said, he wished to take the opinion of Mr. Speaker upon a question whether this Bill had been properly introduced. The Act which it was intended to continue provided that the expenses of any constabulary employed under it should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, and that such advances should be repaid by the district wherein the constabulary were employed. A tax was thus imposed upon the public. These provisions had been introduced into the original Bill in the usual mode in which clauses involving taxation were introduced, namely, through a Committee of the whole House before being added to the Bill. The Bill then ought to have been introduced into that House in the first instance, and not in the Lords. The Commons had always insisted upon their privileges where taxation was concerned; and he submitted that they ought to require the present Bill to be laid aside, on the ground of this irregularity.

said, his attention had only just been directed to the clauses in question, and they appeared to him to sustain the view taken by the hon. Member for Kerry. The Lords of the Treasury were authorised to issue certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund, which were to be repaid by the district. This being so, he thought the Bill ought to be laid aside, and another brought in.

said, that, after what had fallen from Mr. Speaker, it was better the House should not proceed with the consideration of the Bill. He would therefore move that the order for the second reading be discharged, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland would immediately move for leave, to which he (Lord J. Russell) apprehended the House would not object, to bring in the measure again.

thought that some reasons ought to have been assigned for such a Motion. When the existing measure was brought in, he voted for it, upon the express assurance that it would not be renewed without absolute necessity. There was clearly no necessity for its continuance now, because every account received from Ireland stated that the country was perfectly peaceful, and the people orderly and well disposed. Under these circumstances he could not consent to arm the Government with extraordinary powers, and he should give the Bill his decided opposition. The House ought to have some statement of the grounds upon which such a measure was proposed.

had no objection whatever to state the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government requested the House to renew, for a limited period, the powers which the former Act had conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was gratifying to him to be able to say, that, in asking for permission to introduce the Bill, it was not in his power, as was the case when the existing Act was passed, to point to a long list of crimes and outrages in Ireland as the principal reason for adopting such a measure. On the contrary, the condition of Ireland, as regarded crime and outrage, had very greatly improved since that period. Still there were certain indications, apparent to all who troubled themselves to observe what was passing in that country, exhibited occasionally by the commission of some startling crime like that which was recently committed upon Mr. Mauleverer, and certain other appearances in the general condition of the country, that, he thought, should induce hon. Members to pause before they suddenly deprived the Lord Lieutenant of the powers he now possessed. He entreated the House not to consent to deprive the Lord Lieutenant of those powers, because he did not believe that any serious objection could be urged against their continuance. When they were discussing this Act on a former occasion, two objections were taken to it—the one being, that it was a severe measure of coercion; the other, that it was not sufficient for the purposes for which it was introduced. But neither of these assertions had turned out to be correct; on the contrary, the Act had not proved to be severely coercive towards any parties except evil-doers, and it had undoubtedly been completely efficient in checking the disposition to crime and outrage. Her Majesty's Judges had, during their present circuit, alluded, in the most gratifying terms, to the almost unprecedented tranquillity prevailing in Ireland; and there was no doubt that very much of that tranquillity was attributable to the Act which he now asked them to continue. Considering the indications to which he had alluded, he thought it would be an act of great indiscretion, and that this House would be much to blame, now to allow arms to fall into the possession of improper persons in Ireland, and thus remove that wholesome check which the Act imposed, and encourage those who were adverse to the maintenance of the public peace to commence a fresh system of crime and outrage in that country. He had said—and he believed it—that the Act had not pressed severely upon any portion of the inhabitants of Ireland excepting the evildoers. None of the peaceable inhabitants had anything to complain of. Its provisions had been administered temperately, firmly, and wisely; and he said again that it would be most indiscreet on the part of this House to risk this state of tranquillity by taking from the Lord Lieutenant those powers which the Act conferred upon him, and which that noble Lord thought it was absolutely necessary should be again entrusted to him. He had said nothing about the time for which it was intended to continue the Act, because that was a question which might be better considered in Committee; but he did entreat the House not to refuse him leave to bring in a Bill which contained such effectual checks upon those who were inclined to disturb the public peace, and to place the tranquillity of Ireland upon a sure basis.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the period to which he proposed these extraordinary powers should be limited, and which he hoped would be less than was suggested by the Bill which had come down from the Lords. He admitted that there were indications in various parts of Ireland which should make them cautious how they deprived the Executive of powers they conceived to be necessary for the suppression of crime; but, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the object of the present measure was to prevent improper persons having possession of arms. But, if so, why not propose an Arms Act at once? If a reasonable Arms Act were proposed, he did not believe it would meet with opposition. He was aware it would be answered, "Why, we put the Tories out upon an Arms Act—how, then, can we consistently propose such a measure ourselves?" But because the opposite party had brought forward a bad Arms Bill, was that any reason why the present Government should not bring in a good one? He saw no reason against imposing a small tax on all persons possessing arms, and requiring that such possession should be registered. But there was something necessary beyond that: the Government must deal with the land question. It must be decided whether the landlord should merely be in the position of the holder of a rent-charge on his property, or whether the tenant should be entitled only to fair compensation for improvements. With regard to the question then before them, not being willing to deprive Government of the means which they considered necessary for the maintenance of tranquillity, he should offer it no opposition; he hoped, however, that the period for the continuance of these extraordinary powers would be as limited as was consistent with the public safety.

said, he was under the necessity of opposing the Motion for leave to bring in this Bill. He had never before heard of such a measure being sought to be introduced without any statement being made to enable the House to judge of its necessity. He admitted that in the hands of the Earl of Clarendon the present Act, which it was now proposed to continue, had been administered with prudence and moderation; but that was no reason why its provisions should be continued, unless satisfactory reasons could be assigned for it. When the Bill was originally proposed, it was said that as it was a coercive law it should be accompanied by measures of a remedial character, calculated to improve the social condition of the country. He maintained that those promises had been broken. The people of Ireland had passed through intense suffering, and had borne their afflictions through years of famine with unexampled patience and endurance; and if there were any exciting causes abroad among them to crime and outrage, they must be attributed to the existing relations between landlord and tenant. Clearances and evictions were going on to a fearful extent, in order to drive the people from the soil; whilst the Act passed two years ago to afford relief in this respect had proved a complete failure. Nor would the Act for the Sale of Incumbered Estates have any effect in preventing this evil. He believed that no frauds would be committed by tenants if frauds were not committed upon them either by agents or landlords—a proof to him that there was something defective in their legal relations. But he contended that there was no evidence of crime sufficient to justify the House to adopt coercive measures; and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had only mentioned one case, the murder of Mr. Mauleverer. But there had been strong provoking causes to outrage in that particular district. One crime, however, in a particular locality was clearly not sufficient to justify a general measure of coercion. The late Sir Robert Peel, whose loss they all lamented, when he attempted to pass a Bill of a similar character to this, was told by the noble Lord at the head of the present Government that Coercion Bills should not be sent to Ireland unaccompanied by measures of relief; and since that declaration carried the noble Lord into power, he insisted upon his now acting upon it. He might, however, be told that already Government had done all they could to improve the condition of Ireland, and perhaps he would be reminded of the Incumbered Estates Act; but though the improvement of Ireland was the object of that Act, it served to promote evictions and increase the miseries of the people. Fifteen years ago the House recognised the right of the Irish tenant to something in the shape of protection against his landlord; and repeated, though futile, had been the attempts since then to establish the right by legislative enactment. But, in the meantime, Arms Acts and Coercion Bills had been carried without end. The time had, however, arrived when a stop must be put to this mode of proceeding; and now that the hopes of the Irish tenantry had been excited by the promises of Her Majesty's Government, he warned them that the passing of this Bill, in the place of some remedial measure, would be productive of endless discontent and insurmountable difficulties. But, independently of all this, there was no necessity for this Bill; the country was tranquil, and comparatively free from extensive crime; why, then, persist in passing a Bill of coercion? The other day, when it was proposed to renew the Alien Act, the House of Lords refused the Motion: there was no necessity for it, they said; but if hereafter any occasion for it should arise, then would be the time to ask for its renewal. Now, why could not the same course be adopted with reference to this measure? He should give his strongest opposition to the Bill.

sconded the Amendment, and said the right hon. Baronet the Irish Secretary had on this occasion adopted a different course to that of his predecessor in office, when asking permission to suspend the constitution of Ireland, and to curtail the liberties of the Irish people. The habit on former occasions was to relate a long list of crime and outrage; but the habit of the present Secretary for Ireland was to ask permission to re-enact the Act of the 20th December, 1847, and in doing so he said he was free to admit he could give no list of crime and outrage. There were "indications" of such things, the right hon. Gentleman said, but he had not condescended to favour the House with any translation of the word "indication." He had referred to the murder of Mr. Mauleverer; but there was nothing in that case to distinguish it from any of the agrarian murders which had taken place in the country, in proof of which the Lord Lieutenant had not thought it necessary to proclaim the barony where it occured. There was no political agitation in Dublin, nor any disturbance in any part of the country. Yet, because these pleasing results had occurred, the right hon. Gentleman asked the House, with only about forty Members in it, to suspend the constitution for four years. The only excuse he ventured to give for so monstrous a proposi- tion was, that the Earl of Clarendon had not abused the provisions of the present Act. [The hon. Member then read several passages from the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session, and asked if any of the promises then made by the Government had been kept to the people of Ireland?] Echo answered, "No!" That might be an echo in the Paddy Blake sense—but it was true, nevertheless. He submitted that this Bill was an insult to the people of Ireland, who, the Queen had declared, were loyal and attached to Her; the reward they were to get for that loyalty and attachment was, the suspension of the constitution, which suspension would hand them over to the tender mercies of whoever might represent the Queen in Ireland. He was not prepared to place the liberties of the people of Ireland in the hands of the Earl of Clarendon, or anybody else. A man holding the office of Lord Lieutenant was made of flesh and blood, and, like other men, he might abuse the powers which the law entrusted to him, and, therefore, the name of the Earl of Clarendon ought not to have been introduced in connexion with this question. In the name of common justice, was the House prepared to sanction this Bill? If hon. Members were so prepared, then he would say the Irish people had nothing to expect from a British Parliament but "coercion, coercion, coercion." What had they done for Ireland? The poor-law had been amended; but "amended" in such a case was a misnomer. It should have been "disfigured;" for they had so disfigured it that the pressure upon the landlord was diminished, whilst that on the tenant was increased. Had they attempted to deal with the temporalities of the Irish Church? Had they endeavoured to improve the relations between landlord and tenant? If all these things were left undone, how could they be surprised at the state of Ireland? In conclusion, he called upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as the leader of the liberal party, not to lower or stain his high reputation by pressing this Bill upon the country at a time when the Judges of assize in every county had uniformly congratulated the grand juries upon the almost total absence of crime.

, in common with all persons who were interested in the welfare of Ireland, deeply and sincerely lamented that the settlement of the landlord and tenant question had been so long delayed by Government. For his own part he could scarcely conceive any legislation to be so bad as the delay which had taken place in grappling with that question, and thus keeping the mind of the Irish people in its present uncertain and excited state. He was desirous of legislating in the most equitable spirit towards all parties; and he did hope, that at all events a very short period only would be allowed to expire before the House expressed its opinion openly and honestly to the people of Ireland as to how far it could by legislation assist them in settling the relations between landlord and tenant. But though the delay of that question might be complained of as a great injury and grievance, that was no reason why he should oppose the Government when they came and asked for another measure which he believed to be a good and useful measure. On the present occasion the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had asked leave to introduce a measure which did not suspend the constitution of Ireland—which did not seek to interfere with the privileges of any peaceable or honest man—which only provided for the continuance, for a short and limited period, of powers which, if called into action at all, would only be called into action in the event of disaffection and disturbances again arising in Ireland; and, therefore, he (Mr. Napier) did not feel himself justified in withholding his support from such a measure. The powers, the continuance of which they were now required to agree to, were of no extraordinary character, and he thought the request was not an unreasonable one. Of course it was done upon the responsibility of the Government, and, believing that it would be right for the House to comply with their request, he had no difficulty in giving his vote in support of the Motion. They had been told that the evils against which the Act was levelled were chiefly agrarian evils, and he admitted that this was substantially correct. But they must take Ireland as they found it, with all that complication of its social relations, and all those difficulties and evils which had arisen from innumerable causes; and it was their duty to walk with cautious and prudent steps, and to see, if they did arm the Executive with sufficient powers for the repression of crime, that their legislation was directed also to the preservation of the rights of property and the rights of the tenantry. With regard to the murder of Mr. Mauleverer, he had looked through the depositions of the parties who had been examined on the trial; but in vain had he searched for any single act of cruelty, of injustice, or even of harshness, on the part of the unfortunate gentleman who was the victim of that barbarous and inhuman murder. He held in his hand a statement of facts which Mr. Mauleverer had laid before the Court of Chancery with regard to the condition of the property for which he was the receiver and agent. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to read from the documents the details of the circumstances he had mentioned.]

rose to order. They wore called upon to deal with Ireland as she now was, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking of what took place ten years ago. Those cases might be true, but he submitted that they had no bearing on the question before them.

said, that one of those cases had already been referred to. However, he would not persevere. He would support the Government in this measure because he thought it necessary, even though Ireland was now peaceable. They were bound to see that the peace of the country was preserved, to prevent the commission of crime and outrage, and at the same time to protect the rights both of landlords and tenants, which were essential to the preservation of the general rights of property, and the peace and welfare of the country. Under these circumstances he should support the introduction of the present Bill, and he should also give his best assistance in aiding the Government to carry an effective measure for regulating the arrangements between landlord and tenant.

Sir, I am anxious to address the House, because the hon. Gentleman who moved, and the right hon. Gentleman who seconded, the Amendment, have proposed to refuse those powers which the Government ask for, for a limited time, upon grounds which I certainly think will not be considered tenable by this House. What, in fact, they say is this: "You have had a law subsisting for some time, by which you have changed the state of society for the time from one of prevalent crime and outrage, from one of terror on the part of the peaceful inhabitants, from one of murder and assassination, frequently or repeatedly committed, into one of peace, order, and tranquillity; those outrages have been far less frequent than formerly; the peaceful inhabitants, whether landlords, tenants, or labourers, have felt greater confidence than they have hitherto done; the country consequently has means of improvement which it has not so long as crime and outrage are the rule and order of society; and, because you have done this, because with the confidence and the powers entrusted to you by Parliament, and without any alleged abuses of those powers you have established tranquillity and order, the Government is utterly undeserving of confidence, and therefore we will refuse you a continuance of those powers, and declare you are utterly unworthy of the power which you come forward to ask." Now, Sir, I contend that that is by no means a justifiable ground for refusing the powers which the Government ask. I do not say that such powers are to be for ever continued; but, at the same time, when hon. Gentlemen describe these powers as they have been described, as subversive of the constitutional rights of the Irish people as British subjects, I contend that that is a totally erroneous description of the powers which are given by this Act. It is not an Act giving the powers which, I think in 1833 or 1834, were granted by Parliament, to prevent any discussion in public meetings of alleged grievances of the Irish people; it is not an Act like the former Insurrection Acts, by which even the peaceable inhabitants of a district were prevented from going out at night; it is not an Act which at all, as I think, affects the legitimate rights of the innocent and the peaceable; it is an Act which gives power to the Lord Lieutenant, when a district is in a state of disturbance, and offences are frequent, to proclaim that district, and thereupon certain consequences follow. The Lord Lieutenant may place in such district an increased constabulary, which must be a protection and security to the peaceable inhabitants; and at the same time orders may be issued that arms should not be held except by persons to whom licences are granted for that purpose. These large powers are not granted to local magistrates, or to persons at all affected by the local and political passions of the district; but they are confined to persons named by the executive authority, and who, therefore, are totally apart from those passions. The power is given, in places where assassination and crimes of that description are frequent, to take arms from persons who, after ample notice and proclamation, persist in carrying them. I say, then, it is not a right description of such an Act as this, to say it is a measure subversive of the constitutional rights of the people. Such Acts would not be asked for unless they were necessary for the welfare of the people for whom they are enacted; but I confess I have had a lesson upon this subject which induces me to say that I will not part with power for preserving peace if I do not feel confident that the ordinary law, without such extraordinary powers, would enable the Government to maintain peace. At the very commencement of the present Government we proposed to continue an Arms Act which we found existing upon the Statute-book. It being then the month of August, we consented that that Act should only continue until the following May, in order that we might have time to consider it. It was pressed upon us that the people of Ireland might be safely left to the exercise of their own discretion, and that the experiment should at least be tried of having no Act of restriction or coercion. We said we were ready to see if the peace of Ireland could not be preserved without any such Act; and we consented not to have such powers. What was the consequence? Why, the open purchase of arms, by persons who purchased them for the purpose of disturbing the peace of the country—for the purpose of making the highways unsafe—for the purpose of making the house of the industrious farmer unsafe, and for the purpose of placing the whole country in a state of insecurity. I confess that I never felt the weight of responsibility more than when I was brought to consider that our parting with those powers, in our confidence in the disposition of the people, had tended in a great degree to encourage that state of disturbance and insecurity. This, I say, was a lesson to me not prematurely to part with these powers. But, Sir, I must admit that when Gentlemen say that such powers as these, although they are not subversive of the constitutional rights of the people, are yet extraordinary powers, that should not be given for any very long period, they urge a very fair objection. I confess that this is a fair objection to the period for which the Bill was originally proposed; and I shall be quite satisfied to say, that the present Bill shall continue only till the 31st December, 1851, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament. Parliament would then have the question before them; and they would have time to consider whether the continuance of these powers be necessary. But I certainly must entreat the House not at present to declare that they are quite satisfied no such powers are necessary, and that Ireland should be left during the next autumn without the existence of such powers. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale, who proposed the Amendment, says there are various measures which have not been passed, and he refers more especially to our legislation on the subject of landlord and tenant. Why, Sir, we have repeatedly endeavoured to introduce Bills which might give satisfaction upon that subject. One of those Bills was referred to a Select Committee of this House, consisting chiefly of Irish Members, and by them reported to the House. The Bill was introduced in the course of the present Session, it being mainly founded, at least in its principal provisions, upon the report of the Committee. But the subject is one of extreme difficulty; and when the Bill came to be considered in Ireland, such opposition was manifested to it, and such objections made to its provisions, that I was forced reluctantly to come to the conclusion that if we had asked the concurrence of Parliament to the Bill, so that it should become an Act, instead of allaying, it would rather have tended to aggravate excitement upon the subject. At the same time, we had the objections continually made by the hon. Member for Rochdale, and by others, who, whilst opposing the Bill we had introduced, asked for certain other provisions, and those provisions of a nature which I think Parliament could not sanction. Because, if on the one hand it is right to give every security to the tenant which legislation can give, it is not right upon the other hand, when the engagement between landlord and tenant is one of a voluntary nature, and the landlord can be only held to have parted with his property for a certain portion of time, and that time known to the law—whether it be, as it is called, a tenant at will, or for a term of years longer or shorter—that the Legislature should then come in and say, "We will place such conditions upon the bargain between the landlord and tenant, that the real and actual property shall be in the tenant, and not in the landlord." This involves such a manifest injustice, and it is such a direct contradiction to all the known principles of law and justice, that Parliament, I am sure, would not assent to it. Yet many of the propositions I have heard made, though they did not uphold that principle, nor directly aver that the property of one man should hereafter he made the property of another, did indirectly carry such a transfer into effect. I say, then, that with these difficulties, and with a measure sure to excite discontent in the present state of the public mind in Ireland, especially in the north, we could not consent to a measure which would be unjust and contrary to all the rules and maxims upon which the rights of property are founded. Under these circumstances, I am compelled to say we must pause for a time, and endeavour to see whether the provisions we have proposed cannot be modified or amended by a Bill to be introduced, which may give, at least to the tenant, all the rights he can possibly ask, without interfering with the acknowledged rights of the landlord. There is, however, this difficulty in the question, that if, as I should be disposed, you make the remedy extremely simple, you may debar the landlord from those claims that he may properly make; and that, if you give him all the rights of interference which he may claim, and say no improvements shall be subject to compensation, unless they have been made with his consent, you then run the risk of making the machinery of the Act so complicated that it will be inoperative. I have felt these difficulties weigh upon me very seriously. I do not think, however, that the absence of provisions of this kind, is a reason for refusing the present Bill, though I confess the law is in an unsatisfactory state. I do not like at this time to enter into the consideration of other measures which are not before the House; but the hon. Gentleman required that one measure should be introduced in conformity with what we have before stated, namely, a measure with regard to waste lands. We abandoned the Bill that we had introduced on that subject; but, at the same time, we very much increased the sums advanced for the purpose of improvements in land. In the present year, as well as in the last, we have sanctioned, on the part of the Treasury, the advances of very large sums for what is called arterial drainage, and the general improvement of the land already cultivated in Ireland. I confess I am convinced that that mode of improvement—the advancement of sums for the cultivation of lands that are in a state of imperfect cultivation, and which thereby may be made more valuable—is a better mode of apply- ing advances made from the Exchequer of the united kingdom, than upon bringing waste lands under cultivation. I shall not enter into the discussion of other measures—measures which no doubt are highly beneficial, and which will tend to promote the advantage of Ireland, but which many hon. Members consider either injurious, or tending to diminish the welfare of the country. I only refer to them with the view of showing that we have introduced measures, which, in our opinion, tended to improve the country. But I certainly must ask the House to give us the power of introducing this Bill, which shall be, as I have said, of the limited duration of two years; for I think it would be imprudent in the Government not to ask, and imprudent in the House not to concede, the powers necessary for the preservation of order and peace in Ireland, which it is admitted on all hands the Acts of Parliament and the conduct of the Administration have hitherto tended to secure.

said, the noble Lord, by consenting that the Bill should be limited to two years, had admitted that to propose to continue it for four years, was a monstrous proposition. This measure was first brought in at a time when many Members felt themselves forced to give an unwilling support to it, but it was to be of short continuance; and when they knew that Ireland was in a state of security and peace from one end to another, he thought it very strange that this Bill should now he brought forward. He was willing to admit that, in the present state of Ireland, there ought to be some law to prevent the unlimited possession of arms; but they ought to give up marking arms, which was useless, and the power of granting licences ought not to be in the hands of magistrates, which served as an incentive to the possession of arms.

said, he rose for the purpose of making an observation upon a portion, and he believed the principal portion, of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice some time ago that he would bring forward the case of the murder of Mr. Mauleverer, and that notice appeared on the paper for some days or weeks. He (Mr. Bright) was not aware it was coming on to-day, and he was not prepared to go into it; hut, for the purpose of justifying Mr. M'Ghee, he would state that he had looked through the whole case, and be- lieving that his statement was capable of proof, he was sorry that the hon. and learned Member had brought it on to-day without notice. He would not go into the Bill now, as he supposed there would be frequent opportunities, during the future stages of the Bill, except to say that there appeared to be no case made out whatever for it. The noble Lord at the head of the Government wanted to make it appear that, because there was no crime in Ireland, there was a case for this Bill. He (Mr. Bright) believed this Bill was unnecessary, and he should be disposed to give his opposition to the Bill. If the noble Lord had brought it in for one year, there might not have been the same objection to it.

explained, with regard to the case of Mr. Mauleverer, that he should not have brought it on to-day if other hon. Members had not adverted to it.

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman, considering the lateness of the Session, would consent to the introduction of the Bill, and on the second reading he could state his objections to it. If he would do so, he should have a full opportunity of discussing the merits of the Bill.

should oppose the progress of the present discussion. This Bill had been moved for without notice, and against the forms of the House, and it was for the purpose of coercion. He wished to adhere to the forms of the House for the purpose of preserving the constitution. They ought not to proceed with this measure without having before them the returns of crime and outrage. Why had those returns not been made?

said, the only departure from the ordinary practice was, that in ordinary cases leave was given without a debate, and in this case there was a debate.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer to the question of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal as to the returns of crimes and outrage last year in Ireland. They were not moved for till the 12th of July, and they could not be in possession of them yet.

replied, that he was not aware those returns had been moved for at all.

said, he had not the slightest objection that the debate should go on if that was for the convenience of the House; but he did not think it right that the statement of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin should go forth to Ireland, containing, as it did, many erroneous statements, without an answer.

said, the statements of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin were calculated to create so much misapprehension, both in Ireland as well as in this House, that he could not allow the Bill to be introduced till he had attempted to confute them.

called upon the Government to consent to the adjournment. The Bill proposed to suspend to a certain extent the constitution in Ireland, and it ought not to be hurried through.

would then move the adjournment of the House.

objected to Irish legislation being carried on at two o'clock in the morning. He had left the House last night on the understanding that what was called the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill would not be read a second time that night.

said, he would not bring this Bill forward later than eleven o'clock that night. He begged distinctly to deny that the principle of this Bill was a suspension of the constitution.

disclaimed any intention to mislead the House as to the second reading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill.

said, the Bill had been read a second time on the understanding that it would be materially altered in Committee.

had only to say he hoped they were not about to add to the trouble and expense already incurred by ordering these returns to be printed.

quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that much needless trouble and expense were incurred in the preparation of returns, which were often calculated to subserve no object of public advantage. The returns could not be printed without the consent of the Printing Committee; but this was only one instance out of many of the great expense and trouble which were often incurred for returns equally valueless with the present. He remembered one instance in which no fewer than 30,000 letters had to be written for the purpose of obtaining the information wanted, and when it was obtained it turned out to be different from what had been anticipated by the hon. Member who moved for it.

thought it would be of great advantage to appoint a Committee, or some other authority, to superintend the ordering and preparation of returns. At present, when returns were moved for, it very rarely happened that a dozen Members knew what was passing in consequence of the buzz of conversation in the House, and in a single instant it often happened that the question was put, and the order of the House made, which led to a great expenditure of money and labour. This would be avoided if the previous sanction of a Committee were necessary to the procuring of returns.

would remind the House that the Printing Committee some time ago recommended hon. Members, before they moved for returns, to consult the librarian, in order to ascertain whether the information required might not be had by other means. If hon. Members would adhere to that recommendation, the expense of preparing voluminous returns might in many cases be avoided.

said, that at present, when the head of a Government department was asked whether he had any objection to lay such and such returns upon the table, he, being considered a party interested, was unwilling to offer any objection, unless there was some public reason for doing so. But it seemed to him that what was principally wanted was some impartial tribunal, who would look into the subject and decide in each case whether it was worth while to incur the necessary expense of procuring the returns.

hoped the House would pause before imposing any restrictions upon the obtaining of information. He admitted there were considerable abuses under the present system; but still the abuses were not so great as they were twenty years ago. Considerable improvements had been introduced into the regulations with regard to returns since that time, principally, he believed, through the exertions of the hon. Member for Montrose; and he did not think there was anything at present to call for the interposition of the House. If hon. Members, before moving for returns, would consult the librarian, he believed that all the existing abuses would be checked, if not altogether prevented.

said, that if Motions for returns were referred to the particular department of Government which was supposed to possess the required information before they were agreed to, he could not help thinking that much expense would be saved.

thought that if Members would adhere to the recommendation of the Printing Committee to inquire whether the information required was not already before the House in some shape or other, and if, in addition to this, they would adopt the rule which he always observed never to move for returns unless they had some object in view beyond the mere desire to obtain the information, very much of the expense now incurred would be avoided.

considered that many returns were made to meet the purposes of the department, rather than with the view of affording the information required.

said, that the conversation was originated not by the expense of printing, but by the expense of collecting the materials for printing. The rule which he adopted with regard to returns, and which he would recommend to others, was, never to remove for returns unless he meant to take some proceedings with regard to them. He thought there should be a Standing Committee appointed to whom all Motions for returns should be referred before they were ordered, with a view to ascertain, first, the probable expense of collecting the materials, and the time that would be required in collecting them; and, second, whether the information required was not already in existence. The library was already incumbered with returns which Members, with very little pains, might have collected from other documents already published; indeed, he must say, that he believed few persons examined into facts and figures more than he did, and yet he was astonished to find that the current statistical details published by the House contained almost everything he wanted.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, respecting the correspondence which had taken place between the Government and the corporation of London consequent on the recommendation of the commissioners in favour of the removal of Smithfield market, and also as the course Government proposed to take in the matter?

said, it was intimated on a former occasion that the Government concurred with the recommendations of the commission respecting the removal of Smithfield market to another place. A copy of that report had been sent by the Government to the corporation of London, on the 24th of June last, calling their attention to the recommendations contained in it as to the discontinuance of Smithfield market, and desiring to know if the corporation were willing to engage in the construction of a new market. An answer had been received only to-day from the City Remembrancer, which he would read:—

asked whether a Bill for the removal of Smithfield market would be brought before them this Session?

Not this Session.

presented a petition from the members of the English Homœpathic Association and others, complaining of the conduct of the deputy-coroner of Middlesex, in the case of an inquest upon the body of the late Richard David Pearce. The petitioners stated that the hon. Member for Finsbury bad appointed his deputy to inquire into the case of Richard David Pearce, and that that gentleman had shown so little knowledge of his duty upon that occasion that he had misdirected the jury, who, under his guidance, had returned a verdict of manslaughter against the brother of Pearce, who had in consequence been placed in the felons' ward of Newgate.

rose to order. The noble Lord had been kind enough to show him a copy of the petition, and he found that the noble Lord was stating what it did not contain.

said, the noble Lord must confine himself to the contents of the petition.

, in continuation, said, that the petitioners stated that the charge of manslaughter was ignored by the grand jury of the county of Middlesex, and that the case, when subsequently tried on the inquisition of the coroner's jury before Mr. Justice Maule, at the Old Bailey, on the 29th of October last, was stopped after the examination of two witnesses for the prosecution by Mr. Justice Maule, in the following words:—"This man seems to have been doctored as well as he could be; how any man can be found to say this defendant is guilty of manslaughter I cannot possibly imagine." The petitioners, therefore, prayed that, with a view to prevent for the future such prejudiced and inefficient performance of the judicial office of a coroner, that portion of the Act of Parliament known as the Coroners' Act, which enables coroners themselves to appoint their deputies, may be repealed, in order that the officer who actually performs the duties of the coroner may be of the choice and appointment of the county.

expressed a hope that, if he was not exactly in order, he would be permitted, through the kind indulgence of the House, to address them on the subject of this petition. He would only occupy their attention for a few minutes. The petition contained allegations of a very trumpery character, and he was really surprised that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, though he was the president of the Homœpathic Association, and ought to have informed the House of that fact, should have presented it. The affair to which it alluded took place last October; Pearce was tried at the end of October. Now, if the deputy-coroner had been guilty of any illegality at the inquest, why had not an attempt been made to quash the inquisition? Surely that House was not the place to complain of it. He contended that the deputy-coroner had been guilty of no illegality upon the occasion, and that not a single person whose name appeared in the petition would dare to state that he was at the inquest, or that he had read a syllable of the evidence. That House was considered a better place for advertising the quackery of the Homœpathic Institution than the courts of law. He hoped, however, that hon. Members would set their faces against this impudent proceeding. He called it "impudent," for he believed that a more audacious set of quacks did not exist, and could not be found, on the surface of the globe, than were to be found in the Homœpathic Institution. It consisted partly of noodles and partly of knaves. The noodles formed the majority, and the knaves used them as tools; and if they could contrive to get into their hands some amiable noble Lord, and to stick him up as president, they advertised their association over the world, and then, as it often unfortunately happened in such cases, too many dupes were found to become the victims of their abominable designs. Now, in this case, they had had the audacity to come to that House and to make a charge against a public officer, who had simply discharged his duty, and discharged it properly. It was, perhaps, quite right that they should have a dread of coroners, and they had a natural dread of them; and now their object was, not only to advertise their association by means of this petition at the cheapest possible rate, but to terrify coroners from the faithful discharge of their duties to the public. He knew not how far the House would allow them to succeed in their first object, but he knew that they would not succeed in their second. He had communicated, by means of the constable in attendance at the inquest, with the jurors who sat upon the body, and, in answer to his request that they would state their opinion of the conduct of the deputy-coroner on the occasion, he had received the following declaration:—

"We, the undersigned, having been twelve of the jurymen who acted at an inquest held on the 9th day of October last, in the parish of St. Pancras, Middlesex, on the body of the late Richard David Pearce, hereby willingly testify that the deputy-coroner, Henry Membury Wakley, Esq., who presided on that occasion, performed his duty in a most patient, able, and impartial manner; that he more than once stated to us in his summing-up, that he did not consider there was evi- dence to sustain a charge of manslaughter; and, afterwards, on attending at our request in the room where we were deliberating on our verdict, to explain a point of law, and to point out the technical form in which our verdict should be framed, on being told by us when he entered the room that twelve of us were for a verdict of manslaughter, he several times expressed a very strong opinion that it was much better that such a verdict should not be returned, because there was not sufficient evidence to justify and sustain such a verdict."

He would not, after reading this declaration, trouble—or, he would say, insult the House, by any further observations on the case as affecting the deputy-coroner. But now the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, should know what transpired at the Old Bailey after coroners and magistrates had discharged their duty and sent persons to trial, in consequence of there not being a public prosecutor in this country. He would instance the case of Pearce, and from that the cases in respect of others might be judged. He would not go into the case of Pearce, further than to say, that he thought the prisoner had been most properly acquitted at the Old Bailey; and far be it from him to fasten any guilt upon the man, But in what manner were these public prosecutions conducted? It was positively a disgrace to the Legislature that they should be conducted in the manner they were at present. He had received a statement from the constable on the subject. The coroner was obliged, when a verdict of manslaughter was returned, to bind over the constable to prosecute. The constable, in the case of Pearce, attended to the indictment at the Old Bailey; and upon being asked by the clerk whether he had employed any solicitor to prosecute, he replied in the negative. He was then told to get his witnesses together; and while he was in the passage waiting for them to be called, a very shabbily-dressed person accosted him, and said, "I know something of this case, and somebody may as well have a fee out of it as an attorney." The constable directed him to the widow, and he having applied to her, was told that she would not employ him as an attorney, but she related to him the facts of the case. The next day he entered the court with what he called a brief, and, upon reading it, the constable told him that it contained an incorrect statement of the facts; for, in fact, he had drawn it up without ever having seen the depositions, or knowing anything of the evidence given at the inquest. Subsequently, when the parties were in attendance before the clerk, the same shabbily dressed person represented that he had been employed in the case; and when the trial took place he acted as solicitor, and counsel appeared for the prosecution. After the examination of two witnesses, the Judge said there was no case, and the prisoner was very properly acquitted. Next day, when the constable went to apply for his expenses, the self-appointed attorney thrust himself into the room in company with the widow and the constable, but, having first been formally repudiated by the widow and constable, at the instance of Mr. Clark, the very respectable clerk of arraigns, who knew the man thoroughly well, he was ordered to withdraw. When the constable came out, the man came up to him and said, "You must get me something; if you will give me half-a-crown it will act as a draw; the jurymen will then put down something in consideration of my services to the widow, and then I'll give you back your half-crown." The constable was too sensible a man to do anything of the sort, and the man accordingly was obliged to give up the attempt. The attempt, however, exhibited in a very striking manner the sort of thing that was going on at the Old Bailey. Another illustration was, that when the constable went again for his expenses he had first to pay 3l. 0l. 6d. out of his own pocket for dues, the details of which were refused in a very off-hand manner, so that when he got 3l. 18s. paid to him, he received, in fact, only 17s. 6d. for his expenses. Now, this was a disgraceful state of things. He trusted the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department would take it maturely into consideration during the recess; and then, out of this trumpery petition, the public would be the gainers by having a public prosecutor employed.

hoped that, after the terms in which the association of which he was president had been spoken of, he would be indulged for a few minutes while he vindicated that body and himself. I He quite admitted that it was very inconvenient, generally speaking, that the House should be made the arena for attacks upon men in the performance of their public duties; but sometimes it be-I came necessary to bring forward complaints of the kind. He thought the circumstances of the present case were sufficiently grave to warrant his interference. The grand jury had ignored the bill, and the trial took place on the coroner's inquisition. The consequence of that was, that a man who had been suffering from a recent severe attack of cholera, and who was labouring under all the anxiety of mind incident to his position, was committed to a felon's cell in Newgate, where he had no opportunity of seeing his wife and family, and where he was compelled to sleep on a mat and a horse cloth. He was kept there for seven days, until a Judge in chambers could be seen, in order that a change in his condition could be effected. He was eventually removed, with the view of making room for the Mannings in his cell. With regard to the association which the hon. Member for Finsbury had stigmatised as being composed of knaves and dupes, he (Lord R. Grosvenor) could only say that that association was composed of gentlemen of high attainments, excellent medical education, and extensive practice, and, therefore, they could afford to pass by such attacks as had now been made upon them. He trusted the House would consider him justified in bringing so serious a case forward.

objected to the practice of bringing before that House judicial matters which had been fairly tried at the Old Bailey. He thought that instead of one man calling another a humbug and a quack, the House would be far better employed if they refused to countenance these personal squabbles. He hoped that the House would be protected in future against the presentation of such wholly irregular and improper petitions as these, which, got up to promote personal objects under public pretences, were so managed as to evade the rules of the House by a side-wind. The House of Commons was not a court of appeal from the Old Bailey.

was glad of the occurrence of anything which directed the attention of the Government and of the House to the expediency of instituting a public prosecutor, an officer, as every day's experience manifested, eminently needed to protect the innocent, and to enforce the prosecution of the guilty. The appointment of Mr. Wakley, Jun. to the deputy-coronership of Middlesex had been confirmed by the Lord Chancellor.

said, that some apartments in Holyrood had lately become vacant, and they were being prepared for the occasional reception of Her Majesty in passing through Scotland. The vote was only for repairing and painting, and not for furniture.

wanted to know if Holyrood was to be fitted up as a palace?

said, that it would be a great convenience to Her Majesty in passing through Scotland to be able to sleep in Holyrood, and the apartments which had been given up were to be prepared for that purpose.

thought, that in these days of quick transit, and considering what good hotels there were in Edinburgh, they were commencing an ill-advised expense. Sixteen hundred pounds appeared a small sum; but the Queen could not occupy those apartments without four times that expense being incurred. He thought they were going too far as regarded Royalty and Royal palaces, and they were not the friends of Royalty who brought such acts before the people in these times of depression. If he was satisfied that this sum would be the whole expense he would not say a word, but when it was remembered that when the Queen was in London there was an allowance of 192,000l. for household expenses and 131,000l. for salaries for household servants, besides 14,000l. for the Royal bounty and other sums, there ought to be some consideration shown. He entered his protest against the way they were going on with the public money.

said, no one could be more anxious than he was to assent to any measures that might promote the comfort and convenience of any branches of the Royal Family, but he thought this was a regular job, got up by parties in Scotland. He would therefore move that the vote be reduced by 800l.

said, the hon. Member for Montrose looked with a proper jealousy on any grant of public money, but he thought he would see that this was not one to be complained of. It was not the commencement of a large expenditure; but there were some rooms vacant in Holyrood Palace, which had been occupied by the Countess of Strathmore. Her Majesty would provide the furniture for these rooms, so that no expense for that purpose would he thrown upon the public. The hon. Member for Montrose seemed to consider this vote an unnecessary expenditure; but he (Lord J. Russell) thought the Committee would not be disposed to blame Her Majesty for visiting the Highlands, when it was known that Her Majesty and the Royal children derived great benefit from a residence in that part of the country. He considered, then, that as on her way to Her residence in the Highlands Her Majesty had to pass through the metropolis of Scotland, where there was a palace which formerly belonged to the Kings of Scotland, Her Majesty might be anxious to occupy apartments in that palace, and he therefore hoped the Committee would assent to this vote.

begged to ask whether Her Majesty had made any request for this grant, or had any knowledge that such a vote would be proposed?

would state what had occurred on the subject. He had informed Her Majesty, upon the report of the Duke of Hamilton, the keeper of Holyrood Palace, that the apartments occupied by the Countess of Strathmore were vacant, owing to the decease of that lady; and he asked Her Majesty whether She would wish to occupy those apartments during Her visits to Scotland. Her Majesty informed him that she would wish to occupy those apartments on her way to or from Balmoral. He (Lord J. Russell) then stated, as it was his business to do, that a small outlay would be required for repairs, and be thought, after such an intimation on the part of Her Majesty, that it was the duty of Her Ministers to take care that the rooms were water-tight and fit for Her Majesty's occupation.

said, that after the noble Lord's explanation he would not say another word against the vote.

said, he was far from imputing any blame to Her Majesty, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose he had done. He greatly approved of the tours Her Majesty had taken in various parts of the kingdom; but, as a very liberal sum was allowed to defray the Royal expenditure, and as when Her Majesty was in Scotland her expenditure in this country would be diminished, he had thought this vote objectionable. As it seemed, however, that the grant was merely intended to place the apartments in tenantable repair, and that Her Majesty would provide the requisite furniture, he would not oppose the vote. At the same time, he must say he regretted Her Majesty had not fixed her residence in a better part of the city. He would suggsst that a more desirable and healthy residence might have been found in the new town, or in the Castle.

said, he had given notice of his intention to ask whether it was intended that the House which they now occupied should stand after the completion of the new one until they had bad an opportunity of trying the effect of the alterations. They should take care that in allowing Mr. Barry to put a new ceiling as an experiment, which might after the vacation be found not to be successful, that they should find the present Houses still remaining, in which they might transact business, instead of finding themselves confined to one which was not so available. He hoped they would not be deprived of the present House till it was known the new one was available.

assured the hon. Baronet that it was not intended to pull down the present House of Commons, for the New House would not be fit for occupation by Members until next Easter, and therefore until that time they would continue to sit in the present House. A plan of alterations had been submitted to the Committee by Mr. Barry, which would be distributed to Members. The Committee were of opinion that, under this revised plan, the New House would afford more accommodation than was at present afforded. The only matter about which there was any doubt was as to the hearing in the New House. The Committee had examined several witnesses on that point, but they certainly had not been much enlightened by their evidence. It was, however, intended to try certain experiments with a view to improve the hearing in the New House.

said, there were parties in the House—a very important and useful body, deserving every consideration—who ought to have opportunities of hearing and stating correctly what took place during the debates; but he believed that in the New House they would be placed under some disadvantages. He would not say anything about the harmony of the building, because he never thought much about it. Members were in danger of breaking their necks even before dinner, and what might be the case afterwards he could not say. There was step after step, and he had the other day noticed an hon. Member in the New House nearly tumble into the lap of a right hon. Gentleman in an attempt to approach the Speaker's chair. He could only say that he would be sorry to employ any Member of the Committee in building a pigstye. The New Palace at Westminster was not a house built for business. As he had said before, he thought the building was much more fitted for a harem than for the purpose for which it was intended. What business did hon. Gentlemen do when they were in the New House? Why, they stared about at each other like so many scarecrows. They did not know at what door to go in, or at what door to go out. He declared he didn't. Nobody knew whether the building was to cost three millions, three millions and a half, or four millions; and he thought a most unwarrantable and unjustifiable expenditure had been already incurred, and that the whole affair was a gross job. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state whether this vote of 9,400l. was all that would be required for alterations.

thought this was a vote at which they had great reason to be ashamed. They had already spent a million and a half, a considerable portion of that sum having been expended upon a chamber for the Members of the other House which turned out to be altogether unfit for its purpose. Then, with regard to the New House of Commons, if there had not been data upon which to proceed, if there had not been opportunities of ascertaining the number of persons to be accommodated, and the space which could be appropriated, there might have been an excuse for the result. And yet the House was still called upon to waste the public money upon a man who had shown himself utterly incapable of adapting the building to the purpose for which it was intended. He did not deny that Mr. Barry had acquired a character for high taste in architecture; but the question was, were his acquirements practically useful? On their way to the New House of Commons they had to pass through two or three immense rooms, but for what purpose they were intended nobody knew. They then entered the room where the Commons of England ought to have been accommodated. The money they had expended upon that building was enough to have provided golden seats for the Members; but yet it was utterly unfit for it purpose. This vote was intended to destroy the appearance of the chamber, by putting up an artificial roof which blocked up half the windows. Why, any schoolboy would be flogged for designing such a place. He was satisfied they might build another palace for much less money than they would have to expend in completing and altering the New Houses. It appeared to him, when he looked at the distance Members had to go from one place to another within the New Houses, as if great trouble had been taken to make the building, not only as expensive, but as inconvenient, and as little suited as possible to the purposes for which it was required. He would propose that some architect should be employed who was capable of adapting the building to those purposes. There were architects who had constructed buildings within their estimates. He believed that in the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Palace and Buckingham Palace the estimates had not been exceeded. He would vote against the grant.

regretted that the hon. Member for Montrose had not made some distinct proposition, because, upon his showing, the New House of Commons was altogether unfit for the accommodation of Members. The hon. Gentleman had said this was a vote of which the House ought to be ashamed; and that appeared to be the opinion not only of hon. Members generally, but also of the community. But wherever they attempted to place the blame, it was shifted to some one else. If the blame was charged on Mr. Barry, he charged it upon a Committee, the Committee charged it upon another Committee, both the Committees put it upon the Woods and Forests, the Woods and Forests charged it on the Government, and the Government upon that House. There was no one who would not acknowledge that the proceedings with regard to this building had been most unfortunate. They had spent upon it nearly 2,000,000l., and the principal room was a complete, decided, and undeniable failure. He must take that opportunity of observing that whoever built the House in which they were then assembled, deserved the acknowledgment of their gratitude. He did not know the name of the builder, bat having, under circumstances of great difficulty and urgency, and without the assistance of a Committee, built them a room which, though it had always been considered temporary, afforded them, as compared with the elaborate and gorgeous edifice they were now and then obliged to enter, the greatest convenience and accommodation, he was entitled to great credit. He (Mr. Stafford) would not take upon himself the responsibility of refusing this vote, because he felt, with other hon. Gentlemen, that the New House of Commons was at present wholly unfitted for the purpose to which it was to be devoted. He had understood, however, that the expense of the experimental roof in that House was to be only 100l., and be wished to know how it was that there was an additional charge of 700l. for that purpose in the vote?

said, that 800l. appeared to him an extravagant charge for the deal roof which had been erected in the New House.

could not avoid expressing his regret that the New Houses had cost so large a sum of money, and that the chamber designed for the House of Commons appeared unfitted for its purpose, both in point of accommodation and of hearing; but he did not think the discussion that had taken place was likely to lead to any practical conclusion. Now, with regard to the accommodation, a Committee of twenty-one Members had been appointed a short time ago, who had made most diligent inquiries on that subject. The plan to which he had before referred was the result of their inquiries, and he believed the sum asked for would be the utmost amount it would be necessary to expend to provide adequate accommodation for the Members. Under that plan more accommodation would be given to Members, both on the floor and in the galleries, than was afforded in the present House, and amply sufficient, he thought, for as many Members as were likely generally to attend. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire as to the great convenience and accommodation of the House in which they were then assembled, and be thought if they had as much, or rather more accommodation in the new House, they would have no reason to complain. He wished he could speak with equal confidence on the subject of hearing; but he must fairly say that he felt himself quite unable to give any positive assurance on that point. Three or four gentlemen most learned on the subject of acoustics, Dr. Reid, Mr. Scott Russell, Professor Wheatstone, and Professor Faraday, were examined before the Committee; but he did not think the Committee gained much knowledge from their evidence. Professor Faraday admitted that he could not give a confident opinion on the point. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made inquiries from many parties concerned in the erection of; buildings, and he found in the case of churches, for instance, that one church might be admirably adapted for hearing, while in another, built upon precisely the same plan, it was scarcely possible to hear at all. It was, he understood, easy to build an apartment in which a person speaking from a given point, as from a tribune, would be heard in all parts of the room; and he believed that in the New House, a person speaking from a particular point would be as well heard as he understood counsel were when speaking from the bar of the House of Lords; but he had been informed that it was impossible to build a room in which it could be certainly predicted that the hearing would be equally good in all parts. The Committee had felt that they were unable to come to any conclusion without trying experiments upon this subject; and they determined to try the experiment of a boarded roof in the New House of Commons, which hon. Gentlemen had seen on Wednesday, and which cost little more than 100l. During the sitting on that clay several Members of the Committee endeavoured to ascertain the opinions of Members as to whether the hearing was improved or not. He believed that of some twenty or twenty-two Gentlemen he bad asked, ten were of one opinion, and twelve of the other. He thought the majority were of opinion that the alteration had been beneficial; but he must admit that many Members said they considered they did not hear one whit better than before. He believed the sum of 800l., which was proposed to be taken in this vote, would be more than sufficient to defray the cost of the experiments which it might be found necessary to try.

inquired what was to be done for the 8,600l. He asked the question, because he would guarantee that another House and a far better one, could be built for 10,000l.

stated that it was proposed, in the first place, to remove the wood screen at each end two feet backwards. [Mr. BRIGHT: And the reporters' seats.] He believed they also would be removed two feet back. [The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to point out upon a plan on the table various alterations proposed to be made for the convenience of Members in the means of access to different parts of the House, and in some other respects.] No Members would sit in the south gallery, but it would be appropriated to distinguished visitors and strangers. The side galleries would be widened, to allow two rows of seats.

would like to know whether the Government had got estimates for all these alterations, and whether they amounted to 8,600l.

said, that a Committee of the House, consisting of most experienced Members, had investigated the subject, and they had come to the conclusion that this was the best mode of affording the requisite accommodation.

thought it would be well to try the effect of hanging up a number of banners in the House, and placing drapery to the windows.

knew that in Whitehall Chapel, where formerly not a syllable could be heard, the congregation now, since drapery had been hung about it, heard perfectly; the echo was destroyed.

believed the New House would afford ample accommodation for the number of Members likely to attend. Out of the 656, there were not, perhaps, 300 who attended constantly, and if there was ascommodation for a great portion of the Members outside the body of the House, the business would go on quite as well. If there was accommodation on the floor for 320, and for 150 more elsewhere, it would be sufficient. The Committee desired Mr. Barry the other day to give them an estimate of what would be the fullest and amplest cost of the alterations; they requested to have an outside sum mentioned, so that they might not be called upon to provide anything more; and this estimate had been handed in under those directions. He (Sir B. Hall) would suggest that the whole matter should be placed under the control of the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests—no man was more fit for it; and that he should be the responsible person in the House to answer questions and give information. He meant no disrespect to the hon. Member for Lancaster, who, he believed, would be glad to have the business under the control of some officer of the Crown.

retained the opinion which he had always held, namely, that the New House would be unable to contain the Members, and that they would not be able to hear in it. The only thing the House was fit for was to hold the Exhibition of 1851, and he thought it should be devoted to that purpose. They all knew that Committees were of no use, and nothing would come of appointing one to inquire into the circumstances of the case. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a financial question, whether he had come to any determination as to the payment of the architect? That question had been going on for many years, and appeared to be still an undecided one. The original contract with Mr. Barry was broken. The original contract with that gentleman was for 25,000l. and he now demanded to be paid 75,000l. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to pay the 75,000l., or to enter into a lawsuit on the point? He (Mr. Osborne) believed that Mr. Barry had a just claim; but he wished to see the matter decided one way or the other, and that some statement should be made respecting the sum the architect was to get. He did not wish to make any attack on Mr. Barry, because he thought that gentleman had acted quite right, since the Government and the House were so undecided, to indulge his own taste, and to make them pay for it. He (Mr. Osborne) would be glad to give Mr. Barry 150,000l., and be quits with him. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, he (Mr. Osborne) thought it was a very bad plan. It would be a better as well as a cheaper way to have a paid officer; but it was totally impossible that one who had so much on his hands as the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests should be able to attend to the completion of the New Houses of Parliament.

hoped that the plan of the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone would not be acted upon, but that the question should be left to Mr. Barry himself.

It is a question for this House and the country to decide upon.

, as one who was well qualified to speak as to the capacities of the New House for hearing in, could say, that in consequence of the alterations, he had found great facilities in hearing when the House met in the new chamber on last Wednesday.

said, that whatever might be thought of the accommodation provided for Members in the New House, he could not say much in favour of the accommodation which was likely to be afforded to strangers, which he thought would be found wholly insufficient. It was a matter for regret that those who came to hear the debates should find in the new less accommodation than in the old House. There were sittings for sixty-four visitors in the New House, but in that House he believed the number was greater. There were at that moment sixty-four persons in the gallery.

begged to inform the noble Lord that there was accommodation for only fifty-three visitors in the gallery of that House.

thought the accommodation for Members in the New House was inadequate. During the debate on Irish legislation, in 1841, there were more than 600 Members assembled in that House, and if so large a number were collected in the New House, no place would be found for them.

said, his hon. Friend had to go back a long time, as far as 1841, for an instance in which above 600 Members had assembled in that House; but none could say that on ordinary occasions that House was too small for the Members who met in it. Allowing twenty inches for each seat, there was accommodation in that House for 446 Members, and on the same calculation there would be room for 468 Members in the new House. If they made it large enough to hold all the Members, it would be found utterly unfit for the transaction of business.

said, the present House was so small, that it held out an encouragement to vice; because Members who could not find room in the House went into the smoking-room, where they would not go if they could find room in the House, and some went into the library. They might see numbers in the library, where they sat and slept. That House was not sufficient for the Members, and the New House would only hold half the number. The hon. Baronet the Mem- ber for Marylebone said one-half of the Members might be in the House, and the other half waiting outside, probably in Palace-yard. Now, could anything be so preposterous as that they should have spent three millions of money on the new building, and that the House of Commons should not be able to contain more than half the Members after all?

said, that when Mr. Abercromby was chosen Speaker, 626 Members voted, 310 on the one side and 316 on the other; and the division was not then taken in the lobbies, but every Members was told in that House.

was inclined to think that the acoustic properties of the present House could not be particularly good; for he had put a question some minutes since to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which did not seem to have been heard.

begged pardon of his hon. and gallant Friend, but he thought it better to wait, and give one answer to the numerous questions that were put to him. He agreed that Mr. Barry was entitled to a much larger remuneration than the 25,000l. which he was to have been paid under the original estimate; but what the precise sum might be had not yet been settled. [Mr. OSBORNE: Has he received anything already?] He believed Mr. Barry had received 25,000l. He must observe that Members would be very much indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone for the attention and the skill which he had bestowed upon the arrangements of the New House. As to the subject of hearing, the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin was a peculiarly valuable witness.

said, he thought the House did not properly treat those whom they chose to call "strangers." He thought that the turning of them out whenever there was a division, was an useless and almost barbarous custom, and there ought to be accommodation for a greater number than there was at present. Apart from feelings of private curiosity, he believed there was a great public advantage in allowing to be present as many as they could find accommodation for. They came and understood the forms in which the business of the House was conducted, many of them most admirable forms; they had created in them a strong interest in public affairs, which was communicated to their families, and to the circles in which they moved; and he thought the more they could bring the actions and the opinions of that House into harmony with the intelligent portion of the public out of doors, the better. He was extremely anxious, therefore, on public grounds, that the Committee, in making the alterations which they were about to make, should consider that the accommodation of the public was a really important matter, and that they should accommodate as many as circumstances would permit.

said, if the contract had been broken, it had been broken by the alterations made by Mr. Barry himself, and on that account he ought not to be paid. The late Sir Robert Peel penned the resolution of the Committee, and it was sent to the four architects before it was determined that Mr. Barry should build the House; and they were informed that that was the sum the architect would be paid. The Committee gave to Mr. Barry the number that was to be provided for, and the number of visitors, three times the number accommodated in the present House; and it was quite discreditable to find that an architect who received those instructions, both as regarded the number of visitors and of Members, should so completely have failed in every respect as he had done. They had heard of Committees. Who had appeared before the Committees and advocated alterations? Mr. Barry. Mr. Barry had found it convenient to get Committees appointed, to recommend alterations, and to be answerable for them, he receiving a percentage on the cost. It might be the fault of Mr. Barry with regard to ventilation; but the dispute between Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid was most discreditable. He agreed in the opinion that had been expressed, that the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests had already too much to do to undertake this matter, and he thought it ought to be committed to one individual, who would give his undivided attention to it.

agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester that there should be more accommodation for strangers, and said, he could see no good, but great inconvenience, in the practice of making them withdraw during divisions. Last night, a division was called, and strangers had withdrawn, a Minister got up to make a speech, Members observed that the reporters had withdrawn, and, of course, began to cry out, "Gal- lery!" The withdrawal of strangers always contributed to confusion; and if it were necessary that strangers should withdraw, he suggested that the reporters for the press should not withdraw. They could not by any means run any danger of communicating with the House, or getting into the lobby. By not withdrawing they would not be themselves inconvenienced, and they could hear observations which it might be of consequence that they should hear. With regard to practical convenience, he believed that they would have a better and more convenient House than that which they were now met in. The hon. Member for North Northamptonshire said he did not know who built the present House. He (Lord D. Stuart) did not know either; but he knew who ventilated it, and he never knew any room which was more perfect in that respect. They were never too hot or too cold, and he thought very great credit was due to Dr. Reid.

agreed that it was impossible to expect the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests to undertake the duty suggested for him, and thought the Government ought to take upon themselves the control of the expenditure. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who came down to propose votes of the public money, might see that it was expended for the benefit of the public. He ought to call to his aid some scientific man to guide him in the future expenditure of money. He wished to put a question with regard to the ventilation of the New House and the Committee-rooms. He had now taken a share in the business of Committees for four Sessions, yet the ventilation of the Committee-rooms remained in the same defective state of which so many complaints had been made. The other day he saw five enormous boilers on one side of the court-yard, and he was told there were six others on the opposite side. He believed they were intended for the ventilation of one part of the new building. The expense would be enormous, and he did hope that before it was incurred the Government would take care that the money was well laid out.

wished to know whether the ventilation of the New House was to be under the control of one person, or whether two were engaged in it?

said, that the ventilation of the chamber of the New House and the rooms immediately adjoining was to be under the control of Dr. Reid. The ventilation of all the rest of the House was placed under the control of Mr. Barry. The hon. Member's complaint of the defective ventilation of the Committee-rooms was a reasonable one, and he trusted that before next Session all the Committee-rooms would be properly warmed and ventilated. Having necessarily seen a great deal of Mr. Barry, and having observed the pains taken by him to make the New Houses complete, he thought that the terms used by the hon. Member for Montrose were altogether uncalled for. The hon. Member alleged that the whole of the expense incurred beyond the estimates was attributable to Mr. Barry. This subject had been fully discussed by a Committee appointed in the year 1844, who imputed no blame to Mr. Barry on the score of unauthorised alterations. On the contrary, all the alterations made were for the convenience of the House; and the Committee reported that Mr. Barry had not been the cause of the increased expenditure that had taken place. The labour Mr. Barry had undergone was infinitely greater than that of any architect of any other public building, and it did seem hard that he should be the subject of such remarks as had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose.

complained that no one was responsible for the money now being expended. The responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was limited to the proper appropriation of the money voted. There was also no responsibility with the Commission of which Earl de Grey was at the head, because they had no power.

agreed with the hon. Member who had last spoken that some responsibility was required. Mr. Barry had had the uncontrolled expenditure of the largest sum of money that any one architect had ever had before. Well, were not the Committee ashamed of the result? ["No!"] Why, there had been an universal acknowledgment that the New House was a failure. He blamed Mr. Barry for not having placed himself in the position of adviser to the House, and presented such a report as would have shown the House what they were doing when they were incurring useless expenditure. The architect ought to consider himself like a physician, morally responsible to his patient for the result of his practice. He did not blame Mr. Barry for the deficient accommodation of strangers; because he was told that, long ago, Mr. Barry had suggested the construction of a second gallery, to be solely applied to the accommodation of strangers, and which would have held three times the present number. Was it not shameful, and a scandal, for a constitutional assembly to exclude the public, as the House of Commons did? They gave places to sixty strangers; being about one-tenth of the number of those who might obtain orders from Members. In Belgium and France ample and abundant room was provided for strangers; but here the House excluded those whom it professed to represent. From the plans in the hands of Members, he believed that hon. Members would find themselves, after the recess, in a more inconvenient House even than the New House was at present. For example, if a Member were in the gallery of the New House, and wished to vote with the Ayes, the door being locked according to custom, when the question was put the Member would find himself in the lobby with the Noes. He should have no objection to vote the money as a vote of confidence to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, leaving him to spend it at his discretion.

should be very glad to take the money in any way most agreeable to the hon. Member, fie regarded himself as responsible that the money voted by the House should be applied in the manner detailed in the estimate; and he considered the hon. Member for Lancaster and his colleagues in the Commission responsible that no deviation took place from the plans as they were approved by the Treasury.

felt a little inclined to object to the hon. Member's proposed "vote of confidence" at this late period of the Session, and to its being introduced without notice. He wished to remind the Committee that it was now the 2nd of August, and yet they had been debating for two hours a Motion upon which no Amendment had been moved. Considering the present state of public business, he thought it highly desirable that this conversation—for it was nothing else—should cease. If, however, there was any such mysterious machinery about the New House as that to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow had alluded, and by which an "Aye" would become a "No," the Government ought certainly to take the subject into their consideration. Such a machinery certainly should not be intro- duced into a chamber where great constitutional disturbance might ensue. The House ought now, however, to close a discussion which had taken place towards the termination of every Session for the last three years, and which made them a scandal to Europe. There had been much talk of responsibility, but no one had defined what the term meant. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if responsible, to pay for the building himself if the House did not approve of it? He would recommend the Government to reflect seriously on the fact, that no profession had ever yet succeeded in this country till it had furnished what was called "an example." For instance, you hanged Admiral Byng, and the Navy increased in efficiency till we won Trafalgar. The disgrace of Whitelock was followed by the victory of Waterloo. We had decapitated Archbishop Laud, and had thenceforward secured the responsibility of the bishops. That principle we had never yet applied to architects; and when a member of that profession was called on to execute a very simple task, and utterly failed after a large expenditure of public money, it really became the Government to consider the case, and they might rest assured that if once they contemplated the possibility of hanging an architect, they would put a stop to such blunders in future.

suggested they should draw up plans and estimates of the proposed alterations, and obtain the opinion of some four builders upon the likelihood of their being executed for the proposed sum.

thought the temporary roof had caused a great improvement in the hearing. The New House had not had the trial to which it was fairly entitled, and every one knew it was more difficult in a new building than in one accustomed to sound. No experiments had been made on the capacity of hearing in the House; and if the House was hung round with flags, as had been suggested, he thought a change for the better would take place. Where there was so much carved surface as the New House presented, the sound would always be more or less broken; and the reason why they heard so well in the present House was, because it offered plane surfaces on all sides, which reflected the sound directly. He proposed that they should sit in the New House until the end of the Session, in order to give it a fair trial.

said, that the circumstances under which the depositors came before the House were very painful. A Committee had been sitting on the subject of savings banks' defalcations, of which the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin and the hon. Member for Kerry had been zealous, able, and indefatigable members, whose fault it certainly was not if the result was not so favourable to the depositors as they might have expected; and the Committee had reported to the House, and had represented the peculiar circumstances which rendered the case of the Cuffe-street hank different from that of any of the others. It was contended that if the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken steps to interfere in the affairs of the bank some years ago, when their attention had been directed to them, a different result might have taken place; and there certainly was a probability that these losses would not have occurred if they had done so. In other cases there had been the grossest negligence, not to say worse, on the part of the trustees. In one instance, proceedings would be taken against the actuaries, father and son, who could not account for money in their hands. The Committee had recommended Government to contribute a grant to relieve the loss occasioned by the stoppage of the Cuffe-street bank, which had fallen on the poorest class of persons in Dublin, and who would otherwise be exposed to certain ruin. The sum proposed would enable Government to pay those poor people about 10s. in the pound. That was the extent to which they proposed to go. He hoped, under all the circumstances connected with the recommendation of the Committee, the House would not refuse the grant.

wished for a more detailed explanation of those peculiar circumstances. The House was called on to grant this vote without reading the evidence, or seeing the report of the proceedings of the Committee. First, he would ask, were they unanimous in their recommendation? Next, why did the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the precise sum of 30,000l.? He (Sir J. Graham) did not see any such sum recommended in the report, nor could he understand the data on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his calculations. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about paying 10s. in the pound. Why, if the claim was equitable, the whole of it ought to be paid; if that were not so, none should be paid. Then, too, he wanted to know the precise difference between the Tralee case and the Cuffe-street case.

, in reply, said, that as to the first question of the right hon. Baronet, he had to state the Committee had been unanimous in recommending the case of the Cuffe-street depositors to the favourable consideration of the Government. The majority of the Committee had been of opinion that no such case had been made out with respect to the other banks. As to the question of the right hon. Baronet regarding the principle on which the Government had acted, it certainly had not been the recommendation of the Committee that a sum which would give every depositor 10s. in the pound should be given. It was not the opinion of the majority of the Committee, so far as he could collect, that there was any obligation on the part of Government to give the sum, but that it was to be treated as a charitable donation on the part of the Government.

On the part of the Government, or on the part of the British public?

said, that it was to be looked upon as a contribution to be paid by the public.

Was that contribution to be looked on as a matter of charity, or as a matter of justice? If of charity, he regarded the case as involving a most dangerous principle—if as a matter of justice, he must say, as the case stood, he held it as one of great difficulty and importance. He repudiated altogether the proposition that they should give funds out of the public Exchequer on the grounds of charity. On the other hand, if the claim was founded in justice and equity, it ought to be paid in full. It was unworthy of the British public to compound for 10s. in the pound. He never had read a report with less ability to understand it than that which the Committee had presented. Nothing, as it appeared to him, could be more worthy of immediate attention than the vote before them; and he must say it was rather strange that they should be called on to vote 30,000l., whether in charity or in equity, within a few days of the end of the Session, without any information. They had no information to distinguish the Cuffe-street case from the Tralee case, from the Scotch cases, or from the English cases, of which he believed there were several; and if they were to act on the principle of making charitable contributions to meet the malversations of trustees and treasurers, they would, he conceived, be opening the door to a most dangerous principle. If it was the duty of the House to meet this case, they could not confine the principle to the Cuffe-street bank, but must extend it to the English and Scotch banks as well, and they would find they had only met a small portion of the claims upon them.

said, the great distinction was this—that the Cuffe-street savings bank had been insolvent 20 years ago, but had concealed its affairs from successive Governments. In 1838, however, a statement of its affairs had been laid before the Government; but the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, had not felt they had sufficient power to apply a remedy, and to compel the bank to wind up its affairs, but had merely recommended an investigation into the accounts, which the bank refused. In 1845, when the deficiency amounted to 25,000l., the state of the bank had been again brought under the notice of the Commissioners, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the trustees were recommended to close their books, which they refused to do. The Committee thought that if the Commissioners had exercised their powers at that time, and if they had taken the necessary steps to close the bank, the consequences to the depositors would have been averted. The Committee, on those grounds, had thought themselves justified in recommending the case of the depositors to the attention of Government; they did not consider there was any legal liability on the part of Government to make good the deficiency; and, as there did not appear any probability of obtaining money from the trustees, the Government proposed this grant, which was, in fact, a charitable donation. Although, had he been the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, he would, in all probability, have acted in the same way as his predecessor, he thought the case was a fair one for the consideration of the House, and hoped they would agree to the grant.

must protest against the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, first in the formation of the Committee, and next in the proceedings which they had taken. On what ground was this money demanded? As a charitable donation, as recorded. But if hon. Gentlemen would go over the whole ground, and take all the circumstances into consideration, particularly the mode in which the opinion was encouraged among the working classes that they had the Government security for their deposits in these savings banks, they must, he thought, come to the conclusion that a right to compensation was tenable, when, by the operation of institutions to which the working classes had been taught to look for support in age or sickness, and to which the Government had given their sanction, they had been brought to poverty and ruin. It would take too long a time to go through the whole statement of this case, but he was in possession of facts which, if he could detail them, would convince the House of the justice of the claims of these depositors. It was for that reason he had appealed to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defer this vote; and his belief was, that if the attention of the House and of the public were properly directed to the whole facts of the case, the result would be a strong support of these claims. If the plea of the right hon. Gentleman was not for charity, but, as the right hon. Baronet had said, upon equity, in what position did the Government stand? When the question was first mooted, the right hon. Gentleman had opposed it in every possible way, and had interposed all the delay he was able in the way of any inquiry at all. For week after week, and month after month, the right hon. Gentleman had met the proposition of the Lord Mayor of Dublin with appeals to him to postpone his Motion for a Committee. At last he (Mr. Herbert) put a Motion on the paper on a supply night, to move a resolution, and the right hon. Gentleman then acceded to the proposal, and a Committee was appointed. That Committee reported at the end of the Session that they had not had time to make the inquiry, and recommended the institution of another investigation. In the next Session, the Lord Mayor of Dublin moved for a Committee for continuing the inquiry—that inquiry which had been recommended by the former Committee. That Motion was met with a denial on the part of the Government; but the Government found itself in a minority, and the result was a determination that inquiry should no longer be thwarted. The right hon. Gentleman had thus placed himself in the position of admitting—first, that the case was one for inquiry; and, secondly, that some of the parties ought to be criminally prosecuted, and thus the powers of Government had been exerted to screen those parties from the just punishment that should be inflicted upon those who had committed the worst of all frauds, a fraud upon the unfortunate poor. If the plea of the right hon. Gentleman was based on the gross mismanagement of the National Debt Commissioners, and on the misconduct of a man he must still call a Government officer—though by a quibble he was said not to be so because he was paid by fees and not by salary—he meant Mr. Tidd Pratt, then he held that on this ground also the case was the same with regard to all the banks. In the case of the bank at Tralee, Mr. Tidd Pratt was called on to make awards as between the depositors and the trustees; and after he had done so, the depotitors had to sue one of the trustees to recover the money. The case was tried in 1849, but the awards were not sanctioned, on the technical ground that Mr. Tidd Pratt had not and could not comply with his own Act of Parliament in so far as referred to serving the right notices. The case was carried by appeal before the Judges, and there a unanimous judgment was pronounced, setting aside the awards on the technical ground that he could not comply with his own Act of Parliament. Chief Justice Blackburne on that occasion volunteered to say, that in no one single part of the case had the requirements of the law been carried out by the public officer administering the law. While speaking of the gross misconduct of this officer he would refer to only one case more—that of Killarney. In the ease of that bank there were assets to the extent of about 16,000l., and in dividing this sum among the depositors, Mr. Tidd Pratt decided that 20s. in the pound should be given to those who had deposited previously to 1844, and only 3s. in the pound to those who had deposited subsequently to 1844. When the House considered all these circumstances, was it not clear that as great, if not greater, injustice was done to the banks to which he had referred, as to the bank brought under their notice by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer? But it was said, if they decided in favour of those banks, they would have English claims urged also. Now, he believed that if the careless and negligent manner in which the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had performed their duty was considered—if the loose manner in which the business of the banks had been conducted was taken into account, it would be conceded that the depositors in all the banks that had failed had a claim on the consideration of the House. And if it was said, those claims would exceed their means—which he did not admit—then his answer was, Let them retrench in something else; let them make fewer palace gardens, expend less upon palaces, buy fewer African forts, employ a less sum in the crusade against the slave trade, and use the money for the relief of those who had been injured at home. He was convinced that if the House would only look upon this as an important national question, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had represented it to be, and not merely as a local question as to certain banks, they would arrive at the same conclusion with himself. When the evidence taken before the Committee of 1848 was printed at the end of last Session, it was followed by leading articles in all the daily journals acknowledging that a case had been made out in favour of the depositors. All the leading papers concurred in this view, and he trusted Parliament would not be the last to acknowledge that justice ought to be done to that poor class of depositors who had been made to suffer by no act of their own.

said, with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the evidence of the last Committee not having been laid before the House, that this Committee had substantially sat for three several Sessions, and had taken a mass of evidence on the whole. The reports of the evidence taken in 1848 and 1849, both of them very voluminous, had been laid upon the table of the House, and the report of the evidence taken in the present year, although considerable in bulk, did not, he assured the House, contain a single fact upon which there could be a difference of opinion, or which materially varied from the facts contained in the other two reports. This last report might pos- sibly indeed affect the question of the criminality attaching to individuals; but in respect to other circumstances, no differences worth relating existed in that document. As to the remark of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, he (Mr. J. A. Smith) must observe that if there was a legal or equitable claim upon the Government for the liquidation of these losses, it must be a claim for payment in full. If the House recognised a claim of this kind, it must recognise the whole, for they could not recognise a portion only. He believed that, with the exception of three individuals, the Committee were unanimous in their opinion on the case. [Sir J. GRAHAM: Who were they?] To the best of his recollection they were the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and the hon. Members for Kerry and Cork. The Committee were of opinion that although the position of the managers of the bank was very discreditable to them, there could be no legal liability upon the Government on account of the course taken by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. But the Committee thought that there were circumstances in the case as connected with the Commissioners which did entitle these depositors to very great commiseration from the Government. It was difficult to enter upon this subject without adverting to details, and he trusted the Committee would excuse him if he trespassed upon them at some length. There was, he believed, but one feeling in the minds of all persons who had examined the subject, that the Commissioners had exercised a very difficult duty to the best of their judgment. But it was no less true that so far back as the year 1831 a deficiency had been brought under the cognisance of the Commissioners. One of the trustees, a very respectable man, he believed, certainly one against whom he had never heard any imputation, a Mr. Foote, who was, as he recollected, a director of the Bank of Ireland, was sent over to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to explain what had occurred, and to ask for advice and assistance. At that time the trustees offered to close the bank, and to assign over all the property and assets to trustees to be named by the Commissioners. It was clearly not within the legal power of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to accept this proposition; but they suggested that Mr. Foote should go back to Dublin, and advise with the managers of the bank. Here he must remark, that neither while Mr. Foote was in London, nor subsequently, when Mr. Tidd Pratt investigated the case, were the facts disclosed as they really stood, but they were concealed from the knowledge of both the Commissioners and Mr. Tidd Pratt. Then Mr. Tidd Pratt recommended that a certain course should be pursued; and it was indisputable that on that advice the whole of the subsequent calamity had arisen, and undeniable that if the operations of the bank had been then suspended, the loss would have been less and easier. The bank, however, was kept open. Owing to the incompetency of the registrar, the elder Mr. Hughes, it was difficult to get at the exact facts; but he (Mr. J. A. Smith) had no hesitation in saying, that the conduct of the trustees reflected great discredit upon them. So irregular were they, and so inattentive to the conduct of the manager, that he had never before heard of a case that was similar. The bank went on with increasing deficiency until the year 1838. Then the trustees, nominally, but, he believed only nominally—the real actor in all those transactions being the registrar—sent over in that year accounts to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, which accounts were utterly false and unreliable for any purpose whatever. But they showed upon the face of them a growing deficiency to 1833; and in 1838 the deficiency acknowledged in them amounted to 25,671l. These circumstances at last attracted the attention of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and they called upon the trustees in Dublin to consent to a thorough investigation of the whole of the accounts. This the trustees positively refused to allow, and he must say that the conduct of the Commissioners in acquiescing was much to be reprehended. Let it be remembered, however, at the same time that the only power the Commissioners had was to close their accounts with the bank, which in other words would have been effectually to close the bank itself. The bank, however, went on, and it was a remarkable fact that after 1838 there was a great increase in the deposits, and with that increase the deficiency grew larger. In 1845 the state of the bank was again brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. There was another case of inquiry into the con- duct of the actuary of a rival establishment, and the Chancellor and the Commissioners did all they could, through Mr. Higham, short of the extreme measure of closing the bank, to induce the trustees to close it. But they positively refused. At the end of 1845 and the beginning of 1846, there was a great run upon the bank's funds, and they did not recover from that pressure. It was not until then they stopped, with liabilities to the amount of 64,000l., with 90l. to meet them. Here, then, was an instance of discreditable conduct on the part of the trustees, which he hoped was not to be found in the history of other banks. In the week preceding the close of the bank, they had in their hands a sum of 1,950l. They received, on the Wednesday, notices from depositors who wished for repayment of the money they had placed in the bank to a much larger amount than the balance remaining in their hands. Knowing that they must close on the following Wednesday, what did they do? They drew out the whole of that sum of 1,950l., every farthing they had, excepting the miserable sum of 90l., which still remained, and distributed the whole of that 1,950l. among other depositors, their own friends, who had never taken any notice whatever of the state of the bank. This was a fraud of the most impudent kind that had ever fallen under his notice. Under these circumstances, and many more of the same kind which he could quote, he thought that if there was not a legal claim for compensation in this case, as the majority of the Committee had decided there was not, there was, at least, a strong call upon the sympathy and consideration of Parliament for these claimants, and one which it would be difficult to repudiate or reject. As to the Government, he did not himself think that there was either a legal or an equitable claim, but there certainly was a compassionate claim of the strongest kind. Therefore, it only remained for the House to decide whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in purposing to give a portion only of these claims—a portion of 10s. in the pound. That, he believed, would be affected by two or three considerations; one of which was, whether or not the Government were bound to find the large amount of the many deposits which were wholly illegal; and a second, whether they were bound to recover something by criminal proceedings against the defaulting parties. He was prepared to impress upon his right hon. Friend below him the importance of at least trying to obtain something in that way. The reason he wished that that extreme measure should be taken was this: That there were among the large body composing the trustees, some who could meet the demand, might be true, but it was equally true that there were some who could not; and believing, as he did, that wilful neglect and fraud might in the most direct manner be brought home to several of those who had taken a prominent and most active part in the management of the banks, and who, if he did not charge them with the committal of actual fraud, must, by their own neglect, have permitted such results to occur, he must say that such persons ought not to escape without some punishment. Thinking, therefore, that there might be ultimately something more to be obtained; that there was good ground for compensation, if not in law, and that the parties should be paid, he would say that on the ground of compassionate compensation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing 30,000l., had gone as far as, under present circumstances, propriety and necessity required at his hands. He was rather surprised at one part of the observations of the hon. Member for Kerry, in which he passed an unfavourable judgment upon the conduct of Mr. Tidd Pratt, who had certainly done his best to carry out a most imperfect law, and did not deserve the blame of the public. When he (Mr. J. A. Smith) said that, he concurred at the same time with the hon. Gentleman's remarks upon the unfortunate and, he must add, the unjust operation of the law of 1844 in the Killarney case. The bank of Killarney had failed, having deposits of 36,000l., and assets amounting to 16,000l. By the law of 1844, the trustees were relieved from personal liability; and therefore the depositors prior to 1844 had a claim upon the trustees if default or neglect was proved; while those who had deposited subsequently to 1844 had no such legal claim, so that it became necessary to separate these two classes of depositors; and inasmuch as Mr. Tidd Pratt, in the strict execution of his duty could award no claim upon the trustees till the funds had been exhausted, he was obliged to take the names off, and to postpone the unhappy depositors since 1844, and to pay the depositors previous to 1844 a full twenty shillings in the pound; while the depositors, after 1844, received only three shillings in the pound. Although he believed that to have been a strictly right and proper decision on the part of Mr. Tidd Pratt, it was, at the same time, a decision he could not reconcile with either common sense or common justice. With regard to the Tralee bank, it must be remembered that the savings bank was held at the house of the actuary; and when he ran away, neither in law nor in fact was there any savings bank whatever; so that though the Act of Parliament stated that notice of awards should be fixed upon the walls of the bank, yet as there was no bank on the walls of which the notice of awards could be fixed, Mr. Tidd Pratt was obliged to do what he (Mr. J. A. Smith) thought was the best thing he could have done—he wrote notices to every one of the trustees, wherever they were, in the united kingdom. Chief Justice Blackburne decided that in law this was not sufficient notice, and he threw over the notice of awards on that ground. But he (Mr. J. A. Smith) did not think Mr. Tidd Pratt blameable for this; he did the best he could, and he had done his utmost to obtain something back for the unfortunate depositors.

would maintain that the Cuffe-street case was distinct from all the others, because in that case both the local trustees and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had violated their duty, the former in not sending every year a true and full statement of the affairs of the bank as required by the Act of Parliament, and the latter in not closing their account with the bank, when they found the Act was not complied with. If they had done so, the bank would have been obliged to close its affairs, and the depositors would have been in a much better position than they were in now. Having served on the Committee during three Sessions, perhaps the Committee would allow him to make a few observations, and they should be but very few after the able speech of the Chairman of the Committee, who had left him but very little to say. He desired to address a few words to them, because he believed he was able to give a satisfactory answer to the question put by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. The right hon. Gentleman had asked this question—upon what principle had the Committee, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recommended the payment of 30,000l. as a reimburse- ment to the depositors in the Cuffe-street savings bank? He had a very simple answer to give to that question, and it was this—because the facts and circumstances connected with the Cuffe-street case distinguished it from all others. What, then, were these circumstances? The House was aware that the Act of Parliament under which savings banks were established imposed certain duties upon the local trustees and the Commissioners of the National Debt. In the Cuffe-street savings bank the local trustees had violated their duty, and the Commissioners of the National Debt had violated theirs. It was required by the Act of Parliament that the local trustees should transmit to the Commissioners of the National Debt a full and true statement of their affairs. It was the duty of the Commissioners in London, in the event of the accounts not being in the prescribed form, to send them back; and the local trustees refusing to put them in proper form, the Commissioners could close their accounts, and thus force the bank to wind up its affairs. Now upon this point the Chairman had fallen into a mistake, when he said that the Committeee had decided that the depositors had neither a legal nor an equitable claim. The Committee had decided that they had not a legal claim, but the question of their having an equitable claim was left undecided. Now, he had to call their attention to those points which had been reported as unanimously adopted—namely, that between 1831 and 1848 the Commissioners had an annual account of a growing deficiency, and yet they permitted the bank to keep open. He referred to the question numbered 3171, to show that the Commissioners had the legal power to do this. The report, which was agreed to in the presence of Mr. Goulburn, Sir G. Clerk, and Mr. Herries, stated that it was known to the Commissioners, that in 1838, there was a deficiency of 25,271l.; that in 1845 the circumstances of the bank were known to the Commissioners, and yet no step was taken to make them wind up their affairs; and if they had been forced to do so, the bank could, in 1838, have paid 16s. 6d., in 1845, 15s. in the pound. And why were they not forced to do this, by which so much mischief and so much loss might have been prevented? It was for reasons of State policy. Mr. Higham, who had given his evidence most fairly on this subject, said, that the Cuffe-street savings bank was kept open by the Commissioners, though they knew of its insolvency, on the ground of State policy; and when he (Mr. Reynolds) asked what was "the State policy" to which he referred, Mr. Higham replied, "Lest a panic should be created, which would cause a run upon all the banks, and shake public credit." Now he, in calling their attention to this fact, did not do so for the purpose of criminating any one. The Cuffe-street case was an exceptional one, and without a parallel. The bank commenced in 1818, and in 1831 became insolvent; and Mr. Tidd Pratt, on an investigation of its affairs in that year, recommended 7,000l. to be paid by the trustees out of the assets, and 4,000l. out of the future surplus. It was found impossible to comply with that order without paying every demand, whether legal or not, otherwise there would have been a run on the bank which might ruin it. The trustees transmitted to Downing-street every year the annual accounts of the bank, showing a growing deficiency—commencing with 3,500l., and ending with 32,500l.—and ultimately, in 1848, when a public accountant re-examined the books, he struck a balance of 64,000l. due to the depositors. Had the Commissioners for the National Debt performed their duty according to Act of Parliament, the claim of the depositors for compensation would have been very slight indeed; and would a great nation, with an income of 60 millions a year, refuse to pay 20s. in the pound to the unfortunate depositors, when a case like that had been made out? He did not ask the payment in charity, but as a just claim. The hon Member for Kerry urged the postponement of the question. The postponement of it would be death to the unfortunate people. The feelings of the people were, that the entire amount ought to be paid; and he did not think he misinterpreted the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman when he believed that if his casting vote would decide it, the whole sum would be voted. He (Mr. Reynolds) would thankfully accept the 30,000l. as an instalment of the whole payment due; but they were bound to pay up the balance. With respect to the Killarney and Tralee banks, he thought that a strong case had been made out for the Killarney depositors, at least.

wished to explain a single sentence in the report, which gave rise to a misconception. In the third paragraph, it was stated that Mr. Tidd Pratt decided a claim of 4,274l. to be illegal, and yet recommended it to be paid. It was naturally asked, how was it possible he could recommend the payment of a claim that was illegal? The word illegal conveyed a wrong impression in this case, and yet there was no other that could be well used. The claim arose out of the fraudulent and illegal conduct of Mr. Dunne, the registrar, who received sums out of office-hours and in his own house. Such deposits were illegal, and the depositors had no legal claim, though they had lodged their money as others had, but in ignorance of the law, of which ignorance the registrar had fraudulently availed himself.

believed that his position was that of almost every Member of the House who had not been a Member also of the Select Committee to which the question of the savings banks had been referred. Until he had received his Parliamentary papers that morning, he had not the least conception that a vote of that kind would be proposed that evening. He had not read the evidence presented in the former Session, and he had already remarked that the proceedings of the Committee in the present Session were not yet printed or in the hands of Members. They were, therefore, under great obligations to the hon. Chairman of the Committee for giving them some light into the nature of the inquiry conducted by him in the course of the present Session; also into the proceedings of the Committee, and into the differences of opinion which existed among the members of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin said he was prepared, with thanks, to receive the vote, as an instalment of the debt due by the public. He (Sir J. Graham) had the greatest possible respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents, but the British Parliament did not require his thanks. He represented his constituents, and said his claim was a just one. The right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the decision of the Committee, as being more just than he had expected; and he hoped the House would disappoint him in the same manner, and do strict justice. If their claim was a just one, it would be met in the spirit of justice by the British Parliament. The question then they had to determine was one of very great importance, and they were asked to determine it, if not upon insufficient evidence, at least without a full knowledge of the facts. If this claim was to stand upon the evidence, then he repeated that the impression which he had conveyed to the House when he before addressed it, was strengthened by what he had since heard. This vote was either too much or too little. If it rested upon mere compassion and sympathy, then it was too much. If, on the other hand, it were founded upon equity and special circumstances, then, according to the report of the accountant, the amount ought to be, not 30,000l., but 64,000l. Therefore the vote which they were that night called on to sanction, could not on any ground be considered correct. He had no opportunity of considering the facts of the case until he came into the House and found the subject under discussion. It would appear that the Cuffe-street savings bank had been brought under the consideration of the Commissioners of the National Debt as early as 1831. Great irregularities were then discovered, and the power which was then possessed by the Commissioners, as it was still possessed by them, of closing the bank, was not exercised. He had endeavoured to state the case according to the information he was able to glean as the discussion proceeded; but in the absence of all evidence he was unable himself to vouch for its accuracy. Yet in this imperfect state of the facts they were now called upon to vote away the sum of 30,000l. As he had observed, in 1831 irregularities were discovered in this hank, and Mr. Tidd Pratt recommended a particular course, which was not followed. Again, in 1838, the misconduct of the bank was brought under the knowledge of the Commissioners, and again they neglected to exercise their authority in closing the accounts. Further irregularities were committed. The debt became greater; and in 1848, for the third time, the misconduct of the bank was brought under the notice of the Commissioners, and again their power was not exercised. The bank continued open, the deposits became greater, and in an inverse ratio the debt became greater. In 1848 its insolvency became apparent, and frauds were still committed upon the very verge of its being acknowledged, the injury done to the depositors being much aggravated by these circumstances. Now, if these facts could be proved, a special case, not of charity, but of strict equity, would be established. He was not prepared to come to this conclusion at the present moment. He thought that the case required the most cautious and minute investigation, with the view of establishing the specialty of the case. If they did not come to a conclusion upon the specialty of the case, then they should fall back upon the other ground—that it was a case for their sympathy and compassion. He had understood the hon. Chairman to say that the Committee were generally of opinion that there was no crime committed either in law or in equity. The majority of the Committee came to that opinion, and also to conclusions different from those which he would be induced to arrive at. [Mr. REYNOLDS: Not in equity; the word "equity" was not introduced into the report.] He had understood the Chairman to say that neither in law nor in equity was there any compensation claimed. But there was a claim founded upon their compassion and sympathy. If they admitted such a claim as that, he defied them to draw a distinction between the Cuffe-street case, the Tralee case, the Killarney case, the Auchterarder case, the Rochdale case, and every other case of the kind that had occurred in England. Though they were now in the last stage of the Session, the imperfections of the law in this respect might yet be remedied. On the grounds of compassion and sympathy, were they to open the public purse to meet the unlimited calls that would then be made upon them? By so doing they would be establishing a most dangerous precedent. The moment they came to a decision that the public should be responsible, they would find themselves placed in such a dangerous situation that they would be compelled to alter the law. To admit their liability, without placing any bounds to their assent, appeared to him to be the most inexpedient course that the House could adopt. He earnestly entreated the Government not in the present circumstances of the case to press the Motion, but to withdraw it for the present, with the view of bringing it forward next Session, when it could be most carefully considered.

thought it would be advisable to postpone the vote, if they hoped to receive further evidence on the subject. But it was admitted that no such evidence was anticipated; for all the evidence that could be shown upon the subject was lying before them for a whole twelvemonth. The report distinctly stated that fault had been committed by the au- thorities of the bank, to the great injury of the unfortunate depositors, whom this House and the Government were bound to protect.

fully agreed in the opinions put forward by the right hon. Member for Dublin upon this subject. He believed that there had been important statements made by the accountants in respect to this matter, all of which had not as yet been placed in the hands of Members. These and all the evidence that they had on the subject, fully justified the grant that was proposed. The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, in 1844, allowed the poor unfortunate inhabitants of Dublin to put their moneys into the bank, when they well knew that it was insolvent, and that the trustees were no longer responsible. The Commissioners were then fully aware of the great deficiency that had been occasioned in the bank, and yet they did not take any measures to warn the public of the danger they incurred. The sham arbitrators appointed by Mr. Tidd Pratt were boys 15 years of age, who were told to disagree in order that Mr. Tidd Pratt might come in and settle the disputes. Mr. Tidd Pratt considered he was authorised to give advice, but not to investigate the affairs of the bank. He contended that an individual officially called in, had no right to put himself in hostility to any party. He could tell the House the present debate would not end the case, for when the additional evidence was laid before the House, he was satisfied the sense of justice which hon. Members possessed would induce them to support the vote.

thought it was unnecessary to discuss the claims of the depositors, as the whole affair had been so fully discussed before. Why postpone the vote when the case had been fully gone into, and when so much suffering would be caused by delay?

said, the House was asked to give this money without laying down any principle, or stating any definite ground on which the vote was to be granted. The report of the Committee gave no hint of the course that ought to be pursued. They admitted there was no legal claim on the country, and they simply left the matter in the hands of the Government to adopt that course which they might think to be the best. A six hours' consideration was not sufficient to enable Members to come to a decision on the subject. If the claim was founded in justice let it be paid in full, but he could not admit the plea of compassion as a sufficient ground for voting away the public money. If the vote went to a division, he should vote against it.

said, the Irish Members had argued the question as if the depositors had an equitable claim on the Government. He had always considered that the depositors had only an equitable claim on the trustees—they had neither an equitable nor a legal claim on Government. It had been urged that the Commissioners of the National Debt were to blame; but hon. Members should recollect that the Commissioners had no power over the trustees. The Commissioners had over and over again urged the trustees to close the bank. The trustees would not consent, and the Commissioners had no power to compel them. If the money was given by way of compassion, then the same principle must be extended to all the defaulting banks in Ireland and England also.

would support the vote, because he hoped the liberality of the Government would not be limited to this case.

had a deep interest in this question on account of the constituency he represented. The question was an English question as well as an Irish question, and as you treated Ireland, so you must treat England. He admitted there was no legal claim on Government, but there was the next highest claim—the claim of equity and morality. He thought the sum ought to be paid in full.

said, nothing had been done by Government to disabuse the public mind of the impression that prevailed, that Government were responsible to the savings banks. The Commissioners of the National Debt had connived at the deception, and were to a certain extent answerable for what had occurred. There was a great difference between the case of some banks that were spoken of, and the Cuffe-street bank. The state of the law was such as to make these savings banks in reality little less than a trap for the people who subscribed to them. He agreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale in thinking that there was an universal belief that the Government were responsible for the sums which they deposited. Speaking of the Government and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, he must say that they connived at the transactions of the Cuffe-street bank. A pamphlet, written by Mr. Higham, showed that in the year 1833, that bank was deficient in its accounts to the amount of 3,071l.; in 1834, to 7,000l.; in 1835, to 13,000l.: in 1836, to 19,000l.; in 1837, to 18,000l.; in 1845, to 18,000l.; in 1846, to 19,000l.; and in 1847, to 32,000l. Now the Commissioners at the National Debt Office were fully aware of this deficiency as regarded the Cuffe-street bank, and yet no report of the matter was made. The Commissioners, if they pleased, could have exploded the whole affair. Several Chancellors of the Exchequer in succession must have been cognisant of the frauds in this bank. Taking for granted that the report of the Committee was fairly founded on the evidence, he must say that all the individuals officially concerned were deeply responsible; and were he a representative of Dublin, he would call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make good the whole deficiency. The case of the Rochdale savings bank was one of gross neglect on the part of the trustees. No man could suppose that any one of them was cognisant of what was going on. A young man of twenty-one succeeded his father in 1822, and from that year up to the time of his death there was nothing like an audit. When he died, out of 100,000l. only 30,000l. was left. His property amounted to about 13,000l. or 14,000l. The case was one which appealed to the sympathies of the House as strongly as any case could do. He had been to the Chancellor of the Exchequer twice on behalf of the depositors, if the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill to provide security against fraud in future, he would consent to the making good all the losses caused by past neglect. As regarded the Cuffe-street bank, he would willingly vote for the whole 64,000l.

said, there was no pretence for saying that in the case of the Rochdale bank the Government was at all implicated. The question there was one of pure sympathy and humanity, and the case was not be distinguished from that of any other savings bank failure. The case of the Cuffe-street bank was a very strong one. The fact of the deficiency was laid before the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; in other words, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, and they did not think it advisable to take any step. It was that circum- stance which, in his opinion, entitled the depositors to consideration, their claim being to something between equity, sympathy, and charity. [Cheers.] Well, it was not easy to define the claim. Were he to talk for six hours he would probably fail to make out a clear logical distinction. He did not think what was proposed in that case could be cited as a precedent hereafter.

conceived the Commissioners were liable for the debts of the bank. It was not a matter of mistake; it was a question of duty; and, therefore, they should be held responsible as far as they could be. They were required to publish the state of the banks. If they neglected to do this, and if the public sustained injury from that neglect, according to the first principles of law they were liable. He would, therefore, vote for the 30,000l., but as an instalment; as he thought 20s. in the pound should be paid by the country.

said, he had already protested against this interposition between labour and capital. He had had communications from several coalowners, who had represented that this interference with their property would be seriously injurious, and suggested that the measure be postponed till next Session. It was a piece of hasty and ill-considered legislation.

supported the Bill. So far as his information went, the coalowners of the north of England were unanimously in favour of it. He should like to know who the coalowners were who had represented to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that this Bill would be injurious to their establishments? All he could say was that the coalowners in two of the most important counties in England took a very different view of it.

reminded the House that upwards of 2,000 persons every year lost their lives in consequence of the ill ventilation of the mines, and that more than two-thirds of the coalowners of England had expressed their opinions in favour of the present Bill.

said, the Bill was decidedly objectionable in its present shape.

feared it would be impossible to legislate satisfactorily upon a question on which so much diversity of opinion existed with regard to the preservation of life in mines. He had no objection to the passing of the present measure, as it was as little objectionable as anything that could be devised, although he did not think that the mortality would be lessened by it.

believed that in nine cases out of ten the fatal accidents which occurred were attributable to the men themselves, and not to the coalownere.

said, he had remonstrated against the Government proceeding with the present measure. It had been introduced without any notice to the citizens of Dublin, or any person officially connected with that city. He had felt it his duty to protest against it, but knew perfectly well that he had no chance of defeating it; and he could only congratulate the Government on the new ally whom they had acquired in his hon. Colleague, who would, nevertheless, he apprehended, be called to account by his constituents on his return to Ireland. He believed a more wanton or unreasonable attack had never been made on the franchise of the people.