it had acted correctly; and in order to set at rest all doubts and disputes on that point, Parliament passed, not a declaratory but an enacting statute. There could be no doubt that if Baron de Rothschild were now allowed to take his seat, and an Act analogous to that of the 3rd and 4th William IV. were afterwards passed, all doubts on that particular case would be removed. He must, therefore, state that Mr. Pease's case was not conclusive on the present occasion; but even if it were considered to be strictly analogous to the present case; would it be contended that it clearly appeared—seeing Parliament had itself passed an Act to correct any errors it might have fallen into on that occasion—that that was a precedent fit and proper for the House to follow? To him it appeared to amount to no more than this—that no decision of this House could enable them to dispense with the Act of Parliament. He would now refer to another Act, which had been much quoted, the 1st I and 2nd Vict., which enacted that in all cases where an oath is taken in the form most binding on the conscience, such oath shall be held valid and binding. Now, as his noble Friend stated yesterday, that Act referred to courts of law; but there was nothing in the Act which enabled them to administer an oath, the terms of which were prescribed, in a manner different from that in which it was prescribed; all that it really amounted to was only this, that when an oath was taken in a particular form, the person taking it should be liable to all the consequences as if he had taken it in the usual manner. Therefore, on looking to this Act most attentively, he must say he failed to observe anything in it which compelled the House to administer the oath, or enabled the Member for the city of London to take it in the form he desired. He could not fail to the struck with the fact that a great part of his hon. and learned Friend's argument went to this, that the oaths were of no avail, for he asserted that the oath of allegiance was covered by the oath of fidelity, and that the oath of abjuration was unnecessary, for there was nobody to abjure. But the proper course, when an oath encumbered the Statute-book, was to remove it. But that House had not of itself power to say that this was a useless oath, and therefore they might dispense with it. He must say he felt strongly upon this point, because let them observe the consequences. If they were to judge whether an oath was useless or not, that would absolutely be claiming a power in the House of Commons to dispense with any oath. The only safe way was not to look a bit beyond the letter of the statute. Undoubtedly there were a number of useless and evil laws which infested the Statute-book; nay, he might say they were not only useless but injurious; but it was not to be thought they could therefore dispense with them, he saw no middle course, therefore, between standing upon the exact words as imposed by statute, and coming to a dispensing power, which, carried out to its full extent, might enable them to abrogate all the laws of the realm. He was quite ready to admit that the observations of his hon. and learned Friend with respect to the courts of law, and the manner in which they had dealt with Acts of Parliament, were correct. But he could not say that the rules of the courts of law in that respect were worthy of their imitation. There were several cases in which the courts of law had, by a series of decisions, repealed Acts of Parliament. The Statute of Uses was absolutely repealed by a series of decisions in the courts of law, and so was the Statute of Frauds. But he conceived that that was not a wise course which the courts of justice should pursue. They were much stricter in modern times; and it was not a wise thing to allow courts of justice to dispense with Acts of Parliament; but, above all, it appeared to him that it was incumbent on this House of Parliament to keep strictly within the letter of a statute, which it was in its power at any time to remove, if it could obtain the assent of the other House and of the Crown. The most dangerous results would arise from any other course. Observe what Baron de Rothschild did with respect to the oath of abjuration. He took the oath in the regular manner till became to the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and then he stated he would omit those words because they were not binding on his conscience. But, was it not pos- sible that some other person might conscientiously omit some other part of the oath because it was not binding on his conscience? Was it not possible that other oaths or other parts might be omitted because the party considered that they were not binding on his conscience? He (the Attorney General) had voted that Baron de Rothschild should be at liberty to take the oaths in the manner that he considered binding on his conscience; but he did not then refer, nor did he consider it necessary to refer, to the nature of the oaths which he was about to take. He never intended to vote that Baron de Rothschild should constitute himself the judge as to what words he would omit as not binding on his conscience. For that he could not conscientiously vote according to the view he took of the case. It had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend, that, in point of fact, they did change the form of the oath; that the change was made from the words "Our Sovereign Lord King George," to "Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria." But he would really submit—and the matter was familiar to every lawyer—that that was no change at all. It might as well be said that there was a change in the oath because they inserted the name of the party taking it instead of the usual form, "I, A. B." Giving, therefore, the best attention to the subject that he possibly could, it did appear to him that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were a part of the oath to be taken, and that though it was partly of an abjuratory character, yet it was not the less a part of the oath which it was the duty of Members to take before they could take their seat in the House. His hon. and learned Friend had expressed surprise that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should have expressed an opinion upon this subject before he heard the argument. But his hon. and learned Friend was himself in the same situation—he had expressed an opinion before he heard the arguments; and the fact was, that every person must necessarily look into the case for himself—see what its bearings were, and then come to a conclusion. He had not hesitated to state the result to which he had come, liable no doubt to be altered by argument. He had listened with the greatest attention to what, he must say, was the ablest argument he had ever heard on this subject, from his hon. and learned Friend; but that argument had failed to remove from his mind the difficulties raised by what he might call the broad and common-sense view of the question. That though the Act might be useless—though it might be foolish—though it might be unnecessary—yet they could not, so long as it remained on the Statute-book, dispense with any portion of the oath which it presented. He believed that these words, "on the true faith of a Christian," were an essential part of the oath. ["Oh, oh!"] He was speaking simply in a judicial character, and he must say, conscientiously, that Baron de Rothschild had not taken the oaths in the form which was prescribed by the Act of Parliament, or in the manner which would qualify him to take his seat in that House.

said, that although he considered the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General both illogical and self-contradictory, he believed it to be the ablest that could be delivered on that side of the question. He believed, too, that it had been made with the view of giving some sort of justification to the indiscreet and unreasonable speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the previous day. His hon. and learned Friend, however, had forgotten one point, and had, in consequence, fallen into the very error of the noble Lord. He forcibly reminded the House that this was a judicial question. If so, why was it to be prejudged? Why was it made a Cabinet question? Why was the law officer of the Crown put forward to defend the course of the Prime Minister? Surely it would have been more seemly and decorous in hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench to have allowed the friends of Baron de Rothschild to have exhausted the arguments in support of his claim before they called upon a majority to disaffirm it; for no one could doubt, after the speech of the noble Lord the day before, and of the hon. and learned Attorney General that day, that such would be the course pursued. He protested against this prejudging of a judicial question. The speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was no reply to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. He contented himself with the sic volo sic jubeo declaration that such was his opinion, and that he had arrived at it with much difficulty. The Minister said it was a question of doubt. If so, why not give the claimant the benefit of the doubt? Simply because he was a Jew, and belonged to a body that was neither powerful nor formidable. The course taken with regard to Mr. O'Connell was not thought necessary to-day. But the Roman Catholics of Ireland whom he (Mr. O'Connell) represented, were 7,000,000; the Jews only 40,000. His hon. and learned Friend had not even attempted a reply to the argument raised on the case of Mr. Pease, who was admitted into Parliament on an affirmation prepared by himself, unopposed even by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, and absolutely confirmed afterwards by an Act of Parliament, so satisfied was Parliament that the course which had been taken was correct. His hon. and learned Friend wriggled out of the difficulty by declining to say on the one hand that a new writ ought to issue, or on the other that the seat was full. And yet this was a judicial question. He believed that there was not a single court of justice in Christendom that would disgrace itself by such a mockery of justice. The Act of George III. required that the oath should be taken in the form therein stated, that the parties should swear true allegiance to King George the Third, and that they should abjure all allegiance to the house of Stuart. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Act was no longer valid, George the Third not being now in existence, and the House of Stuart being no more. At every vicissitude there was a new Act of Parliament. There was one on the death of Queen Anne, and on the death of George the First, and another in the reign of George the Third, which superseded all the others; and it was intended by that Act that the oaths of abjuration should cease when the necessity for them passed away. The oath expired on the death of the Sovereign; and according to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, it was not competent for Parliament to alter the oath. The House of Commons had dispensed with the oath in the case of Mr. Pease, and Parliament subsequently passed a declaratory Act, taking the affirmation of Quakers instead of an oath. The hon. I and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said that was a good precedent; but he had a higher authority than the hon. and learned Gentleman; he had the authority of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, who, in a speech made on the 12th of March in that House, when his hon. Friend moved his Committee to inquire into precedents relating to the question of Jews, or other persons being admitted to take their seats in the House without being sworn, said—

"It was of very great importance that there should be a Committee. It appeared to him that the question both as to the Acts of Parliament, and as to the manner in which the House interpreted the Acts in the case of Mr. Pease, were of very considerable consequence. He was at a loss to understand how it was that Mr. Pease made affirmation in the way he did, and that afterwards an Act should be passed appointing the mode in which that affirmation should be made, for, if the House were justified in admitting Mr. Pease upon His affirmation, it appeared to be unnecessary afterwards to enact, by a fresh Act, that he should make that affirmation in a certain way."

That was the declaration of the Prime Minister, who told them yesterday that the point was not new to him. But how had the courts dealt with the oath of abjuration? He could tell the House that they had in some cases altered the whole body of the oath. Then would it not be an answer to any action for pains and penalties, that he took the oaths according to the decision of the House of which he was a Member? The same argument was used with great effect by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire in the case of O'Connell. He told them that whatever their decision might be that day, it would be binding in any court of law. He (Mr. Anstey) said the same in this case. They ought not to shrink from doing their duty, and let the courts do theirs, fiat justitia ruat cœlum. He did not wish to subject Baron de Rothschild not only to the loss of his seat, but to perpetual disability; and he therefore gave his hearty support to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford.

wished to ask one plain question. It would be quite impossible for him to attempt to enter into the legal arguments of the case, after the very masterly and very able speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford; but he wished to observe that one argument had been used which had not been answered by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon. The hon. and learned Member called upon the House to agree to a Motion to the effect that the hon. Member for the city of London had virtually vacated his seat, because he had not taken the oath of abjuration in the prescribed form; and he wished to ask him by what statute or by what law he considered the hon. Member had rendered his seat vacant? Now no one, he apprehended, would doubt that the Baron de Rothschild had taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and having taken those two oaths, he (Mr. Hume) contended that he could not be expelled. The last oath, the oath of abjuration, was one of pains and penalties, but the Baron de Rothschild would not be subject to those pains and penalties unless he had sat and voted. Perhaps it might be better, as the hon. and learned Attorney General was in the House, that he should put the question to him. He wished to know from that hon. and learned Gentleman by what law the hon. Member for the city of London had vacated his seat? He had taken the oaths of supremacy and allegiance; but it was said he had not taken the oath of abjuration. In his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, he had.

said, it appeared to him the seat did become vacant, assuming that Baron de Rothschild substantially refused to take the oath of abjuration. The statute of the 6th Geo. III., c. 53, enacted that all persons refusing to take the oath of abjuration should be "subject and liable to the same penalties and disabilities as by the laws and statutes aforesaid were enacted." In the laws and statutes previously referred to, was included the statute of William III.—[Mr. P. WOOD: No, no!]—the statute of William III., which declared that a person was disabled from sitting and voting.

What became of the statute of George III?

The one statute over-rode the other.

would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General to read the words which he supposed continued in the succeeding Act the penalties in question.

read the words which referred to the penalties imposed by the statutes now subsisting. They were as follows:—

"And that all and every person and persons who are enjoined and required to administer, take, or subscribe the oath of abjuration and the assurance in the said above-mentioned Act contained, shall respectively administer, take, and subscribe the oath of abjuration, and subscribe the assurance, according to the form herein set down and prescribed in such courts within such time limited, in such manner and with due observance to the same requisites, and with benefit of the same savings, provisoes, and indemnities as by the said Act above mentioned, or by any other Acts, or any other part of them now subsisting, are directed and enacted: and in case of neglect or refusal, he or they shall be subject and liable to the same penalties and disabilities as by the laws and statutes aforesaid are enacted."

He contended that the Act of Parliament not having been repealed, the penalties must be held to continue.

said, the Act of 1st Geo. I., had been distinctly repealed, and a new oath and new penalties had been substituted.

desired there should be no misunderstanding on this point. His hon. and learned Friend would admit there had been no direct repeal of the Act of William III. He contended, however, that it had been virtually repealed, and that other penalties had been imposed.—[Mr. W. P. WOOD: And another oath.] He could not admit that the Act had been repealed. The later statute found the statute of William III. in force, and enacted that the penalties enumerated in "existing statutes" were to be continued.

was not prepared to assume that the Baron de Rothschild had refused to take the oaths, yet that was the first declaration in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon. That hon. and learned Gentleman also proposed that a new writ should be issued for the city of London. On what ground did he make that proposition? The most eminent legal authorities differed as to whether the law disabled Baron de Rothschild from sitting in Parliament or not. The report of the Committee which had been presided over by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, who had argued this question with so much ability, referred to the statute of the 1st of George I., c. 13. That Act altered the form of the abjuration oath to be taken by Members of Parliament; the report stated that, as the form had been again further altered, the Committee did not consider it necessary to set it out at length in their report, and that they would merely remark that by section 17 the penalties for non-compliance were precisely the same in respect of Members of Parliament as those contained in the 13th of William III., c. 6, except that the declaration—

"That the offender shall be deemed a Popish recusant convict, and shall forfeit and suffer as such, and shall be disabled from holding or executing any office or place of trust, civil or military,"

was omitted. He understood the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford to say, that there was excepted the disability to sit in Parliament Now, was that the case? Was that in force? If so, the House had no power to issue a new writ. They should have time to consider, if not a Committee to inquire into, the actual state of the law. Gentlemen would come to the worst of all party votes if they pretended to construe the law with their present information.

felt, to a certain degree, the difficulty which had just been stated by his right hon. Friend. The Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, he believed, recited that Baron de Rothschild had refused to take the oaths prescribed by law; what he understood Baron de Rothschild to say, and what he presumed would be entered upon the journals of the House, was, "I omit those concluding words because they are not binding upon my conscience." He (Sir G. Grey) was prepared to vote against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, that the seat was full, but thought the House ought to proceed with great caution and deliberation before agreeing to the issuing of a new writ. It must be remembered that this would be a precedent for future time; that there would appear upon the journals a statement that a Member came to the table, took the first two oaths prescribed by law, and took the last with the omission of certain words, alleging as a reason for not taking those words, not that he could not conscientiously take them, not that he positively refused or declined to take them, but that he omitted them because they were not binding upon his conscience. Now, he (Sir G. Grey) thought, with the hon. and learned Attorney General, that those words formed part of the oath prescribed by law, and that the House was not authorised to exercise a dispensing power, and say that the oath was complete without those words; but he thought the House ought to have something more than the mere statement of a Member that he omitted them because they were not binding upon his conscience before they proceeded to declare the seat vacant. There was also another question raised by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, namely, whether, assuming the refusal to be final and complete, the seat thereby, under the existing statutes, became vacant. He understood the hon. and learned Member to refer, first, to the 30th of Charles II., which had no reference to the oath of abjuration, but referred merely to the two other oaths, and that that Act expressly declared that in the event of a refusal to take those two oaths of allegiance and supremacy, the seat should be void, and a new writ should issue; and the hon. and learned Member remarked that this was the clear and unambiguous language of Parliament when it meant to declare the seat vacant. But his hon. and learned Friend did not, he thought, place sufficient stress on the fact that the 13th Wm 111., e. 6, which contained the oath of abjuration, also provided—

"That from and after the 25th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1702, no person that now is or hereafter shall be a Poor of this realm, or Member of the House of Peers, shall vote or make his proxy in the House of Peers, or sit there during any debate in the said House of Peers; nor any person that now is or hereafter shall be a Member of the House of Commons, shall vote in the House of Commons, or sit there, during any debate in the said House of Commons, after their Speaker is chosen, until such Peer or Member shall from time to time respectively take the oath aforesaid, and subscribe the same in manner following (that is to say), the said oath shall be in this and every succeeding Parliament solemnly and publicly made and subscribed, between the hours of nine in the morning and four in the afternoon, by every such Peer and Member of the House of Peers, at the table in the middle of the said House, before he takes his place in the said House of Peers, and whilst a full House of Peers is there, with their Speaker in his place; and by every such Member of the House of Commons, at the table in the middle of the said House, and whilst a full House of Commons is there duly sitting, with their Speaker in his chair."

And it further enacts—

"That if any person that now is or hereafter shall be a Peer of this realm, or Member of the House of Peers, or Member of the House of Commons, in this or any succeeding Parliament, shall after the said 25th day of March presume to vote or make his proxy, not having taken the said oath and subscribed the same as aforesaid, every such Peer or Member so offending shall from thenceforth be deemed and adjudged a Popish recusant convict to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall forfeit and suffer as a Popish recusant convict, and shall be disabled to hold or execute any office, or place of profit or trust, civil or military, in any of His Majesty's realms of England or Ireland, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, or in any of His Majesty's islands or foreign plantations to the said realms belonging; and shall be disabled from thenceforth to sit or vote in either House of Parliament, or make a proxy in the House of Peers."

Such were the words of the 13th William III. His hon. and learned Friend contended that this statute had been repealed, and admitted that, if were in force, it would justify the issue of a new writ, and bar any Member not taking the oath of abjuration from voting or sitting in that House. He would not dwell upon the 1st Anne, sec. 2, c. 22, nor upon the 6th Anne, c. 7, which also enacted that the oath of abjuration should be taken, and contained the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," but would advert to the subsequent Acts. The 1st George I., c. 6, admitted Quakers by affirmation instead of the oath of abjuration; but being special in its restriction to that body, the 6th George III., c. 53, recited the Act of 1st George I., and enacted that—

"From and after the 4th day of June, 1766, the oath of abjuration in the said Act (1st George I.) shall be administered in such manner and form as hereinafter set down and prescribed."

The form of oath was then recited, and it distinctly contained the words—

"And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian."

But what further?—

"And that all and every person and persons who are enjoined and required to administer, take, or subscribe the oath of abjuration and the assurance in the said above-mentioned Act contained, shall respectively administer, take, and subscribe the oath of abjuration, and subscribe the assurance according to the form herein set down and prescribed in such courts within such time limited, in such manner and with due observance of the same requisites, and with benefit of the same savings, provisoes, and indemnities as by the said Act above-mentioned, or by any other Acts, or any part of them now subsisting, are directed and enacted; and in case of neglect or refusal, he or they shall be subject and liable to the same penalties and disabilities as by the laws and statutes aforesaid are enacted."

Thus making the party refusing to take the oath subject to the penalties of 1st George I., and not merely of that Act, but to the penalties in every other Act then subsisting. The real question was whether the 1st of George I. repealed the Act of William III. by implication. He (Sir G. Grey) had the strongest opinion that it did not; but, sitting judicially as the House was, he thought they would be acting hastily, if with the conflict of opinion upon that question, they should order a new writ without taking more time to look into a point upon which the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, and the hon. and learned Attorney General, appeared to be at variance. Forming the best opinion that he (Sir G. Grey) could, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that the Act of William III. was in force at the time of the passing the 6th George III., and was still in force, and was one of the Acts there referred to as subsisting, and that the penalties of the Act of William III. were kept alive by the 6th of George III., and still attached to a Mem- ber refusing this oath. But, upon both grounds—the question whether there had been such a distinct refusal to take the oath as to bring the case within the Act, and whether the Act was still in force—he thought it would be well not to adopt the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, without further consideration and investigation.

said, he was extremely anxious that the House should proceed in this matter with all proper caution and deliberation. In proposing the resolution in the form in which it was submitted, he believed he was following the course of precedent. There could be no doubt whatever that instances had occurred in the journals of the House in which persons had come to the table, and upon their refusal to take the oaths there had been an immediate Motion for the issue of a new writ. In the present instance, Baron de Rothschild, after going through two of the oaths, and the greater part of the third, came to the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," which in his (Sir F. Thesiger's) opinion were a necessary and essential part of the oath, and then closed the book, saying, "I omit that portion of the oath, because I do not consider it binding on my conscience." [Mr. HUME: "I omit those words," was the expression.] "I omit those words," and Baron de Rothschild then kissed the book. Now, he had certainly understood, when Baron de Rothschild said, "I omit those words" for the reasons he explained, that it was a distinct refusal to swear those words. He (Sir F. Thesiger) had no desire to preclude by any misrepresentation a Member who had been returned to that House; but if this was a refusal to take a substantial portion of the oath, he should like to be informed in what mode the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford proposed they should ascertain clearly and distinctly whether it is the intention of Baron de Rothschild to take the oath prescribed by Act of Parliament. He was in the hands of the House, and was ready to pursue any course they might think fair and right.

I have communicated with Baron de Rothschild, and I am authorised to say that what fell from him may be taken as a refusal to take these words.

apprehended, then, the hon. and learned Attorney General would readily grant that there was no necessity for giving Baron de Rothschild on the present occasion what the hon. and learned Gentleman called a locus penitentiœ,as, if the Baron de Rothschild were called in again, he would only repeat what he had already said, and what he had declared to be equivalent to a refusal.

said, after what what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, namely, that the words of Baron de Rothschild were to be considered a refusal to take the words in question, he proposed to follow the precedent adopted in the case of Mr. O'Connell. Mr. O'Connell came to the table and refused to take the oath of supremacy. That refusal was not held to be final by the House; but, after debating the question, the House decided, not that a new writ should issue, but that Mr. O'Connell was not entitled to take his scat without taking the oath. Mr. O'Connell was then called in, and he asked to look at the oath. "I decline to take it," he said, "because it contains two propositions which I believe to be untrue." The course in that case would have been to communicate to Baron de Rothschild that the words were essential, and it would be for him then to decline to take them. If the words uttered by Baron de Rothschild were to be regarded as a refusal to take the words, and they could appear upon the journals of the House, another objection would be got rid of.

hoped the House, on coming to a decision, would not proceed too fast. There were two propositions now before them. First, there was the refusal to pronounce the words "on the true faith of a Christian;" the next proposition was, whether the refusal to take these words was in fact a refusal to take the oath. The second proposition was one which they must resolve amongst themselves: all that they were authorised to assume by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford was, that Baron de Rothschild refuses to take these words. He (Mr. Roebuck) should be prepared at the proper time to argue that he had taken the oath.

said, he felt considerable difficulty in rising, after so many able lawyers had spoken; but the question was, whether they were fit in that House to decide the matter at variance or not. If it was a judicial question, and the House were the judges, he took it that it did not require the learning of a lawyer to enable them to form an opinion, but the sound sense and the common sense of an individual. He had listened with interest to the debates of the last three days, and he had asked himself the question whether, if the matter were referred to him as a magistrate, he could decide that Baron do Rothschild had taken, the oath of abjuration? Well, after hearing all the arguments on both sides, he had come to the conclusion that the question whether they were to admit a Jew or not, had been virtually decided by last night's debate. The party stated his belief in the Old Testament: he was permitted to approach the table of the House, and subscribe the oaths upon the Old Testament. Therefore the question was now narrowed to the very smallest issue, namely, whether the House were competent to construe the oaths to be administered in a judicial sense. If they were to act judicially, this was a question, above all others, that concerned their characters as judges. That character required them to divest themselves of every prejudice and all party feeling; and he would ask the supporters of the Government on the other side of the House to consider that this was not a party question, in which they could reconcile their minds to follow the leader of their party. To gain credit either from their own consciences or from the country, they must act as magistrates and judges. For his own part, he considered the time had gone by when the House ought to declare to the world that a constituency like the enlightened constituency of the city of London was not competent to form an opinion as to the candidate that was fit to represent them. He thought the House, if it agreed to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, would be placing itself altogether in a wrong position. He did think the hon. Member for Montrose had ample grounds for asking Mr. Speaker whether he had sufficient authority for saying that any hon. Member must withdraw from that House. He (Mr. Alderman Sidney) deliberately stated his conscientious belief that Baron de Rothschild had taken the oaths required by law, and that he was in every sense of the word a Member of that House. He therefore trusted the House would not stultify itself by proclaiming to the world and to the city of London in particular, that the man who had been twice returned by an immense majority, was unacceptable to the House, and that they required him to undergo again the farce of a third election.

I rise, Sir, merely for the purpose of asking the House to come to some decision respecting the order of its proceedings. I think it might be better to adjourn for a few hours and then resume this question. If the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, or the right hon. Member for Northampton, think they are not in a fit state to decide this question without further delay, it will be for the House to consider whether it will grant that delay. I wish to know particularly what the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford represents Baron de Rothschild to state to be his wish; because the hon. Member for the city of London ought at all events to have no reason to complain that his case was not fully heard.

I understand that several hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in this debate, and as I certainly desire to have the question discussed in the fullest and amplest manner, I therefore think it should be adjourned till the earliest opportunity.

The general opinion being that the point is narrowed to a very limited issue, namely, whether an Act of Parliament shall be repealed or not, I think it advisable that if the debate is postponed, it should be postponed for a longer time than a few hours, to enable us to give a serious consideration to so grave a question. In that case, if the House would agree to an adjournment till to-morrow—["No, no!"]—it might be convenient for the House when it resumes at five or six o'clock, to proceed this evening with the Order on the paper of to-day for considering the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Franchise Bill. I know that this can only be done by the hon. Gentlemen having Motions on the paper consenting to give up their right to the precedence; but considering the time this question of privilege has taken, it would be better if we could come to an understanding that we shall proceed with the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Franchise Bill at six o'clock, and adjourn the present debate till to-morrow. I throw out this suggestion to the consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government.

After what the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford has said, I move that this debate be adjourned till Six o'clock.

wished to ask whether it was the House or the noble Lord that had the power of superseding the notices on the paper?

Sir, I must withdraw what I have stated. I had thought that several hon. Members near me wished to address the House; but they have since informed me that they do not wish to do so. If that be the case, then I apprehend that it is the wish of everybody that we should proceed to a division at once.

Sir, before the House goes to a division, I wish to state very shortly the reasons why I do not wish to address the House on this question. I am one of those who take what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General calls the common-sense view of this question, and I intend not to allow my judgment to be misled by the quibbles of lawyers, or by "the uncertain" mode of proceeding (to call it by a mild name) of the Prime Minister. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat it, because this question has from the beginning been prejudged. Sir, we have been dragged through a most disgraceful proceeding in this House. What was the course that the Government pursued yesterday? Yesterday they came down and moved, through the mouth of their Attorney General, that Baron de Rothschild be heard at the bar by his counsel. Well, but the noble Lord, after putting the hon. Gentleman to great expense in retaining counsel, and after having raised the expectations of the city of London, the noble Lord gets up and says, "Very true. I have consented that the hon. Member be heard by counsel, but my mind is made up, and whatever the counsel's arguments may be, I call upon the House and my supporters to decide against it." Therefore I feel that the question has been prejudged. We are told that this is a judicial question; but we know very well, by the course that Her Majesty's Government have taken, that it is not a judicial question, and that it is made a party question by them. They have been tampering with the question before the House. There can be no use in adjourning the debate. But if I have no hope from this House, I have faith in the citizens of London; and I tell the House that it is engaging in a conflict from which it can only come out with disappointment and disgrace.

I think, Sir, when the hon. and gallant Member for Middle- sex again vises to say that he does not intend to speak, and then goes on to make a statement, he had better state the facts more correctly. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said, following the case of Mr. O'Connell, that he should propose that Baron dc Rothschild be heard at the bar by himself or by his counsel. Then the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford stated that he was authorised by Baron to Rothschild to declare to the House that he did not wish to be heard by counsel on that point. But, after that declaration had been made, there subsequently was a debate, in which the hon. and gallant Member for Middle sex stated very strongly his opinion on this question. That being the case, I thought myself entitled, as well as any other Member, to have and to state my opinion. I accordingly did so, declaring at the time that I thought this a judicial question, and that I certainly did not wish to influence the vote of any Member of the Cabinet, or any other Member of the House, upon it.

said, he hoped the debate would be adjourned, as he did not wish to record his vote till after careful deliberation. He had not had the advantage of other hon. Members who had heard this important and grave question discussed in other Sessions of Parliament. Therefore he wished for time, and hoped he would not be compelled to vote immediately, when there was such a conflict as to the legal view of the question.

said, after what had taken place, that it was doubtful whether the omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," were sufficient to justify its being recorded that Baron de Rothschild had refused to take the oath. I think the House ought to have time to deliberate as to whether either the Acts of Parliament, or the precedents and usage of the House, make it necessary or incumbent on it to proceed immediately to issue a new writ. I wish that time should be allowed for the utmost deliberation; and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon will not press his Motion at the present time, but that he will' consent to defer it to a future day to enable us to consider what course ought to be adopted.

I am extremely anxious to leave this question entirely to the noble Lord. [Cheers.]Really, I sincerely mean what I say. On a question which concerns the privileges of the House, I think it is peculiarly for the noble Lord at the head of the Government to decide what course ought to be adopted. Of course, I have not so much knowledge of the rules and usages of the House as the noble Lord, and therefore I am anxious to receive his instructions on this subject, as to the proper course that ought to be adopted. I have no desire whatever to hurry this matter; but, on the contrary, inasmuch as there are precedents which require us, in my opinion, to act in a particular way in the position in which we are now placed, I am anxious that ample opportunity should be afforded for considering the proper course to be adopted. Therefore I adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, and I do not see why that statement should have somewhat excited the other side of the House, because I was desirous to adopt the course most respectful and proper for the House. It may be desirable, under the circumstances, to proceed carefully, and to adjourn the House for the purpose of ascertaining what may be the effect of the different precedents on this subject. With respect to the question as to the refusal of Baron de Rothschild to take the oaths, I think, if it is required by the House that we should have more distinct information on the subject, that it may be entered on the journals, of course I am ready to accede to that; for as this case itself may be taken as a precedent, the journals ought to be full and satisfactory on the subject.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon seemed somewhat surprised at some little demonstrations of wonder at his conduct being exhibited on that side of the House. The hon. and learned Member now bowed, and said he was very anxious to leave it all to the noble Lord. Why did he not do that at first, instead of stepping forward to interfere with the course of the noble Lord? The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was altogether inconsistent with his practice; he said one thing, and did quite another. For his (Mr. Hume's) part, he hoped the House would not accede to the hon. and learned Gentleman's wish; he trusted they would at once proceed to the division, and negative his Motion.

said, this was a matter for the House of Commons itself, and not for any Minister of the Crown, to decide. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon talked of proceeding with excessive caution, he (Mr. V. Smith) must say a man that more rashly rushed to a conclusion than the hon. and learned Gentleman he never knew. To the present Motion it was impossible for the House to assent; because the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in such a hurry that he made a mistake in his Motion, and stated what was untrue, namely, that Baron de Rothschild had refused to take the oaths. Baron de Rothschild came to the table, and took every essential part of the oath; and when he came to a certain form at the end, he said, "I omit these words." No notice was taken of this at the time, and no hon. Member got up and remonstrated against it. Baron de Rothschild then covered his head (which is the custom with members of the Jewish persuasion), he kissed the book, and said, "So help me God!" If that was not taking the oath, he (Mr. V. Smith) should like to know what was. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been in such a hurry to proceed without cau- tion, he should have put it that Baron de Rothschild took the oaths, but omitted certain words which the hon. and learned Gentleman considered to be necessary, and then have framed his resolution accordingly. But what the hon. and learned Gentleman now did was, to ask the House to assent to what was false in point of fact—that Baron de Rothschild had refused to take the oaths. If an adjournment was to take place, he hoped it would be for the instruction of hon. Members, and that his noble Friend, or some other influential Member, would propose that they should have a Committee as to the issuing of a new writ, because they had had a Committee on the oaths, but, not on the voiding of the seat. That was a point on which they required information; but if they adjourned, he hoped they would not permit the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, but would insist on negativing it at once, and then they would be able to proceed with due deliberation in the exercise of one of the most constitutional functions that any Member could ever be called upon to exercise.

thought the right hon. Member for Northampton had been permitted to use language of a totally unparliamentary character towards his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon. The right hon. Gentleman said, his hon. and learned Friend had made a Motion that was "false" in fact—for these were the words; but let those who thought these words conveyed no imputation, consider the same language for a moment as applied to themselves. However, he would say no more as to that; but he rose chiefly because the right hon. Gentleman stated that the hon. Member for the city of London had taken the oaths. Now, if he (Sir R. Inglis) limited himself to one point in the oath of abjuration, he should still feel justified in calling the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what was the fact. Baron de Rothschild might have taken "an" oath, but he had not taken "the" oath—which was the whole point at issue. Supposing he had omitted to take Clause 3 or Clause 4, would the right hon. Gentleman then have said that he had taken "the oath." He (Sir R. Inglis) did not mean to deny that Baron de Rothschild might have taken "an oath," which he called the oath of abjuration; but he denied that he hail taken that oath which the law of the land and the usage of Parliament combine in requiring every Mem- ber of the House to take before he could sit and vote; and therefore he contended that his hon. and learned Friend's Motion was neither premature nor ill-advised. The question was, whether the hon. Member for the city of London had or had not taken the oaths, and it would be found that he had declined to do so, because he had specifically said, "I must omit the words 'on the faith of a Christian,' because they are not binding on my conscience." He might have applied the same assertion to any other clause.

I rise, Sir, to move that the debate be now adjourned to Twelve o'clock on Thursday next; and I beg to state, that the hon. and learned Attorney General will then propose such a resolution or resolutions as he and I shall think most conducive to the dignity and usages of the House.

hoped, if the adjournment took place till Thursday, they would be enabled to proceed with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments on the Irish Franchise Bill at six o'clock that evening. He understood that hon. Members with notices of Motion had expressed the most amiable disposition to advance public business, and if the hon. Member for Stroud would withdraw his Motion, there would be no obstacle to proceeding with the Bill that evening.

did not object to the adjournment to Thursday, but he wished to remind the House that the resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon would have still to be decided on when the question next arose, and would have to be put from the chair before the noble Lord submitted his resolution. He, for one, should insist that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon should be affirmed or negatived by the House, and would not allow it to be withdrawn.

said, that as the object of the adjournment was to enable the noble Lord to submit some proposition to the House which could not be submitted as an amendment on the resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, on which the sense of the House must be taken, he could not see why they should not dispose of that resolution now.

wanted to know why they were going to adjourn at all? All the real facts were before them, and their sole remaining duty was to draw the conclusion. If they were to adjourn without any expression of opinion on the resolution, they would be as far from a conclusion as ever.

appealed to the House if the noble Lord was not doing an act of grave injustice to the hon. Member for the city of London? The question stood now as recorded, that the House had admitted for the time a new writ ought to issue. Really the question ought to be disposed of one way or other. In justice to the hon. Member for London, the resolution ought to be forthwith negatived or withdrawn.

wished to ask the noble Lord, whether he proposed an adjournment on the ground that the resolutions he intended to frame would be of such a character that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon and his friends, would allow their resolution to be negatived when they heard them next Thursday, in order to insure the success of the noble Lord's proposition?

hoped the House would not hesitate to take a division on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member immediately. He could not consent that the hon. and learned Member should throw on Government all the responsibility and odium of further delay. The Government had quite enough odium and responsibility as it was, and they certainly ought to support hon. Members in opposing the resolution, and in rejecting it at once. Let them make the field clear for Thursday next, and then take their own course honestly and conscientiously.

Some hon. Members have asked me, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, questions with respect to the course I have proposed to adopt. Now, I have stated, I think it desirable this resolution should be adjourned, and I am fully aware that, when it comes before us on Thursday next, the resolution I may have to propose cannot be brought forward as an amendment to the resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon; but if the adjourned debate comes on, I shall propose to negative that resolution; and then the hon. and learned Attorney General can propose such a resolution as he shall think fit. It appears to me that this is the better course to adopt. The hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth has advised me not to take the odium of postponing this resolution, and of not negativing it at once. I can only say that appears to me to be the course the House ought to take, and that it is better to adjourn the debate on this resolution, than proceed at once to a decision upon it. As to any quantity of odium being incurred thereby, I don't think I should have been at all wise in accepting the office of Minister of the Crown if I had not been ready to bear any amount of odium which the hon. and learned Gentleman or others might think fit to throw upon me. If I wish to avoid odium, I fear I can hardly act honestly and conscientiously.

explained. He had not referred to any odium attaching to the noble Lord, but to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon's throwing odium upon the Government.

said, he was perfectly secure in leaving the question in the hands of the noble Lord; and for the purpose of removing any impediment which might be offered to the noble Lord by his resolution, he was content to withdraw it. If the House would not permit him to withdraw his resolution, he was ready to have it negatived, on the understanding that his object in doing so was to make way for the proposition of the Government.

said, he thought it better, before they came to any vote upon this question, or before they discussed minutely the 8l. or the 12l. qualification, that he should state generally the view which he took of the Amendments made by the House of Lords in the Bill then before them, and call their attention to the Bill as it stood now, and as it had been at the time when it was sent up from the Commons to the other House. Hon. Members were, no doubt, aware of the extreme case upon which the Bill now under consideration was founded, which case was this: that whereas in this country there were registered electors, from tables of which it appeared that the percentage of electors of the adult male population was 28, in Wales the percentage of the adult male population was 32, in Scotland 25, and in Great Britain generally 28 per cent of the male adult population had votes, while in Ireland the percentage was less than 2. That was the case upon which the Bill in part was founded; and he might here observe that a striking example had recently been exhibited in Ireland of the paucity of electors. In the county of Mayo, a large county, only 250 electors voted for the two candidates at the last election. It was to such a state of things that they proposed to apply a remedy, and it was chiefly as to the number of electors that they intended to apply that remedy. By the Bill, they had proposed not only that the right of voting should be derived from tenure but also from occupation; and upon this point he must say it appeared to him that hon. Gentlemen who discussed the question in a spirit adverse to the Bill, lost sight of the fact that the 40s. qualification was the prevalent qualification in England, and that the 50l. tenant-at-will qualification gave votes to a much smaller number of persons than did the freehold qualification. For the purpose of enabling the House to form a judgment on this point, he should trouble them with a brief statement of the number of freeholders and 50l. tenants in five of the English counties. In Bedfordshire there were 3,274 freeholders, and 853 50l. tenants, being in the proportion of one-fourth. In Herefordshire the freeholders were, 5,280, the 50l. tenants 1,639, being one-third. In Lancashire the freeholders were 16,064, the 50l. tenants 3,467, being one-fifth. In Middlesex, the county in which they then were, the freeholders were 10,408, the 50l. tenants 1,307, being one-seventh; and in Sussex the freeholders were 3,769, the 50l. tenants were 1,059, being one-third; that was the state of the constituency in the month of July, 1847. It was clear, then, that the great bulk of the constituency of Great Britain was composed of the freeholders; but the House was to remember that in Ireland the 40s. freeholders had been abolished, and that species of franchise having been wholly extinguished, it was proposed by the Bill, as it stood, that the great bulk of the electors should be occupiers rated to the poor. Now, from the Bill at present on the table, it appeared that one of the most prominent alterations made in that measure by the Lords, was the substitution of a 15l. qualification, or rating to the poor, for an 8l. rating. The effect of that would be to give the power of voting to 180,328, instead of 330,224; and if they took off one-fifth for double occupation, and for female occupants, they would find the numbers stand thus:—264,180 under the 8l. rating, and 144,263 under the 15l. rating. Taking, in the whole, the clauses which the Lords had struck out, they would find that the effect of their Lordships' Amendments would be to give Ireland a constituency of only 120,000, instead of 264,000 as was proposed by the Bill. Again, the Bill, as originally framed, would have constituted a body of electors forming 15 per cent of the male adult population; while, under the Amendments made by the Lords, the electors in Ireland would not form more than 8 per cent of the male adult population. The remedy for this, which he proposed, was to raise the qualification from 8l. to 12l., or rather to lower it from 15l., which the Lords made it, to 12l. The effect of that change would be to comprehend as many as 227,590 tenements, and deducting one-fifth for double occupation and women, leaving a clear result of 172,072, instead of 144,263, or 10 per cent of the adult male population, instead of 8. If, on the other hand, they were to establish a 10l. they would have 271,726, and, deducting one-fifth, as before, for double and for female occupation, the net quantity would be 217,381, or 12 per cent upon the whole male adult population, which was 1,683,381. Now, he did not propose to go back to the 8l. qualification, but, on the contrary, he was content that it should be a 12l. qualification or rating. He proposed to meet the Amendment made by the House of Lords, and as it were to divide the difference with them. There was another alteration made by the Lords that he could not call an amendment. It was an alteration which related to a matter of greater importance than that which he had now been considering. It appeared to him to involve the whole principle of the Bill, and to be of far greater importance than any arrangement of the qualification at 10l., 12l., or 15l. The Lords, instead of allowing that clause to stand, which would supply the means of registration from the rate-book, and so create a self-acting registry, had expunged it, and by the change which they had introduced rendered it necessary for every elector to see for himself that his name was placed upon the registry. The Bill, as originally framed, would have secured to any occupier rated to 8l. the right of voting with- out any interference on the part of his landlord or himself; the only question to he raised on the subject would be at the period of the election; and thus a great variety of complicated matters might be avoided, and a valuable principle carried into effect. He proposed, then, to the House to disagree to the Amendments which the Lords had introduced into that part of the Bill. It seemed to him, as he had already stated, that the 8l. or the 12l. qualification did not, by any means, so materially affect the principle of the measure as did that change by which the other House defeated the design of a self-acting registry. With respect to some other alterations, however, which the other House had made, he did not propose to insist upon the provisions of the Bill as originally passed. In the case of the first Amendment, he proposed that they should in that agree with the Lords; he meant the Amendment that had reference to the insertion of the words "owner" or "tenant." Then there was another question, that with regard to joint occupancy in counties; as to that there was a great deal of doubt: the clause of the Bill relating to that subject had been struck out; and though it was somewhat doubtful, he did not desire to disagree to the alteration which had been made. Further, there was the clause which constituted a 5l. interest in fee-tail, or for life, or possession, which would give the owner a vote. This would in some degree cause the franchise in Ireland to be conformable to what it was in England; and considering, in consequence of the late sales in Ireland, that property was now much subdivided, he thought tins desirable. As to giving to occupiers in towns the right for voting for counties at large, there were some words in the original Bill which had been altered; but on that point he did not think it worth while to declare any difference of opinion. In the schedule also there where several amendments, consequent upon dates, to which he did not propose to take any exception, such as this, that the first registration should take place on the 1st of June, 1850. That date could, of course, no longer be maintained. It would now be necessary to alter the 1st of June to the 9th of September; the registry would then be complete on the 15th of March, 1851. It would thenceforward commence on the 1st of June, and the first of the registries so commencing would be brought down to the 31st of December, 1852. He should now conclude by moving that a 12l. rating be substituted for the Lords' Amendment of a 151. rating.

said, the Motion which had just been made by the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, was one that not only affected the constituency of Ireland, and the character of our Parliamentary constitution, but that also concerned rights and privileges inherent in another branch of the Legislature: it was, therefore, in his (Mr. Gaskell's) view, one of peculiar interest and importance. He deeply regretted that the noble Lord had not felt it to be consistent with his public duty to acquiesce in the Amendments which the House of Lords had made; he hoped, however, that before they consented to adopt a course which in all probability would be followed by the rejection of the Bill, they would at least calmly and carefully consider whether valid and sufficient grounds had been adduced to justify it. Now he believed it was not disputed by any Gentleman who heard him, that the practical effect of this Bill, as sent hack to them by the other House of Parliament, would be a very large increase in the constituency of Ireland; and in his (Mr. Gaskell's) opinion, it would be time enough to discuss the question of a still further extension of the franchise, when they had tested the operation of this measure, and had some means of judging whether the apprehensions of those who viewed even the amended Bill with feelings of distrust and of alarm, were likely to be realised. It was easy to say that the basis of representation should be wide and popular; that an undue limitation of the constituent body was not consonant to the spirit of free institutions, and that a representative system resting upon such a basis was insecure and dangerous. He (Mr. Gaskell) would take leave to say that there was another form of government still less secure, against which it was equally the duty of that House to guard, and of which they were far more likely to experience the effects, namely, a mixed form of government like their own, with a larger infusion of democracy in its composition than was compatible with the maintenance of the Monarchy. The real question before the House was, what proportion of the rate- payers in Ireland were qualified for the exercise of the franchise, and sufficiently independent of external influence to be fit recipient of such a privilege. He could not subscribe to the opinion that because a constituency was small, it ought therefore to be increased; or that it was the duty of that House to pass measures for the extension of the franchise without reference to the fitness of the parties who were to receive it. Undoubtedly to those who were of opinion that the elective franchise was a right inherent in the individual, and not a trust conferred for the public benefit, to those whose object was to make that House a direct index to the national will, such an argument might reasonably be addressed; but to those who entertained a wholly different opinion, who held that they were not sent to Parliament to minister to the popular will, but to consult for the public good, and who agreed with Mr. Windham, that of the three different majorities, these of reason, of numbers, and of force, the two latter were the last in which any wise man would seek to vest the government of an empire, it could not be a matter of indifference what sort of constituency it was proposed to form. It was not because he anticipated that under a more democratic system the choice of the electoral body would fall on men we held political opinions at variance with his own—it was for no such narrow and unworthy reason that he dissented from the proposition of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). He (Mr. Gaskell) cared not what might be the opinions of those who were returned to that House by the constituencies of Ireland, provided that those opinions were within the pale of the mixed form of government under which they lived; but he believed that a large extension of the franchise, under the present circumstances of that country, would throw power into the hands of men we sought the disruption of social tics, the spoliation of property, and the dismemberment of the empire; and he, for one, felt that it was the bounden duty of that House to resist to the uttermost any legislative measure tending to such results. He begged Gentlemen to recollect that this Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, would increase in no inconsiderable degree the constituency of Ireland, and he saw no sufficient ground to justify them in rejecting it, because the other House of Parliament had refused its assent to more extensive changes. Still less could he understand the ground on which the noble Lord was of opinion that the second alteration which the House of Lords had made, was so important in point of principle, as to be necessarily fatal to the Bill. If the voter was desirous of the franchise, he (Mr. Gaskell) saw no great hardship in requiring that he should say so; but if he was not so desirous, then he did see the hardship of compelling him to register, and exposing him to those un avoidable and pernicious influences which he might be anxious to avoid. He owned he saw no justice in forcing upon him the acceptance of a privilege of which he was unwilling to assume the responsibility, and unable to perform the duties. For these reasons he must refuse his assent to the proposition of the noble Lord. The regret which he felt at differing from him, though increased by the temper and moderation with which the noble Lord had spoken, was diminished by the reflection that he (Mr. Gaskell) was doing all that lay in his power to support a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature in the unfettered exercise of its judgment. Gentlemen opposite might depend upon it, they were greatly mistaken if they imagined that the people of this country were disposed to view the House of Peers as less entitled to exercise its constitutional functions than that House. His firm belief was that the independence of the other House of Parliament was as deeply cherished by the great body of the people as any institution or any liberty which they enjoyed. His belief was that those who sought to overrule or to over awe the decisions to which it came, represented the wishes and opinions of a very small section of the people. He believed that the Amendments in this Bill to which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had called upon them to disagree, were justified by the circumstances of Ireland, and demand ed by considerations of public policy: and he trusted that the majority of that House would rather be guided, in the vote to which they were about to come, by that "early and provident fear" which Mr. Burke said was the mother of safety, than act upon the bolder, but, as he (Mr. Gaskell) thought, the less judicious counsel of those who called upon them to reject this Bill.

could not concur in thinking with the hon. Member for Wenlock, who had just spoken, that the present Bill, either in its tendencies or results, would extend the democratic principle. He feared its consequences would be to render less expressive still all manifestation of popular opinion in Ireland. Many of them in Ireland maintained that that was a disfranchising Bill. It was not very well to take 94,000 voters off the number of those who were originally proposed to have the franchise. It also dealt unjustly with existing rights. In all other Bills of a similar character, the rights of existing voters were respected. He thought the exemption of the 50l. and 20l. vote showed more strongly the injustice done to the smaller class of voters, such as the 10l. one. He would ask by what right they proposed to deprive the electors of Ireland of the rights to which they had been hitherto entitled? The only precedent for the measure was the abolition of the 40s. freeholders, who had returned Mr. O'Connell to Parliament, and who had been disfranchised on account of the victory they had achieved on that occasion. Property had fallen so low in Ireland, that a 15l. rating would leave but a small number of voters. He would ask the House to consider what was the state of the constituency in the counties of the west and south of Ireland. He would much prefer to have the franchise as it was in England, to accepting the present Bill, and therefore he could not give his support to the noble Lord's proposition.

thought it rather hard in his hon. Friend to allude to topics which had long since been discussed in the House, and upon which the House had long since come to a decision. He maintained that they did not properly arise upon the consideration of their Lordships' Amendments to this Bill. He felt disappointed that his hon. Friend opposite, the hon. Member for Wenlock, had not met the proposition of the noble Lord in a different tone than that which he had exhibited on the present occasion. He did not think the House was yet aware of the state of things which they had to remedy in Ireland. His noble Friend, in referring to a recent election at Mayo, deduced that as an example of the reduced state of the Irish constituency; but this Bill had been framed upon the calculations of the constituency, exhibited in the returns which were in the hands of hon. Members. Referring to this return, let him call their attention to this very county of Mayo. The county of Mayo, by the earliest returns, was represented as possessing a constituency of 591; and we knew that those 591 really and truly amounted to no more than 230; and therefore the calculations made with reference to those returns were not to be depended upon; and then his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon said, See what returns you are making of these 10l. constituents. There was not one of these 10l. constituents who would exist he believed one hour longer than his lease; and it was only a question of time whether there should be 10l. freeholders or not. Put the franchise at 3l. or 4l. capital, and with a tenure, and they would not be able to create a constituency. The hon. Member for Wenlock had talked a great deal of the privileges of the House of Lords. He hoped that he would not forget that one of the duties of this House was to uphold the privileges of the other House. Compare the constituency of Ireland with the constituency of Scotland, and England and Wales, and he thought the most that could be said of the constituency was that they proposed a reasonable constituency, and that they had made great advances to meet the objections of the other House of Parliament, he hoped it would not be forgotten that the 15l. franchise, as proposed by the House of Lords, would create a great distinction between the numbers enjoying the franchise in the other parts of the kingdom, and he trusted that the proposition of his noble Friend would not be lost sight of, and that the House would consent to substitute 12l. for 15l.

begged to repeat what he had stated when the Bill was formerly under discussion, that he regarded the adoption of the poor-rate as the basis of the franchise as exceedingly objectionable. He thought that that basis would operate most injuriously on the working of the poor-law itself, and would furnish no criterion by which to judge of the qualifications of the ratepayer. If the different parts of Ireland were looked at it would be found that a man rated at 8l. in one union, was a very different person from a man rated at 8l. in another union. It was known, however, that a new and much more accurate valuation was in progress, and he wished to know if that valuation, when completed, would become available for the purposes of the franchise. He should prefer a 12l. franchise, provided the new valuation was adopted; and should he receive an assurance to that effect, he should support the proposition of the noble Lord.

said, that by the law as it now stood, when the valuation was completed, the valuation must necessarily be formed upon the poor-law valuation. He quite admitted the importance of this question, and it should receive the consideration of the Government. According to this Bill, the franchise would be formed on the poor-law valuation.

asked if there would be any objection to act upon the new valuation in districts where it was completed?

said, there would be no objection.

said, that the unusual attendance of hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, and indeed in all parts of the House, announced very significantly that this was no longer a mere Irish question. Ireland was indeed the battlefield of party warfare, the Irish franchise was the first picket to he driven in; but as for the rights of the Irish people in the matter—the justice or injustice of this measure to Irish constituencies—he believed that such considerations occupied about as small a space in the minds of cither party, as the rights of the aboriginal inhabitants of America in the settlement of the Oregon territory. First, with regard to this side of the House, tin; noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had, during the present Session, been impressed, as it seemed, with a very deep and a very indignant sense of the disgraceful state of the Irish Franchise. But the state of the Irish franchise was not a thing of to-day, or of yesterday, nor of this Session or the last. He might be allowed to remind the House that the county which he had the honour to represent, containing upwards of 300,000 inhabitants, had been three times contested within the last half-a-dozen years, and that the numbers polled on these occasions varied from 800 to 900 men. At anytime during these six years, up to the present Session, the noble Lord might have passed, almost without opposition, any reasonable measure for the reform of the Irish franchise. Not a soul on either side of the House eared a farthing whether Mayo contained 1,000 or 10,000 voters. There was no party object to be served by the change, and the consequence was, that this Bill had hung up for daws to pick at for successive Sessions. And how was it, and why was it, then, that the Whigs, who had been playing at Tories for the last few years, were now in arms for reform? How was it that Saul was again among the prophets, and the Conservative Minister of the Whigs in power was a Liberal even out of opposition? Really, when he saw this unwonted stir, this almost spirited behaviour in the Whig camp, "he could not but surmise," with Sir Christopher in the Critic, that "the State some danger apprehended;" and it was their own danger that bestirred them in the cause of Ireland; it was because the trumpet of protection had sounded across the Irish Channel, that the Irish franchise was to be recruited to meet the onset; it was because the cruiser was in sight that the slaves were to he armed in defence of their masters. As long as Irish counties had returned Whig Members or Whig stipendiaries, the more limited the constituencies the better. Perhaps a more extended franchise might have produced Members too dangerously liberal. But times had now changed, and the good old cause required a different franchise to maintain its interests. If he were unjust in the suspicions which he entertained—[Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] Well, he would join issue with the noble Lord on the cheer or jeer with which he had just greeted him. Let him pledge himself to the Liberal Representatives of Ireland, that he would, at the commencement of the ensuing Session, introduce a now Bill for the reform of the Irish franchise, at least as liberal as that which had been mutilated by the Lords—that he would exert himself zealously and bonâ fide to pass that Bill into a law, and he might command his vote and voice in favour not only of his present Motion, but of his general policy; but if he hesitated upon this point—if he showed a tendency to "settle" this question either by submission or by compromise, he would lend no hand to fight his paltry party battle—he would leave him to settle the matter with the other side of the House as he best might, and should feel confirmed in the opinion which he had long entertained, that until Ireland had broken at least two Ministries—and she had the power to break this and that which might succeed it—she had no hope of respect or justice. Now, with regard to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had again most wantonly renewed the old feud between them and the Irish people, which time and circumstances had begun to allay. It was again to be war between them as of yore—war "between your seed and our seed—you may smite our head, but we will bruise your heel." And he felt convinced that a more impolitic as well as a more unscrupulous course never had been pursued by any party in its aspirations for power. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, in the course of previous discussion upon this Bill, had warned hon. Gentlemen who were the most clamorous for a large extension of the franchise, that the results of that extension might be very different from those which those hon. Gentlemen anticipated or desired; but if there were any truth—and he thought there was great truth—in this remark, the inverse of the proposition must have been true also. If a more extended franchise would not produce the results which hon. Members behind him anticipated and desired, its results would not be those which the hon. Gentleman's friends feared and deprecated; and he would submit to them, therefore, whether they were not committing a blunder as well as a crime in the war they were now waging against the rights of their fellow subjects who, when they obtained the boon they seek—as most assuredly they would eventually obtain it—would carry with them, in its exercise, angry recollections of that party by whom their rights had been so long resisted. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire in his anticipations as to the probable results of a large extension of the franchise; and be thought he should be able to show to the House, that while it would not diminish the legitimate influence of property, it would greatly diminish the illegitimate influence of the mob. He spoke with some confidence, and on information derived from some experience on this subject, having within the last three years stood two contested elections for an Irish county, in one of them, he believed, almost the fiercest that had ever taken place even in that country, and in which all the prejudices and all the passions of the population had been brought to bear against him; and he could confidently state that there was nothing that subjected the event of an election for an Irish county to the influence of the mob so much as the smallness of the constituencies. And the reason of this was, that a large constituency would be strong enough in numbers to exercise its rights and maintain its independence against mob law: a small one was, in Ireland at least, almost entirely subjected to its tyrannical control. Let the House imagine the helpless position of half-a-dozen 10l. freeholders in a large and remote village; they might conduct them to the hustings under an escort of dragoons—they might convey them to their dwellings under the same protection; but their power then ceased, and in some cases they might as well leave them in the midst of a pack of wolves, as among the infuriated population by which they were surrounded. He might mention, as a horrible instance of this, that after the election to which he had already referred, two freeholders who had ventured to vote in his favour, and lived in a remote mountain village, had been assaulted at night by a gang of savages, who surrounded and broke open their houses, and absolutely cut off a portion of their ears, as a punishment for having voted in opposition to the wishes of the surrounding populace. Now, he knew the locality where this occurred well; and it was his firm impression that if the whole of the inhabitants had had votes, a considerable majority would have voted the same way as those freeholders had voted, and in direct opposition to that cry which, as a mob they had contributed to swell. At all events, if the freeholders had been numerous enough to defend their own rights and their own persons against a system of terror so hideous and revolting, they would have exercised their franchise free from a control the most objectionable that it was possible to contemplate; and he firmly believed that with rights conferred, and responsibility established, a higher moral sense would be created within them, and that the masses of the population, thus raised and enfranchised, might yet take their stand in support of the laws which they contributed to form, and the institutions under which it was their privilege to live. An hon. Gentleman, by way of illustration of the evils that were likely to arise if more than a certain number of his countrymen were invested with the rights of freemen, had alluded to the degradation and ignominy of the old 40s. freeholders; and had alleged this fact as a reason for his opposition to the enfranchisement of the same classes. But he greatly suspected that it was not because the hon. Gentleman anticipated a return to that state of serfdom, but because he feared a reverse of the picture, that he regarded the present measure with such alarm and distrust; and he was inclined to think that the history of the 40s. freeholders if read aright, would lead to the conviction, that the conduct of the hon. Gentleman, and the conduct of his party, was founded now and then on a deliberate determination to regulate the franchise in Ireland, not according to the exigencies of the country, but according to their own interests and their own ambition. As long as the 40s. freeholder was driven like a beast to market, exposed for sale, not in person, but in mind—not in body, but in soul—a perjured and dishonoured slave, at the will of his venal master—as long as men's consciences were matter of property and traffic, and an Irish landlord registered his freeholders as a Russian noble numbers his serfs, we heard no virtuous murmurs from the Tory benches at the perjury of the 40s. freeholders—no indignant outcries against the infamy of the prostituted franchise. As long as the 40s. freeholder was a recreant and a slave without honour, courage, or conscience, he was left in the undisturbed possession of his disgraced prerogative. But the time at last arrived when a free soul stirred within the breast of the hereditary bondsman, and the degraded peasant at last awoke to a consciousness of the trust and the power which the Legislature had confided to him—in an hour fatal to his long-neglected franchise, but immortal in the history of his country. At the memorable election for the county of Clare, the Irish freeholder, for the first time, dared to act like a free man—for the first time he proved himself worthy of the confidence of the constitution. Prom that hour his fate was sealed. Few will now deny that that election was a great and constitutional effort, worthy in its aim and object, stainless in its execution, and most important to the cause of freedom in its wonderful results. Few will now deny that the 40s. freeholder on that occasion voted I more honestly and independently—more according to the dictates of his conscience and the spirit of his constitutional rights, than he had ever done before; yet it was by so doing that he lost his franchise—he was stripped of his rights because he had 'shown that he was worthy to exercise them—he was deprived of his franchise because he had proved that he was worthy to be free. Catholic emancipation followed; but by way of a guard against its possible results, they who wrung their rights from your reluctant justice were deprived of the privileges they had previously possessed. The people of Ireland would no longer allow their own arms to be made the instruments of their own oppression; there was nothing left for their enemies but to disarm the people. Well, they had disfran- chised the 40s. freeholders, and what had been the result? Why, that the power they would have paralysed, and the progress they would have stayed, was only reinforced and invigorated by the operation. O'Connell offered but a faint opposition to the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, and had never afterwards made an effort worth mentioning to restore them. His astute and sagacious mind had already weighed and measured, and sounded to its depths, the results of their paltry vengeance: by endeavouring to disarm his forces, they had only simplified his mode of operation; and the 10l. franchise, as more easily worked, and brought into the field at less expense, became a far more formidable weapon in his hands than that of which he had been deprived. And yet, with the history of their own blunders and their own defeats before their eyes—untaught by experience, unchastised by disappointment, hon. Gentlemen opposite still persisted in the same blind course of impolicy and folly. But the course they wore pursuing had consequences more immediate, and bearing more directly upon the interests of party, than any such general possibilities as those he had just indicated; and he took the liberty of warning them in no hostile spirit against the impolicy of the course they were pursuing. If those hon. Gentlemen had any political station whatever, if they had any common political object, that station and that object were founded upon a question in which every peasant that they now sought to disfranchise, had an interest and a sympathy as vital and as sincere as themselves; and did hon. Gentlemen think that the course they were now pursuing was likely to conciliate the Irish farmers, or swell the ranks of their independent allies? The hon. Member for North Warwickshire, in one of the discussions which had taken place on the preceding progress of this Bill, had alluded to a certain strange defection which, suddenly and at a particular moment, had taken place in the ranks of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy, on the subject of agricultural protection, and had professed himself unable to account for the phenomenon. But if the hon. Gentleman had been unable to explain, he had, at all events, done his utmost to justify, the course they took, and to prove to the world the shrewdness and sagacity of that body. Measures, not men, might be sound abstract doctrine; but people were very apt to judge of measures put forward by men of boasted consistency, with some relation to those principles to which they had remained the most invariably consistent; and it may have just struck the Roman Catholic clergy and the people of Ireland generally that while on the one hand free trade was still upon its trial, and a return to a system of protection exceedingly problematical—there was nothing on the other hand either questionable or uncertain in the political principles of those whom the successful agitation of protective measures would place in power. And they were not without grounds for formidable misgivings upon this subject. Hon. Gentlemen might, perhaps, require to be reminded of two memorials which were in circulation in Ireland at the same moment, and at the time to which the hon. Member for Warwickshire had referred: one convening a meeting, or preparatory to a meeting, at the Rotunda in Dublin, to consider the question of protection to Irish agriculture; and another complimenting a noble Lord who had recently been dismissed the magistracy, on his conduct in reference to a circumstance which he had the supreme authority of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland for declaring was one of the most outrageous transactions which had ever disgraced the country. Now, it might have been an accidental coincidence, but not on that account the less remarkable, that these two documents had been signed, for the greater part, by the same names. He said, for the greater part: there had been, no doubt, some of Lord Roden's admirers who refused to sign Lord Glengall's manifesto, because it contained some dim and misty allusion to civil and religious liberty; there had been some also of Lord Glengall's subscribers who had found the testimonial to Lord Roden rather too strong for their stomachs; but, for the greater part, the coincidence between the two lists of names was very striking; and the subsequent meeting at the Rotunda, composed exclusively of Lord Glengall's friends placed all doubts upon the subject at rest, by greeting the hero of Dolly's Brae by those rounds of applause; and saluting another noble Lord, on his rising to propose the question of protection with continual vollies of Kentish fire. It was not, therefore, wonderful that the people of Ireland, when they saw the arms of protection and intolerance quartered on the same escutcheon, should turn away from the hideous association with alarm, with anger, and disgust; and he would venture to tell the hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition, that they had done nothing to dissipate, but on the contrary everything to confirm, the impression that their imbecile partisans on the other side of the Channel had created; and that whatever might be the views of the people of Ireland with regard to that question which formed the most salient point of their policy, there was one condition upon which that people would not accept any boon that it was in the power of the empire to bestow. They had been tried with famine and scourged by pestilence for successive years; but with more horror than to pestilence or famine did they look back to that class legislation and that religious domination from which they had only half escaped, and which they believed it was the wish, if not the intention, of hon. Gentlemen opposite to restore. And he felt quite sure, that as long as their party, and the objects of their party, were associated in the minds of the majority of Irishmen, with all that majority held as most disastrous and abhorred; so long would they hesitate—no matter what might be their views of financial advantage—so long would they refuse to place in power, and arm with the means of mischief, a body of men who seemed bent every day on proving that they had forgotten nothing and learnt nothing, and that they still continued, what they had ever been, the hereditary and incorrigible foes of the civil as well as the religious liberties of the Irish people.

intended to vote for the 12l. proposal of the noble Lord. He found from a return that, in 1837, the number of electors was 124,284. If the franchise was to be made 15l., the addition would not exceed 20,000; if made 12l., the increase would be 50,000, which he yet thought would leave the constituency much too small. With respect to the joint occupancy, he felt assured that the House would have no difficulty in agreeing to the Lords' Amendment upon that point. On the subject of the self-acting registration system he should observe that, in his opinion, that portion of the Bill was imperfectly framed, as it would leave the door open to fraudulent claims; and he did not think that the Amendment in the Lords would remedy that defect. He wished to take that opportunity of correcting an erroneous statement which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo. His hon. Friend had said that a liberal nobleman had been received with rounds of the "Kentish fire" at a protectionist meeting in Dublin. [Mr. MOORE; Yes, Lord Clements.] Now he (Colonel Dunne) had been present at that meeting, and he could undertake to say that that was a very inaccurate statement. It was true that a few young men had received the noble Lord in question with some marks of disapprobation: but they had been immediately checked by the chairman, and no indication of a political bias had been given by the great body of the persons who had assisted at that meeting. [Cries for a division.]

said, that the cry for the division came from the benches, which were well filled, on the other side of the House, and perhaps was stimulated by the fact that those on his (the Ministerial) side were not so full as they ought to be. This Bill had been sent up to the other House without any pressure from without, and with a considerable majority in favour of an 8l. franchise; but it had been returned to them with a provision which amounted to scarcely any franchise at all. Though he was not himself in favour of some portions of the measure as sent up to the other House, yet he had been anxious that all Irish Members in that House (the House of Commons) should unite to support the Government in the proposal they had made in this measure. It was, however, in vain that they came there to endeavour to carry any measure for the benefit of Ireland, seeing the spirit that prevailed in another place. Under the circumstances of the case, he should give his support to the present proposal of Her Majesty's Government.

said, that every Member who had spoken against the proposal of the noble Lord to alter the 15l. to 12l. was an English Member, whilst every Irish Member that had addressed the House was, under the circumstances of the case, in favour of a 12l. franchise as a middle term between the amount in the original Bill, and the alteration that had been made elsewhere. He was himself anxious that the present proposal of 12l. should be adopted; and, with reference to the objection of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn to the 12l. franchise, namely, the objection arising out of the present state of the poor-law valuation, he (Mr. Clements) might observe that be had some experience on that subject, and knew that the valuations under the poor-law, as far as they had gone in Ireland, were more correct than those in England generally were.

said, although he should certainly give his vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord, yet it would he with considerable reluctance that he did so. And if he agreed to the proposed compromise, it was with the determination not to regard it as a final settlement of the question of the Irish franchise, but with a reservation of a right to avail himself of the earliest opportunity, in conjunction with his friends, to propose an enlargement of the franchise, not only of the people of Ireland, but of the people of England and of Scotland also. He considered the conduct of Her Majesty's Government had been weak and truckling on this occasion; more especially so in another place. The second clause of the Bill, relating to joint occupiers in counties, was given up by the Marquess of Lansdowne before any objection whatever was made to it.

said, that when he considered the present state of the Irish franchise, and the utter helplessness of the Irish people, he felt himself compelled to take the best measure that he could get; but in concurring in the present proposition of the Government, he wished it to be understood that he did not consider it as a permanent arrangement of the franchise in Ireland.

felt, that as he had voted for the 8l. franchise, and as it was now proposed by the Government to raise the franchise to 12l., he ought not to vote at all upon the question, but leave it entirely in the hands of the Government. There were, however, many peculiar circumstances connected with the condition of the people of Ireland, which made it a duty on his part to secure to them the greatest possible facility for possessing the franchise in any shape; it appeared, therefore, to be his duty, since he cod not obtain an 8l. franchise, to support a 12l. in preference to a 15l. franchise. He wished it, however, to be understood that he did not look upon this as a. compromise, but merely as an instalment of that justice which was due to the Irish people. With regard to what was called the self-acting clause, he considered it to be so important, that without it he thought the franchise would be deprived of much of its force and efficacy.

said: I am anxious to make an observation or two on this Bill before we decide on accepting the proposition of the noble Lord. I do it with reference not only to the question itself, but to other and more important questions, on which the course we are now taking may have some bearing. This Bill, as it appears to me, is the measure of the Session. We are about to separate without any measure of public importance being passed besides this measure; and it must be admitted that the Government have a very sorry account to render to the country for the time which has been taken up by Parliament during the past six months. No man, I presume, is of opinion that the Government grappled with the question of the Irish representation before it was absolutely necessary to do so. They found the representation of Ireland virtually extinguished. They found eight millions of people living under a constitution of which nobody in this House or in the country boasts so much as the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and yet having literally no representation whatever. We have had an illustration of the condition of affairs in Ireland within the last week. A gentleman, said to have marvellous talents, and whose principles are on the other side of the House acknowledged to be very sound, went down to a great county in the west of Ireland—a county which at the time of the last census had a population not far, if at all, short of 400,000 persons. After all the landlords of every party had clubbed together to help him, he managed to poll ninety-two votes, while the gentleman who was opposed to him on the popular side, having all the priests in his favour—which is not a small thing, I take it, at an election for an Irish county—and we have to thank you [addressing the Opposition] for that, if there be anything wrong in it—this gentleman, I say, who was cheered and shouted for by almost the whole population of the county, polled about 140 votes. If we heard of any representation of that kind in Austria or in Prussia, or in any country in the world but this, is there a man in England who would not say that it was a farce and a sham, and that the people by whom it was possessed were living under a government which was an absolute despotism, or something even worse? Now, the noble Lord, finding Ireland in this state, came down to the House with a proposition at the commencement of the Session; not, indeed, then for the first time, for there have been propositions of the same kind for three or four Sessions. I thought when the noble Lord had got on this side of the table, that he was about to do something handsome in fulfilment of the promises which he had made on the other side. He brought in a measure by which 264,000 votes were nominally to he given to the counties of Ireland; 264,000 was, however, very much more than the real number. That would be the number if every occupier were placed on the register; but there are the cases of widows, and many other cases in which the parties occupying could not appear on the register. The number would probably be brought down, speaking within the mark, more than 10, perhaps 20 per cent. [Lord J. RUSSELL: That was not the fact.] Perhaps the noble Lord may have made the necessary allowances; but be this as it may, a difference of ten or twenty thousand is of no great importance to my argument. The noble Lord's proposition was, that 264,000 persons should he enfranchised in the counties of Ireland. [Mr. TORRENS M'CULLAGH: That was for the whole of Ireland.] I am sorry that I should be supposed to have exaggerated the good which would have been effected by the Bill. Take it which way you will, I think the argument is the same. The noble Lord defended the proposal of an 8l. franchise in this House in a manner which to me was perfectly satisfactory. I objected, as did many other hon. Members, to the having an 8l. franchise for boroughs. But what was said on these benches? I am not apt to be deluded by statements made from the bench below; but it was said that an 8l. franchise for the counties would be a capital thing; and that, although the proposal of such a franchise for the boroughs might be a mistake, it would be avoided if the thing had to be done over again; yet we must not grumble, because we did not get everything in one Session; and an expectation was held out that by and by, when the suffrage came to be extended in England, there would he no difficulty in reducing the 8l. borough franchise to 5l., should it then be thought desirable to do so. Well, now, with all those statements, we felt somewhat satisfied that the noble Lord at least meant to stand by and to carry through Parliament what he had proposed. How, then, has he acted? The noble Lord, be it remembered, is at the head of the Government, and it would not do for him to say that he has not voted as the Marquess of Lansdowne has in the other House. He must take upon himself the responsibility of what has been done by the Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords. Although I have not the exact words before me, I believe I shall be supported by the recollection of hon. Members, when I say that the conduct of the Government in the other House has not only been directly contrary to its conduct in this House, but affords the greatest reason for believing that when the noble Lord and his Colleagues proposed the 8l. franchise in this House, it was not intended that that franchise should be passed, but that it should be raised to some other amount. It may be that I am more suspicious than many; but I cannot but believe that if the noble Lord had intended that this franchise should be established, and if the great influence which the Government possesses in both Houses had been exercised as it is on some occasions, there might have been secured to the people of Ireland the franchise which they expected when the Bill left this House. But now what is it that the House of Lords have done? They have cut down the 264,000 electors to something like 140,000, imitating the Government of Paris in the act of reducing by one-half the franchise of the people of France. The noble Lord will not accept a 15l. franchise, but he proposes a half-way house between 8l. and 15l., giving to the other House an advantage in the division; he proposes 12l., which will leave, if I understand him rightly, about 170,000 electors. The noble Lord himself proposes to sweep away one-third of the numbers he advocated a few months ago. Now, I want to call the attention of the House to the divisions by which this 8l. franchise was passed. In the Committee of this House there were 213 votes for the 8l. franchise, and 144 for the 15l. franchise; the majority 69 in favour of the first. On the third reading there were 254 votes for the Bill, and 186 against it; the majority being 68. Now, what was the majority in the other House? There were 50 votes against, and 72 for the 15l. franchise; so that it was carried there by a majority of 22 votes. If you add together the majorities of both Houses of Parliament, and if you also add the minorities in both, you will find that there was, on the whole, a majority of 47 votes in favour of the lower franchise. I know very well that that is a kind of arithmetic which is not generally practised in the House of Commons. I am not asking the House, therefore, to adopt it; I am only stating to them a fact; and I may state further, that a Bill which passed this House by a majority of 254 votes against 186, has been neutralised and almost destroyed in the other House by a vote of 72 against 50. I have no doubt that there are persons who believe that one vote in the other House of Parliament is worth three votes in this House; but on a question of the suffrage and of popular rights, I am disposed to think that if the constitution, taking the word in the sense in which it is used by the noble Lord, is to give any particular weight to either House of Parliament, this House ought to be considered of more importance than the House of Lords. Bear in mind that the Crown was in favour of the 8l. franchise, and that another branch of the Legislature signified its assent by large and constantly sustained majorities. Now, if both the Crown and the House of Commons be in favour of this comparatively wide extension of the suffrage, the noble Lord ought to be cautious how he allows a small majority of a small House sitting in another place to over-ride the opinion of the Crown, and the Ministry, and the House of Commons, with regard to this important question. Well, now, there is another way of looking at the course which the House of Lords have taken on this question. That House is against all franchises. The question with them is not whether or not a particular franchise is the best for the country; they would raise the franchise to even a higher rate than 15l. if they dared. It is notorious that from the time when the Reform Bill was first introduced in the House of Commons, the limits of the franchise in the three kingdoms have been too widely extended for the tastes and the objects of the House of Lords. The noble Lord takes their opinion as to a particular franchise under this Bill, although he knows perfectly well that they are of opinion that the 15l. franchise is too high. I say that he ought to have consulted the opinion of the House of Commons and his own opinion, as to the wants of Ireland, and to have stood manfully by the Bill, if he was satisfied as to its necessity at the time of introducing it. The noble Lord is a great man for constitutions. I recollect that last year, when speaking with regard to a reform in Parliament, after I had sat down, he addressed the House in not the most amiable mood. He said that certain hon. Gentlemen were well worth attending to when they spoke on matters relating to trade—that when they spoke on questions connected with the commerce of the country, they handled them with great ability, but he was amazed at their narrow-mindedness, and their small views when they came to discuss great constitutional questions—questions which the noble Lord himself has discussed all his life, and after discussing which he finds that he cannot make his great constitution work. Now, the noble Lord's object is to work this House in harmony with the other House of Parliament. Never did any man in this world undertake a more impossible object; and the noble Lord is, I trust, gradually finding that out. We have had a question to-day, which affords another specimen of the dead lock into which the two Houses of Parliament are working themselves. Year after year the noble Lord has brought forward a measure to emancipate, as it is termed, a certain class of persons in this country; and year after year the measure has been passed in this House. But when it goes to the House of Lords this measure is scarcely discussed: there not only the House of Commons but the Ministry is treated with contempt, and the Bill is kicked out as a thing too ridiculous for calm consideration. Perhaps the noble Lord proceeds on the principle of ripening the pear—as it was formerly termed—in thus bombarding the House of Lords with good measures; but the result is, that he allows every good measure to be pared down until it will pass through the minute gauge which suits the other House. Well, now, how long-is this to go on? It is quite clear that the noble Lord's constitution will not work. It does not work even now to his own satisfaction. It does not work even to keep himself in office; for as the two Houses are going on, and, as the Government is situated between them, it is quite clear that his government cannot last long. What does the noble Lord intend to do? It is rumoured that he intends to add to the democratic element in the House of Commons. Well, but if that element is now too much for the House of Lords, how can he expect to get on more comfortably when he shall have added fifty more Members, who will vote against him when he does not go far enough in proposing measures of reform? The effect of any extension of the democratic element in this House, will be to increase discord and difficulty between the two Houses, or the noble Lord's constitution must be extinguished, because the Lords will have to succumb. These are serious considerations. None of us can shut our eyes to the fact that here is a vast empire, here are three kingdoms, from almost every part of which there are complaints of various kinds, and I especially with regard to the representation. This House is willing to go to a certain extent, to a very small extent I admit, to pass remedial measures; but when it sends such measures up to the other House of Parliament, they are there unceremoniously rejected. The course which the noble Lord should take, is, in my opinion, this. When he meets Parliament at the beginning of the Session, he should bring in two or three good measures, perhaps fewer would be better; for I would ask no Government to pass more than one great measure in the course of a Session; in laying those measures on the table he should let the country and this House and the other House know that the Government intend that they should pass, and that they will not retain the responsibility of carrying on the administration of affairs if they are rejected by either House of Parliament. The course which is pursued now is one that is both humiliating to the House, and destructive to the noble Lord's Government. Nearly every time he sends a measure up to the House of Lords, it is rejected; and in this manner difficulties arise between the two Houses of Parliament, and the character of the noble Lord's Government is depreciated. Whatever may be his majorities in this House, his position is becoming more and more humiliating; and I confess that I do regret most deeply that, after all the services which the noble Lord has performed in years past, by carrying measures which, if they have not gone so far as I could have wished, have perhaps, gone as far as circumstances would permit—I do regret that he should not he able to carry out the principles which he has professed. With regard to this Bill, I believe the greatest and safest policy towards Ireland is the most generous policy. You have tried the other policy for centuries, and there is not a spectacle in the world so humiliating to a Government as the spectacle of Ireland is to our own. You have tried to govern through the landlords of Ireland, through what you call the territorial system. Your government has lamentably failed; it has made that island a scene of anarchy. Your proprietors are for the most part ruined; your people have been starved off, and have emigrated by hundreds of thousands. I learn from a paper which has been read before the Statistical Society of Dublin, that the writer states his belief that at the next census the population of Ireland will not be found greater than it was in 1831. If it be to this that your system has brought Ireland, I ask you whether it he not time to change? Irishmen are like other men; they may be controlled, and guided, and governed by kindness, generosity, and justice. Do you still wish that the representatives of Ireland should be the representatives of its territorial proprietors only, and are you afraid to have in your House one hundred gentlemen who represent the great mass of the occupying tenantry? If you had a hundred representatives of this kind, even if we did not legislate in all things as they might desire, still they would feel that their voice was hoard in the Imperial Parliament; and, comparing their position with that of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Devonshire, they would feel that their countrymen were treated by the Imperial Legislature with the same justice as the great mass of the population of England and Scotland. If the noble Lord had dealt with this question manfully, and wisely, and generously, he would have done much to assuage the feeling of hostility in Ireland towards this country, and would have obtained ample leisure to adjust in the next and in succeeding Sessions of Parliament those questions of a social, as well as those of an ecclesiastical, character which must come on for settlement ere long, either under the government of the noble Lord, or under that of those who shall succeed him. I regret that the noble Lord has not shown the decision which was required with regard to this matter of the franchise. If he will tell us now that he does not himself accept what is before us as a compromise, in other words, as an arrangement or bargain by which he will hereafter stand; if he will tell us that he merely asks for a 12l. franchise as a gain in the present state of things in Ireland—why then we must do the best we can under the dilemma in which we are placed, and support his proposition; but if he says, "I take this 12l. as I before intended to take the 8l. franchise, as a final settlement," then I believe he will find in the course of a Session or two, that vast numbers on this side of the House are prepared to go further, and he will be more and more at variance with large numbers of his supporters. I repeat my conviction, that the true policy for Ireland is a liberal and generous policy; and, let me add, that if you wish to withdraw the people from the in- fluence of those who mislead them, if such there be, you should endeavour, by adopting such a policy, to create in them faith, hope, and trust in the impartiality of the Imperial Parliament.

I am sorry to detain the House, but I think the hon. Member for Manchester has raised questions, the discussion of which I cannot altogether avoid; because the hon. Gentleman has not confined himself to this Bill, but has thought fit to lay down propositions which, as I conceive, tend to disparage the present constitution of the country, and might lead to the establishment of some other. The hon. Gentleman found fault with me for having proposed upon this as upon some other occasions, to agree to something different from that which I had originally proposed, and to yield in some degree to the expressed opinion of the other House of Parliament. Now, I consider it is nothing with regard to this question to consider the two Houses of Parliament together, and to say that a majority of sixty-eight in the one House, is to be balanced against a small majority of twenty-two in the other, and that we ought to have measures carried by a majority of the two Houses together. It is evident that, if the two Houses are placed together, in one assembly, that will be the consequence; but as long as we have the two Houses of Parliament, if Amendments are made by the other House, and sent down to the House of Commons, the House of Commons must deal with them as the decisions of the other House of Parliament. Now, the hon. Member seeing that take place, proposes what I understand to be, with regard to any measure of this kind, that I should declare at the beginning of the Session that the Government desire to bring in certain measures—that as to this 8l. franchise the Government should have declared at once that that was to be the rate of the franchise in Ireland, and that they would listen to no change or discussion on the subject. If that wore to be so, there would at once be an end to the balance of the constitution of this country. It might be desired that that constitution should be at an end, but we ought not to deceive ourselves that such is the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester. Let us suppose the hon. Gentleman to have his will with respect to the reform of the present House of Parliament; that he gives what is called, I believe, the household suffrage, which, in fact, more nearly approaches what is called universal suffrage, for it goes far beyond what was understood as household suffrage in former days—and that the hon. Member had an elective assembly elected under the law; and suppose the Minister were to say at the beginning of the Session to that popular assembly, "Here is a great measure I propose to you—it must be carried in its integrity—from it you must not depart;" and suppose, according to the existing state of things, that the House of Lords were not to modify that measure, but to reject it altogether, the hon. Gentleman must have something in reserve—he must have some resource, and it is evident he means that the will of that popular assembly is to prevail, and that there is to be no discussion, no modification, no tampering of moderate views, no elaborate or learned discussion, no reference to history, no regard for precedent, which may in any way alter the views of that imaginary Minister who is to come down to this House and say, "Such is my will, and it must not be changed." Without discussing the merits of our constitution, or any other, at the present moment, it is quite plain that what the hon. Member really proposes is an absolute democratic assembly, which shall have no barrier to its will—which shall meet with no opposition to its decrees, and before which all the estates and constituted powers of the country must bow. It may be that such a change is desirable; all I can say is, that I am not one of the persons who desire it. All I can say is, that I think, with all its inconveniences—with its very long delays—with frequent rejection of measures that after some years every one admits to be useful—with lengthened discussions—with the many impediments to legislation which arise in this country—with all these counteracting influences, yet the sum of good obtained under our constitution is so great, our institutions are in themselves so valuable, and their fruits so precious, compared with those which (with perhaps one or two exceptions) history, either ancient or modern, shows to have been produced by any other form of government—by any other constitution devised by the wisdom of man—that for my own part I am not willing to change the constitution of this country for any other that the hon. Member may recommend. It has happened to me—if I may be pardoned for speaking of myself—to carry measures of change through this House, and, eventually, through Parlia- ment, which I thought measures of improvement, but which, in the first instance, met with great opposition and powerful resistance. I thought that the constitution might from time to time be improved—that laws might be changed much to the advantage of the people; but I acted under the conditions which I saw imposed on me by the state of the Government of this country, and by a constitution which I did not frame, but under which I was born, and which I have no wish to overturn. I proposed a great many years ago a change of a most important kind in the character and construction of this House. I did not feel dispirited by the reverses which I met with in the prosecution of that object. Not only was I overthrown in repeated divisions, but I was opposed by the splendid, the almost overpowering eloquence of Canning. Still I went on my course, and after ten years of discussion and deliberation I had the satisfaction of seeing a great reform of Parliament effected. When I was defeated in my first endeavours I did not say, "I discard all respect for the constitution because my plan is not carried at once." On another occasion I proposed the repeal of an Act which had long existed, and on which, though not in active operation, many persons believed the safety of the Church to depend—I mean the Test Act. The first time I proposed the repeal of the Act, I succeeded. I had reason to believe, however, that my success would be limited to the House of Commons, and that the other House of Parliament would reject the change proposed unless I would agree to a compromise, and allow of the substitution of a declaration for the unjust and offensive test. I persuaded those whom I then looked upon as my clients, and with whom I had frequent conferences—the Protestant Dissenters—to listen to the compromise, and, as the wisest course, to agree to it; and the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts was carried only by accepting the compromise, and thus obtaining the assistance of the Government in the other House of Parliament. I may refer to another subject. I proposed a great change—one of the most important, I think, that ever took place in this country—which was carried without great discussion because it happened never to be an object of great popular alarm or excitement—I mean the commutation of tithes. The measure, as I proposed it, did not meet with general assent. You, Sir, and other Members of this House, pointed out to me that the Bill which I had introduced would not be accepted by those who were most interested on the part of the laity, and suggested changes which it was necessary to make in order to render it acceptable. I considered the changes which were proposed to me, and, after some delay, adopted them, and by that moans succeeded in carrying a great and useful measure. I am sorry to be obliged to enter into these matters; but I refer to them as instances of great good which has been effected, not by taking the course which the hon. Member proposes—not by throwing a Bill on the table and saying to the House, "Here is my measure—I will not change a word of it—you shall take it as it is, or run the risk of a collision between the two Houses, or between the people of England and the House of Commons." I have shown that I have been able to effect great good by pursuing a totally different course, and instead of clinging pertinaciously, from motives of pride or vanity, to my own measures, submitting them to alterations, sometimes for the worse, sometimes far the better, and endeavouring to attain practical benefit by means of compromise. The hon. Member has alluded to the terms in which on a former occasion I spoke of the manner in which he and other Members had addressed the House relative to the working of part of our institutions. It seems I allowed a phrase to escape me with reference to the narrow-minded view which those hon. Members took of the subject. Speaking generally, I do not concur in the view which they take of the aristocracy of this country. The hon. Member on that occasion, as he has done on many others, represented the aristocracy of England as a class forming a sort of great council, like that of Venice, entirely separated from the great body of the people, as if its ranks were not continually recruited from the mass of the people. I cannot admit that, and I said it was a narrow-minded view of the subject.

would save the noble Lord the trouble of proceeding. On the occasion referred to, the discussion was on the Motion of Mr. Hume with regard to Parliamentary reform, and what was referred to was the fact of the representation of Manchester being balanced by that of many small places.

My recollection differs from that of the hon. Member, and I think on the occasion in question I point- ed out that members of families which, a hundred years ago, were amongst the humblest and poorest of the subjects of the Crown in this country, had, by dint of talent—by dint of learning, whether in the profession of the law or the Church—by their services in the Navy or Army, or by other distinguished merits, won their way to the highest honours of the peerage, and formed as proud a portion of the aristocracy as any of their Peers. If I mistook the hon. Member, I regret it; but I still think that his remarks always have a tendency to represent the aristocracy as something distinct and separate from the bulk of the people. I not only hold that this supposed distinction is unfounded in fact—not only that it is contrary to all we know of the history of past ages, and of what we see day by day, as will appear from an examination of any list of the Peers of England—but I also contend that a belief in its existence would have a mischievous effect, and instead of strengthening that union of classes in this country, which induces the aristocracy to believe that their fate and welfare are bound up with the welfare of the people, and the people to look upon the aristocracy as the defenders of their rights and privileges, would lead to a war of classes and ranks, that would cause the subversion of the Government, of the constitution, and of the existing state of society. The aristocracy of the country, instead of being desirous to separate themselves from the people, feel that their strength and permanent existence depend on continually receiving fresh accessions from those who by the highest qualities of the mind are able to place themselves on an equality with them. The hon. Member wishes that the 8l. franchise had been carried. I wish the same thing. I proposed it on sufficient grounds, and I think it ought to have been adopted. I have already explained why the measure was not brought forward at an earlier period—namely, because in the deplorable state to which Ireland was reduced by famine, the Government thought it right to postpone the consideration of political privileges to the amelioration of the social condition of the people of that country. I take no blame to myself for that. The Bill was introduced this Session and sent to the other House, where I think it has been impaired by the changes to which it has been subjected. But if the measure be carried in the form which I now propose it shall assume, it will add 170,000 to the constituency of Ireland. That would be a great practical boon, and it is worth our while to effect it. As to the future, I must decline to enter into any engagement either with Members on this side of the House, or with those on the other. I say, "Here is a practical good; will you adopt it?" If, subsequently, we find the people of Ireland exercise the franchise given by this Bill, and think it sufficient, no one, perhaps, would ask for a change. If, on the contrary, it should appear desirable to extend the franchise further, our assenting to the present measure will not prevent us from proposing such further extension as may be required. Such is the spirit in which I propose this Bill. Such is the spirit in which, both in and out of office, I have proposed other changes for improving the institutions of the country, for altering laws which were vicious or defective, and for conferring a greater degree of freedom and happiness on the people. With all these changes and improvements it has been my endeavour to combine the maintenance of the tranquillity of the country, and the permanence of our institutions.

said, it was not his intention to detain the House at any length, but simply to confine himself to the two propositions which had been placed before them. The hon. Member for Wenlock, who had spoken first in the debate, and his friends, wished to retain the Bill as it had come down from the House of Lords; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had invited them to adopt a 12l. franchise. To the first proposition he could not assent, because as the Bill originally left the House it only gave an adequate redress for a known and acknowledged grievance; and if they were right in the decisions at which they had then arrived, by large majorities, he could not see that there was any reason at present for departing from the principle of the Bill. Its acknowledged principle was, that something like an equality should be given the people of Ireland as compared with the people of the rest of the empire. It was then contended that nothing higher than an 8l. rating would establish anything like that equality. The noble Lord, on the present occasion, did not deny that the consequence of accepting a 12l. rating now, unless a great pressure arose on the other side of the Channel, might constitute a permanent settlement. To such a settlement he, for one, could not agree. He held the reunited party opposite responsible for having led and lured the House of Lords into the perpetration of an insult towards the people of Ireland, because that party, however otherwise they might have been divided, had reunited their talents and endeavours in order to destroy the principle of the measure. He asked whether it was right that upon a question of this kind the people of Ireland, when asking constitutionally for an approach to equal liberties with the rest of their fellow-subjects, should be spurned, and have abuse and vituperation cast upon their creed and their condition? He was asked what was the abuse? Why, it had been said that if they were to confer the proposed original privilege, it would enfranchise the rubbish of the community, and lead to the influence of the priesthood over "a pauper" constituency. Was this a time, after three years of affliction and misery, to stigmatise a whole people with their poverty? He did not believe that the proposed rating would increase the constituency to the extent which had been stated. The 8l. rating, it was said, would give the counties a constituency of 200,000. Upon the same rule the 15l. rating would give 110,000, and the 12l. would give 136,000; so that the difference between a 12l. and a 15l. rating was only 26,000. The 15l. test would give about 9,000 voters to the five counties which constitute the whole province of Connaught; and the other would give them 11,740 voters—not quite so many as one of many agricultural counties possessed in England. He would not mention manufacturing counties in England, which it might be argued resembled in wealth and density the population of towns. But it would be found that Durham, Derbyshire, Norfolk, Cheshire, Gloucestershire, Kent, Devonshire, Lincoln, and Somersetshire, have each a greater number of electors than the whole province of Connaught will possess under the 12l. franchise. He should decline to voting for either of the propositions before the House. His conviction was, that after what had been experienced, there was no security for the people of Ireland, except in making common cause with the people of England, asking to be put on the same level with the latter, and to have verbatim et literatim the same rights and privileges; and he hoped the day was not far distant when the people of both countries would struggle, without any national jealousies, to es- tablish the same freedom for all portions of the empire.

, in voting for the proposition of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, reserved to himself the right of resorting to every constitutional means of obtaining a fuller and fairer franchise. Some allusion had been made by an hon. Member to his deceased father, whose motives had been misunderstood, and, who, Session after Session, had been prepared to extend the franchise, but that object he was prevented from accomplishing in consequence of the opposition he encountered, which was finally successful.

Such attention, Sir, as I may have the good fortune to obtain, I shall reward with brevity. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk has spoken as if it depended on the noble Lord at the head of the Government, by some, process of gentle violence, to prevail on the House of Lords to accept the Bill in its original form. But that expectation would be hopeless indeed, and it remains for the noble Lord, by a compromise—at some sacrifice of pride, perhaps, but not of honour—to use his utmost endeavours, in the present state of the Irish registry, to induce the House of Lords to mitigate the injustice into which they have been betrayed. I entertain a hope that they may be induced to retrace their steps. A little reflection ought to convince them that they have done Ireland great mischief and great wrong. What can be more preposterous, for example, than the course which they have followed with respect to the self-acting registry? They have retained it in cities and boroughs, and substituted a notice to be served by claimants in writing in the counties of Ireland. If a man ought not to be registered in a county against his will, why should he be so registered if be resides in the city of Cork, or the borough of Clonmel? By rejecting the self-acting registry, the Lords will get up a perpetual canvass in every county of Ireland. Not contented with the fury of an election, they will insure the preliminary animosities of a registration. The sacerdotal and territorial influences will be engaged in a perpetual wrestle—the injunction of the priest will be encountered by the inhibition of the landlord, and the notice to register will be followed by the notice to quit from his consecrated rostrum, whose eloquence, unfashioned perhaps, yet fervid and impressive, reaches to the heart of the peasant, whether he be rated at 8l, or 15l. Father O'Shaughnessy exclaims from his pulpit, "I expect that before I meet you again every man in this parish rated at 15l.will serve notice to register, that he may vote for God and his country at the next election for the county of Mayo." Patrick Murphy, touched by this invocation, sends the fatal notice. He meets the lineal descendant of some prosperous soldier of the Commonwealth—one of the great Cromwellian deposits left by the Lord Protector in Ireland:—"How is this, Murphy? Have you served a notice to register, against the express orders which I have given to every tenant on my estate?"—"Please your honour," cries Patrick Murphy, in an attitude of more than Celtic humiliation, touching the earth with his hat with one hand and his gray hairs with the other, "Father O'Shaughnessy!" "Does Father O'Shaughnessy know that you have no lease?" These are the amiable interpellations—the constitutional interrogatories to which the rejection of the self-acting registry will, beyond doubt, give rise. By raising the qualification from 8l. to 15l., the Lords have almost annihilated the household constituency, and made the sole depositors of the franchise a mass of serfs, who will vote under the eye of their landlords, or the terrible fascination of some basilisk of the law. It may occur to the Lords, that a system of servitude may result from this state of things, which will afford the most powerful arguments for the ballot, for it will be felt, even by those who are most strongly opposed to clandestine voting, that secrecy is better than servility, and that disengenuousness is not more immoral than fear. It may also occur to the House of Lords that they have unconsciously supplied the strongest incentives to agitation. They have furnished men by whom England is hated with a pretence for saying that justice cannot be obtained from the Imperial Parliament, and have put torches into the hands of those who have most interest in setting the country on fire. These considerations may not be without influence on the House of Lords. I do not despair of them—nay, of Lord Stanley's discretion—though I may be deemed sanguine indeed in saying so. I do not wholly despair. Although the noble Lord at the commencement of the Session intertwined with his cereal garland a wreath of lilies gathered at Dolly's Brae, and he has recently done his utmost to deliver Ireland over to that party which he once designated in terms so contumelious that I care not to repeat them, yet I entertain the hope that he may still revert to that better, happier time, when, during the passage of the great measure of emancipation, he objected to the franchise proposed by Sir Robert Peel as too high, when he afterwards, by changing the terms in the Irish Reform Bill, in the opinion of the best lawyers, lowered the 10l. franchise; and, above all, when he gave to the Irish people the best of all intellectual qualification for the right enjoyment of political privilege, by founding that admirable system of national instruction which stands as a monument of wisdom not the less conspicuous because it stands alone. I should be loth to say that Lord Stanley was insensible to his duty; I trust that he is not regardless of his interests, and surely he can scarce fail to feel that it is the consummation of imprudence on his part to put himself into antagonism with Ireland—to condense and concentrate the national disrelish in his name, and fill the hearts of millions with the persuasion that his advent to office would be followed by the restoration of ascendancy in its most odious form—that a deep-dyed flag would be again unfurled from the Castle, and that the rights and the feelings of the Irish people would be trodden under the foot of a fierce and truculent domination.

I think, Sir, the experience Lord Stanley gained in the administration of Ireland, and the acquaintance he has with its social condition, offer primâ facie evidence that any opinion the noble Lord has expressed with reference to that country is the result of personal knowledge and reflection. Because the other branch of the Legislature has confessedly exercised its constitutional privileges—nay, more, has performed its constitutional duties, I am surprised to hear it intimated, now the result of their labours has come before this House, that a collision has taken place between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. One hon. Member after another has risen to express astonishment that the House of Lords should have presumed to exercise the power with which it is constitutionally invested, and to say that a collision has taken place. No collision whatever has taken place. Even though the House of Commons should not agree to the Amendments, there is yet a constitutional machinery prepared, by which communication can still take place between both Houses, and until communications so conducted shall have failed, it is clearly at least premature for hon. Members to talk about collision. I think this House has a right to complain of the use the hon. Member for Manchester made of the name of the Sovereign in the course of this debate. He said that the Bill had been brought forward with the consent of the Sovereign. It is clearly against the rules of this House that the name of the Sovereign should be introduced to influence a debate. But the position taken up by the hon. Member for Manchester is not only unconstitutional, it is quite untrue. It is well known and universally understood that the consent of the Sovereign to the introduction of a Bill is only given in a provisional sense, and does not in any degree control the final and absolute decision of the Crown as a branch of the Legislature. This is so well known, and so necessary for the maintenance of public liberty and the freedom of discussion, that I should not have referred to it had not dangerous reference been made to the name of the Sovereign. Sir, after the extraordinary tone which has been introduced into the debate, and after an hon. Member has announced a collision between the two Houses, and introduced to our notice a new form of constitution, I must recall the attention of the House to the somewhat ordinary matter of fact subject upon which we are called upon to decide. The House of Lords has presumed, in the exercise of its constitutional functions, to make some alterations in a Bill. Now, Sir, I call upon the House to consider the nature of those alterations, and to say whether they are alterations which can justify the observations of those hon. Members who call out that there has been a collision between the two Houses. Let us see what those alterations are. There are, it appears, three points with regard to which the House of Lords is at issue with the House of Commons. The first is, the second clause; but that, let me remind hon. Gentlemen, was sent up a corpse—a dead body—to the House of Lords; condemned by the First Minister and by an influential Member of this House, who, by some miracle or another, failed in his division against it. The House of Lords had the presumption, and I will add the discretion, to throw out that clause. The next alteration appears to be this. The noble Lord put before the House this question—"I have proposed an 8l. qualification, but the Bill is brought to us from the Lords with a 15l. qualification. Now, as a matter of conciliation, I propose to meet the matter by passing a 12l. qualification." This would lead the House and the world to infer that the contest in the House of Lords was a contest between an 8l. and 15l. franchise, and that the House of Lords, with an insulting exercise of authority, struck out the proposed qualification, and inserted another nearly double in amount. The facts of the case, however, were these: that, after much discussion in this House, the 8l. qualification was sent to the House of Lords, but that the very Minister who had charge of the Bill stabbed this clause as it were in the hack, and himself virtually proposed a higher qualification. I appeal to the candour of hon. Gentlemen to bear me out when I say that the question at issue in the House of Lords was between a 12l. and a 15l. qualification. Well, if, after mature deliberation, this branch of the Legislature arrives at the conclusion that the franchise should be a 15l. instead of a 12l., is it to be contended that their so doing is an enormous violation of the constitution? Surely, if the question is to be decided by the House of Lords at all, this was a sedate, serious, and constitutional exercise of its authority. With respect to the third alteration—that which has reference to the self-acting register—is it possible to imagine a more moot point than such a question. I say emphatically that the provision of the Bill thus impugned is a compulsory one, and consequently alien to the policy of a free Government. If you have a free Government—a Government of free discussion—which is a form of government which the hon. Member for Manchester does not admire—no question can be more fairly debated than whether the registration shall be free or compulsory. This, I apprehend, is a point upon which the opinion of either branch of the Legislature ought to be listened to with respect; for, if ever there was a question upon which the opinion of a double chamber ought to be taken, it is this. These are the three great points upon which the House of Lords has presumed to differ from the House of Commons, and upon which we are told there is a collision between the two branches of the Legislature. With respect to the first point, the noble Lord has told us that he does not intend to disagree with the House of Lords; and, with regard to the second alteration, the noble Lord says, that instead of writing 8l. he would write 12l. as the qualification, being the amount which his own Minister virtually proposed. It appears, by the Parliamentary returns which are in the hands of every hon. Gentleman, that the estimated number of votes which will be created by the 15l. franchise, is 180,000. It is not, however, an extravagant estimate, allowing for joint occupiers and old qualified voters, to say that the constituency, under the 15l. qualification, will number 200,000 voters. ["No, no!"] Let us, however, look at our general position with reference to this Bill. We had a Reform Bill for Ireland, which failed, and you found yourselves in this position, that you had a country without a constituency. It would, I admit, be extremely desirable that we should have in Ireland a constituency similar to that which exists in England. Circumstances, however, have occurred to prevent that state of affairs in Ireland. We all agree in this, that although this Bill, whether as proposed by the Government, or as amended by the House of Lords, is still a factitious effort to produce a constituency. This being the case, we must of course draw a limit as to how far it may be safe to carry the experiment. I am not anxious to fight about the probable strength of the constituency which will be created by this Bill; but what I protest against is, that the subject of the Irish constituency should be always made a capital for party trading, and that any party in the State should think that they have the monopoly of arranging the political franchise in Ireland. Sir, I deny that this question was first taken up by the present Government. I deny the right or the fact, that by their entering on this subject the present Government can say they are the sole friends of Ireland in this respect. There was an attempt to settle the question some years ago by the Minister you are all now eulogising as the most liberal Minister the country ever saw. Every hon. Gentleman at this side of the House voted for the proposition of this Minister after your own hearts; and what was the qualification which he proposed? [Mr. TORRENS M'CULLAGH: Sir Robert Peel proposed a 30l. qualification.] Just so; and does not that large amount show the difference of opinion which prevails among the most eminent men in the country, and is it not an argument in favour of the decision of the House of Lords? Does it not show that the arbitrary numbers of 8l. or 12l. have no essential merit in them? This attempt, at a moment's notice, to create a constituency where none previously existed, is an experiment, and must be dealt with as an experiment. Your own returns say that it will increase the county franchise to 200,000; and this is not, I think, a scanty measure of reform. Sir, upon the whole, considering all the circumstances of the case—deeming that a franchise of 15l. will give an ample constituency—considering that the Government, by its conduct in the other House, has admitted that the qualification was not well considered in the first instance, and bearing in mind the vote of the House of Lords—we deem it to be our duty to support the Amendments which have been sent to us by that House.

said, the debate had now lasted nearly five hours, and during its progress he was surprised at the silence of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He was glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had at last spoken out on behalf of the House of Lords. He informed them that the House of Lords, in increasing the franchise to 15l., had exercised their undoubted privilege. The hon. Gentleman would seem to infer that while he was reading history, all the rest of the House was idle. His speech had convinced him (Mr. Reynolds) that the hon. Gentleman might make a speech and yet say very little. In fact, without meaning any personal offence, the speech reminded him of an inscription he had read that day in the neighbourhood of the House—"Rubbish may be shot here." It had been said that the 15l. franchise would be much lower than the 50l. rental to which a county vote was given in England under the Chandos Clause. That was true; but the House must remember that the great majority of voters in Eng- were not the 50l. tenants, but the 40s. freeholders. There were not, however, any voters of that kind in Ireland, as they had been swept away as the price of Catholic emancipation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo had told them that the Irish people had more than once decided who should be the Minister of the day; and he reminded the noble Lord that they might have to decide that question again. He warned the noble Lord, if he was anxious to hold the helm of the State, and he also warned the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, if he should aspire to that honour, that, if a fair and liberal policy were not extended to Ireland, the Liberal Members belonging to the Irish party would again decide who should he the Minister. Let them look at the disparity between the Irish and English constituencies. The population in the English counties amounted to 8,336,000, and the number of electors was 344,564, whilst in Ireland the population in the counties amounted to 7,445,100, and there were only 27,000 electors. He regretted the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had not acted independently, instead of being straitlaced and tied up with his party. He would have made a much more efficient representative if he had not been compelled to speak down to the intellects of the country Gentlemen. Although he was thankful to the noble Lord and his Colleagues for their successful efforts to promote civil and religious liberty, he was one of those who regretted that they did not take higher ground on the introduction of this Bill. He believed it a bad Bill, even in its infancy; but the House of Lords had made it considerably worse. He wished to ask, what was the meaning of the noble Premier proposing, in the first instance, that the franchise should be 8l., and the noble Marquess the President of the Council, in the other House, suggesting that such a franchise might be too low, and proposing that it should be a 12l. franchise? The House of Lords, as it had ever been, was opposed to every popular movement in the country. It was opposed to any measure of tenant-right—a question which the people of Ireland had set their hearts upon. Although this opposition might be carried to a great extent, his belief was that the people would ultimately triumph. He had at first made up his mind not to vote at all upon this question; but he had changed his mind, and would vote for the proposition that was now before the House, as he did not blame the noble Lord for what had taken place.

felt it necessary to say a few words, in consequence of the misrepresentation into which both the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin had fallen with respect to what had occurred in another place. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had said that the noble Marquess the President of the Council, who had charge of the Bill elsewhere, gave the Bill a stab in the back, and instead of proposing an 8l. he proposed a 12l. franchise to the House. The right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House had gone further, and said that the Marquess of Lansdowne had taken the lead in proposing a 12l. franchise, and that if he had not done so, an 8l. franchise would have been adopted by the House of Lords—

begged to state, that what he did say was, that if the noble Marquess the President of the Council had not proposed a 12l. franchise, the House of Lords would not have proposed a 15l. qualification.

said, that the Government did propose through the Marquess of Lansdowne an 8l. franchise; but another noble Lord (the Earl of St. Germans) having given notice of an Amendment that the House should adopt 12l., and another noble Lord (Lord Stanley) having given notice that he would move the adoption of 15l., the Marquess of Lansdowne, who had proposed 8l., seeing the feeling of the House, and conceiving that he would gain more for Ireland—that he would have a better chance of securing a substantial franchise for that country if he took the issue upon 12l. rather than 8l.—did in the course of the discussion suggest that, in case 15l. was rejected, he would propose 12l. The fact was, however, that the opportunity for proposing 12l. never arose at all.

begged to say that the right hon. Baronet had substantially confirmed his statement.

said, he would not discuss the matter of the registry further, but simply move that the Lords' Amendment, omitting Clauses 18, 19, and 21, be disagreed with.

wished to know whether Marlborough-house was not a portion of the property belonging to the Crown lands? He protested against the arrangement proposed by the Government with regard to Marlborough-house until the House was informed what funds there were at the present moment to the account of the Prince of Wales. He believed the land revenues of the Crown had been so egregiously mismanaged, that they produced little or nothing towards the public revenue. He understood that for ten years the accounts of that department had not been made up, and that the system of management had been most discreditable to the Woods and Forests, he would call upon the House to postpone assenting to this Resolution until they were in possession of further information on the subject.

would support the Hon. Member for Montrose in opposing the Resolution. He had again and again urged the Government to afford the House some information as to the management of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. He thought he had been somewhat unfairly treated by the Government on that subject. A return which bad been laid before the House relative to the New Forest showed that in many cases the property had been most grossly mismanaged. It bad been supposed that the timber in that forest was appropriated to purposes of shipbuilding in the public dockyards; but the fact was, that a system of collusion had existed between persons connected with the forest and private shipbuilders, and the latter obtained the timber at a merely nominal value.

hoped the House would not, at that late hour, go into the question of the management of the forests, which really had nothing to do with the subject before the House. By the arrangement which was proposed with regard to the stables, and the extension of Carlton Terrace, the value of the Crown property would be increased by at least from 16,000l. to 20,000l. He thought when the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken examined the accounts of the land revenues, they would not consider the management had been so bad as they seemed to suppose. They would find that in the last thirty years the land revenues of the Crown had increased in a far greater proportion than any other land revenues in the country; for they had been raised from 30,000l. or 40,000l. to about 200,000l. a year.

was very glad to hear there had been an increase; but he should like to know what had been the net increase in the land revenue. He maintained that the whole revenue of the Woods and Forests was less than nothing. He believed the Crown lands were so badly managed that scarcely any revenue was derived from them. He complained that these important propositions were brought on at so late a period of the evening, when they were assented to as a matter of course. There was a time when he could sit the Speaker out of the chair, but he could not do that now. He did not see why they should now grant Marlborough-house to an individual who could not want it for nine or ten years to come. There must be something behind the scenes—some job or other, no doubt; and, unless some explanation was afforded, he would record his vote against the Resolution.

believed the whole proceeding to be a gross job.

insisted that before another charge was thrown upon the land revenues of the Crown, the House ought to know the extent of the burdens upon them.

said, that what was proposed with respect to the stables would be an advantage instead of a new charge upon the land revenues. The whole advantage; to the public would be about 800l. a year.

believed that Marlborough-house would be occupied forthwith, and that there would be very considerable expense to the public.

said, he had hoped, when he consented to postpone the discussion on the vote at present before the House, that he should be granted the opportunity of bringing it forward at, at least, as early and favourable an hour as that at which he yielded to the wishes of the Government, in postponing it; but he found that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had decided on bringing the vote on at that late hour, and although he expected the disadvantages he at present laboured under, from the advanced period of the night, as well as from the fatigue the House must feel after sitting with little interruption, since twelve o'clock, and after two debates on subjects most important and exciting, yet he considered it his duty not to lose the last opportunity of bringing before the House a subject which he considered of extreme importance to Ireland, and which he thought ought to engage the earnest attention not only of that House, but of the country. Although the subject was necessarily connected with some of the most essential interests of the country, and although it would be necessary, in elucidating it, to make statements of figures, at all times wearisome, yet he should endeavour to do so as shortly as he possibly could. On the occasion of the Estimated Votes, No. 3, for law and justice, he had pointed out what he asserted to be a gross injustice to Ireland, and showed that while within a few years, in fact since 1845, this House had remitted a sum between 700,000l. and 1,000,000l., formerly borne by county rates in England, to the local taxation, and placed it on the Consolidated Fund, while it had not only not remitted any equivalent to Ireland, but actually increased the local burdens by 2,000,000l. for poor-rates alone. In England prisoners, whether convicts or misdemeanants, were supported from the Consolidated Fund, while in Ireland the greater number were thrown on the resources of the counties. It would appear from the papers laid on the table of the House, that the following were the sums granted for the support of persons convicted during the years 1847, 1848, 1849:—