The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-03 00:00:00

HARWICH WRIT.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that Mr. Speaker do issue
his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a writ for
the election of a burgess to serve in this present Parliament
for the borough of Harwich, in the room of Robert Wigram
Crawford, Esq , whose election has been determined to be
void. The Hon. Member said that when he made this mo-
tion on the previous evening, it was under the impression
that it was acceptable to that (the Opposition) side of the
House, but he now found that the case was otherwise. He
maintained that they were bound either to insist on inquiry
or to consent to the issuing of the writ. The report of the last
Committee contained no charge of corruption ; there was no
notice for an inquiry. Under such circumstances the House
would establish a dangerous precedent by refusing to issue
the writ; a Minister, with a subservient majority at com-
mand, might take advantage of such a precedent to withhold
a writ for his own purpose for any length of time. The Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had stated that one reason
why he had not advocated the issuing of the writ was, that
he did not wish the Government to be liable to the imputa-
tion of taking advantage of their position to obtain an addi-
tional supporter. That was a delicate scruple which be had
never witnessed before, and he hoped the wear and tear of
official life would not remove such delicate sensibility -
-'(Laughter.) He was told that his motion was to be op-
posed to prevent Sir Fitzroy Kelly from being returned. He
had ,nothing in the world to do with that.—(Ministerial
cheers.) He would not even deprive the rotten borough of
Harwich of its electoral rights.—(gear, hear.)
The question having been put,
Mr. BOUVERIE moved as an amendment that no war-
rant should issue during the present session. He dissented
from the Hon. Member's statement that the House had but
two courses to pursue —either to inquire or to issue the writ ;
they might upon their own knowledge suspend the issuing
of the writ.—( Hear, hear.) They all knew the facts of the
case with regard to this borough without any more inquiry.
Suspension under such circumstances was quite a constitu-
tional practice. He had made a note of several cases. In
1700 it was ordered by the House, without a division, that
no writ should be issued during that session in the town of
Winchelsea; in 1714, there was a similar order with regard
to Clitheroe; and there were many other cases of the same
kind. It could not, therefore, be said that what he now
proposed was unconstitutional. As Parliament would be
dissolved in two or three months, the result of issuing the
writ would be, that there would be the most abominable cor-
ruption without any possibility of a remedy in sufficient time;
whereas its suspension would give the borough an opportu-
nity of becoming pure.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought it very unjust that small
boroughs should be sacrificed on the shrine of a morbid sen-
sibility about corruption. If the inquiry were universal, not
Leices•er only, but even London would come under condem-
nation. It was proved before the county court at Greenwich
that Mr. Salomons by his agents gave orders for a large ex- '
penditure at public-houses, and that he escaped payment
through a statement that it would expose him to the opera-
tion of the Bribery Act.
Sir DE L. EVANS did not think that the character of
the tenant farmers was concerned in the question before the
House. (Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. New-
degate) complained of the morbid sensibility of gentlemen
on that (the Opposition) side of the House with regard to
corruption, but the Government supported by the Hon.
Gentleman and his friends had also introduced a Bill for the
purpose of putting down corrupt practices at elections. The
case of Harwich was a very peculiar one ; in no other bo-
rough had such malpractices been committed. The Right
Hon. Gentleman (Hr. Walpole) was unable on the previous
• evening to point out a single case of a similar gross charac-
ter; but as the House had thought fit to refuse its assent to
the motion for inquiry, he did not think there was a fair
ground for suspending the writ.—(Hear.)
Mr. K SEYMER said that there was no proof of corrup- ,
tion at the recent elections for the borough. Allegations in
election petitions were not evidence.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to the former cases of corruption there had been a con-
donation of the offence by the House allowing the re-issue of
writs.--(" Divide, divide.")
Mr. ROEBUCK had in 1842 moved for a Committee to in-
quire into the case of Harwich. Before that Committee full
proof of the extensive corruption having been practised was
adduced; and on the report of that Committee he had
founded a motion, that the writ for the borough of Harwich
ahould not be re-issued. That motion was refused. Ten
years had elapsed since that time, no farther bribery had '
been proved, an inquiry into the state of the case had been
again refused, and yet the House was now asked to suspend
the writ on the ground of the former malpractices. The
suspension of the writ was a most improper proceeding, and
the sooner it was stopped the better. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT was at a loss to understand what had be-
come of the memory of his Hon. and Learned Friend ( Mr.
Roebuck). In 1848 Mr. Attwood was unseated on account
of bribery at the election in the year 1847.—(Hear.) There
sets something like a logical sequence in the motion of his
Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, who said that as the
House had refused to grant the inquiry they ought to allow
the•writ to be issued. But as the question could not be
raised after the forthcoming election, the House ought not
:make itself responsible for any malpractices that might
fore frons the issuing of the writ, and he should there-
ubrnit that it was the duty of the Government to sup-
port the amendment.
the itstn,ent.
the occasion o_GLIS said it was the duty of Parliament on
excetptlisnvacancy at once to provide for the filling of it up ;
There had been non: were only made on special reports.
proved since 1842,
report of bribery, because none
had been prov
it was most unjust and and under these circumstances
improper to continue the suspension
of the writ.—(Hear.)
Mr. COBBOLD suPPurted the
tiliseu
*e i 7of the writ.
Alight Hon. Gentleman
the Member for the University of Oxford had spoken of this
AS an unparliamentary proceeding. attrh
not Lcontinually suspended,
of writs directed
to the present time writs had bee_ y, from 1596 down
and the issue
be
hear.) With r made, except in a
0.11 House.—(Hear, before the egard to the particular
instance of corruption
.House he
the writ had been _ owned there was
some doubt, but as .
60 long 81,
that any practical reason hadspended he
did not see • When been urged for
susp nsion. Am
discontinuing the eHon. Friend (Sir ts.--ee he had, in
concert with his Rig ut . • Grey),
for the issuing of the writ'"'evu•
to oppose the motion
hange his opinion Though
he had seen no reason to c
writshould'jatis, it
steel is
that the lusted is
opinion of the House
sia
would suggest to his Hon. Friend the Member for
to the motion mar-
neck to withdraw his amendment before the
House.—( Hear, hear.)
d at the course taken by the
Mr. HUME was surprise
surprised at an..
House, though he certaiuly ought not to be
It ) was notoriouys
thing which occurred there.— (A laugh.
b- awesreat an amount
It
that the last elections were attended j
true that the
of bribery as the former.—(No, no.)
ad of bribery—
last election was not set aside on the
grouhat bribery had
(Divide, divide) —but there was no doubt t
prevailed, and he thought, therefore, suspension of
that tie
the writ should be continued.—(Divide.)
Lord
• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered the Noble
a high Parliamentary authority, but the precedents which
he (Lord John Russell) had mentioned were all prior to
the passing of the Grenville Act. Was the Noble Lord pre-
pared to favour the House with any precedent applicable to
the peculiar circumstances? It was perfectly true that in
in 1842 there was a strong representation submitted to the
House on the subject of bribery in Harwich, hut the House
' refused to make any inquiry into the circumstances, de-
claring that they were not snfficient to justify disfranchise-
ment,—(Rear, hear.) If ever there was a condonation of
an offence, it was the conduct of Parliament towards Har-
wich.—(Hear, hear.) In 1847 an election took place for
Harwich, into which an inquiry took place. Mr. Attwood
was unseated by the report of the Committee. An Act of
Parliament had been previously passed, under the auspices
of the Noble Lord the Member for London, by which an
election committee was empowered to make inquiry into any
charges of bribery which might be made and withdrawn,
or.. which were supposed not to have been bona fide
prosecuted. No such evidence, however, was taken
or required to be taken by the Committee which
sat in 1847 on the Harwich election, for no
allegations of bribery were made.—( Hear, hear.)
hear.) He could not understand, therefore, wh—
y the House
should have taken the extraordinary course of suspending
the writ. Since 1847 no acts of bribery had taken place,
the House had refused to issue a Commission of Inquiry, and
he thought it was the duty of the House to allow the
borough its representative.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not,
they would commit an act of injustice. The Noble Lord
said he had seen no reason to change his opinion, and yet Le
suggested to the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock to withdraw
his amendment, and allow the writ to be issued. He (the
Attorney-General) did not think such a course consistent.
The Government would support the issuing of the writ.
Mr. ANSTEY said a few words, which from the general
ones of " Divide," and " Oh, oh !" were quite inaudible.
DUDA in justice to Mr. Attwood, who wait =able

. _~ ..

to defend himself in the House, wished, as chairman of the
Committee of 1818, to state that there was no allegations of
bribery made before it; and that at the conclusion of
the proceedings the counsel for the petitioners in the strongest
terms disclaimed the intention of imputing bribery to the
sitting Member.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MOWATT begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Walpole), who supported the Bill for the purpose of
disfrachising at. ,Albans, what difference there was between
that borough and Harwich?—(Hear ) He did not ,ee any
difference in the cases of Harwich and St. Albans, and if one
was disfranchised why not the other? - (Divide.)
Mr. BOUVERIE said that, in compliance with the sug-
gestion of the Noble Lord, he would withdraw hi 3 amend-
ment.
Amendment withdrawn. The original motion for the
issuing of the writ was then agreed to.
RE-PAYMENT OF ADVANCES (IRELAND).
On the order of the nay for the second reading of the
above Bill,

Mr. F. FRENCH complained of the manner in which
Ireland had been treated with regard to these advances, as
calculated to destroy her industry and depopulate her
shores. He begged to recal their attention to the mode in
which the Irish Poor-law had been established. The report
of the original Committee was disregarded, and Mr. Nichols
was tent over, and in six weeks settled the question. Mr.
Nichols stated that under no circumstances would more
than 100 workhouses be necessary, whereas at this
moment there were 163. He stated that 312,000/.
would be the greatest annual expense, but that in ordi-
nary years 208.000/. would be sufficient. It was unneces-
sary to say how far this estimate had been exceeded. With
respect to the its ns for which the Bill legislated, he ob-
jected to the first of 1,900,000/., but the second he believed
had been useful and fairly appropriated. Neither did lie
think there was any oljection to the third, but he thought
it should not be called up until the works were completed.
The Hon. Member proceeded to read some figures, from
which he argued that the Commissioners of Works had
taken 1,073,0001. more than they had furnished any vouchers
for, or than had appeared on the face of their own accounts.
They had stated that the amount of employment given in
1847 might be represented by 13 millions of people em-
ployed ooe day, and for that they charged 4,500,0001.,
which would give 6s. Hid. a day for each person; a most
preposterous overcharge.—( Hear, hear.) In one case they
had charged for labour in the barony of Newcastle, county
of Limerick, which had been presented for, but never per-
formed. He maintained the 2* millions would have been
ample for all the expenses of 1847. He contended that Ire-
land was worthy of consideration, seeing that she had paid
94 per cent. of all that had been previously assessed. She
had repaid 7,413,4131, since the famine, and therefore could
not be charged with any wish to evade just demands. The
rateable value of property in Ireland was not more than about
nine millions and a half, while the local taxation amounted to
about three millions and a half, and the average total tax-
ation in England was 2s. 3d. in the pound, while that of
Ireland was 6s Bd. The effec, of the famine ought, and he
hoped would be, considered by the Government, for an
amount of capital equal to 60 millions had been lost
to Ireland. Since that time, 21 millions had been paid
for food imported, and seven millions had been expended
on the poor. Under these circumstances, could Ireland
bear a fresh tax like this? One-fourth of her population
had left her, and if this tax was pressed, the diminution
would be more rapid than ever. A Committee of in-
quiry of the other House was now sitting on the subject of th is
Bill, and he thought it ought to be supended till the opinion
of that Committee was declared. Any money that Ireland
was indebted would be better applied to develop her re-
sources, either by railways or some such means, and he
hoped the Government would duly consider the effect of
passing this measure. He should move that the Bill be read
a second time that day six months.
After a few words from Mr. O'FLAHERTY,
Mr. GRATTAN said, that Ireland had been wronged and
plundered there be no doubt. The Right Hoe. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiled, but he (Mr. Grattan)
did not complain of him as he was no party to it. What he
wanted to know was where the money had gone to ? He
was sorry that the Hon. Members for Montrose and Man-
chester, besides all those Members who opposed the Irish
Members on this subject, had all left the House. Ireland
had been charged with a sum of four millions; but what
had she got by it ? Had the poor been fed, or the people kept
at home, or their moral condition improved? Certainly not.
The poor-law had failed in its objects, besides which in 1849,
the expense attendant on it had been four times as great as it was
in the year it was passed, the year of the failure of the potato
crop, which was the alleged cause or its necessity. Look
at the sum charged for workhouses. His Hon. Friend the
Member for Roscommon had quoted a case from Limerick,
and. he (Mr. Grattan) would quote a case from Youghal.
He was sorry the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Youghal was absent, but he who was always making
speeches calculated to get popularity was no doubt so sure
of his election in the next Parliament that he did not care
to hear anything about his present borough. A sum of
9,0001. had been advanced to build a poorhouse at Youghal,
capable of containing 900 inmates. This was to be paid to
the Poor-law Commissioners on the 9th of October, 1851;
but by a sealed order of the Commissioners, dated in Sep-
tember, 1851, they declared the first instalment to be due in
that month, or 16 days earlier than the 9th Oct., on which
the sum had been granted. To this day not a single stone of
the house was built Would not this be enough to excite
the indignation of so irascible a gentleman as the Hon. and
Learned Member for Youghal, and, if he had not been ab-
sent, no doubt they would have had a suitable speech from
him, accompanied by those remarkable gesticulations with
which he was accustomed to " Adonise" himself.—

(Laughter.) In the workhouses in Ireland the people died
at the rate of 1,000 a week. He hoped the Government
would adopt a plan he would recommend, which was, to di-
rect the Hon. and Learned Member for Portarlington, who
held an office in the Or nance, to order out a park of ar-
tillery, and blow every workhouse in Ireland down.
(Laughter.) That was the only way to keep the people
alive—(Laughter)—and to have peace; but, as it was, they
were killing the people at the rate of 1,000 a week under the
special care of Mr. Nicholas. The Hon. Gentleman then
went through parts of the Bill, which be declared no one
could understand, and inquired whether any part of the
four millions was to be remitted, or if it was all to be
paid back by annuities? If so, he did not know how it was
to be done.

Mr. CLEMENTS was not anxious to get rid of the work-
houses or the poor-law, but to see them work out the ob-
jects intended by them, and therefore he wished to exa-
mine this Bill. Its purpose was to legalise a treasury
minute of last year, which proposed that in every case in
which the expense of any union reached 4s. in the pound,
the repayment of the advances should be so adjusted as not
to cause this sum of 4s. in the pound to be exceeded. Even
if this were so. when the county cess of 21. in the pound
was added to it, raised the local taxation to 6s. in the pound,
while in England the average was not quite 2s. 6d. in the
pound. He was not one who would repudiate the payment
of advances, if it were practicable, but he complained that
the treasury had kept the House and the people of England
in the dark as to the real state of things.—(The Hon. Gen-
tleman was proceeding to comment on the report of Sir Chat,.
Trevelvan, when he was interrupted by)
Mr. -TRELAWNY, who said —I rise to order. I have over-
heard words pass between two Hon. Members which are
calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.
[lt will be necessary to explain, that while Mr. Clements
was speaking Mr. Anstey entered the House, and after ad-
dressing several Members, evidently inquiring what had
been said with respect to him by Mr. Grattan during his
absence, took his seat on the first Opposition bench by the
table. Mr. Grattan crossed the House and sat down next
Mr. Anstey. Some animated conversation passed between
them, after which Mr. Grattan rose and left the House. Mr.
Trelawny then rose to order.]
Sir A. COCKBURN said he had been an unwilling hearer
of words passing between the Hon. Members for Yougbal
and Meath, which he thought required that they should be
called on to state that what had passed between them should
go no further.—( Rear, hear. )
The SPEAKER said that the proper coarse was to order
the Hon. Member for Meath to appear in his place.—(Cries
of Go on.") The attention of the House had been called
to the likelihood of a breach of the peace being intended be-
tween two Hon. Members, and the proper course was that a
motion should be made, calling on the Hon. Member for
Meath to attend in his place.
Sir.A. COCKBURN —I beg to move that----
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was about to
rise to make that motion, and he begged to second it.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY could see no reason for ordering the
Hon. Member for Meath to appear in his place. An Hon.
Gentleman had drawn the attention of the House to dream•
stances of which at present they knew nothing, and they
had been called to decide upon the effect of certain words
when they had not heard what they were.—( Hear.) He
would not on such grounds vote for any Gentleman's being
calljed to the bar.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could conceive no other course for
the House to pursue than to assent to the motion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli). An Hon. Member had
risen, and had informed the House that he had heard the
Hon. Members in his neighbourhood make use of language
which was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.

O'FLAHERTY—Aye, aye; but what language?
The O'GORMAN MAHON Who knows anything
about it?

- .
--.
Mr. LABOUCHERE continned—And, under these cir-
cumstances, the House would do right in insisting upon the
presence of one of the Hon. Gentlemen implicated.
At this point in the "scene," Mr. GaarrAN re-entered
the House, and took his seat,
Sir A. COCKBURN begged that the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite ( Mr. O'Flaherty and the O'Gorman Mahon)
would not hold him responsible for having first drawn the
attention of the House to this matter. It was the Hon.
Gentleman behind him (Mr. Trelawny) who had first asked
the interference of the Speaker; and on the circumst .nce
being mentioned, be (Sir A. Cockburn) had thought laimkelf
called upon to state what he had heard. He had been
sitting next to the two Hon. Gentlemen who had quarrelled ;
had seen and heard what had passed ; and, having been so
attesndgi
!fiatuated, he had stated what he had known, and afterwards
had
moving
in the manner pointed out by the Speaker, by
that the Hon. Member for Meath be called upon to
racter not attOence;
cePtion onallillace. The words originated in some miseon-
mann__ . thepart of the Hon. Member for Youghal as to the
near Sir
him i`nriiswail3liela the Hon. Member for Meath had spoken of
a that aod those words were perhaps of
Meath intimated
proper —(Hear from Hon. Members
a cha-
the Hon. meolebe"rufornr.i),ouTghhoasiet woohrddsthheadHboehe.nmreesmenhteerd
for
the walls of the nous he would carry his resentment beyond
to be misunderstood. %Peaking, indeed, in a manner not
for Tavistoek (Mr. TraZhen, therefore, the Hon Member
ilt2iurn) was bound to confirm
had occurred. he (sir ,reni.) reported to the Speaker what
concerned were the report. It was very outuukr
in which both the HOD.• Gentle to interfere in such a matter,
e would under-
men entitled to respect, and in which
Member for
gentle-
ceeded the other so, greatly i
-n years. one (Mr. Grattan) ex-
-is 'Io
Sir P. NUGENr begged that thevrßieono:
stand that he had followed his Ron.
Meath out of the House wtithwtithhehintention of
ts Ron. .j. putting mat-
said in the House dwas that
atenrysthriignhgt.
answered in the House; and he had asked te ought Foetid
to return to his place and await the answer ich the Hon.
t bile ti s haardg übneleenn
so f His lien.
Friend had returned to his place, and matters had
Member for Youghal might think fit to make.
Hon. Member for Youghal would make.
been settled, and the House would know what answer the
it y o
-inter-
fering in this most unpleasant matter. He hone he had
Members Very wrong,
Mr. TRELAWNY accepted all the responsibn d f
not done wrong.—(Several Irish h
• h Members— oo . )
further consequences.—(Several Iris Meath
very wrong.") He had acted with the ope of pf,eir,enhtiv
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for having.
House
made in reference to him. At the same time the
returned to his place, it is necessary to withdraw the !notion
will require to hear something from the Hen. Members that
neither Hon. Member will proceed further in regard to this
matter.
Mr. GRATTAN—I am very sorry, for the sake of the
House, that anything I am connected with should take up
its time. I addressed the House in reference to the Hon.
Member for Youghal. without intending to give any offence.
Seeing the Hon. Member afterwards making inquiries in
this House, as to what I had said, I crossed over to him and
offered him the document respecting the Youghal Union,
from which I had quoted. Thereupon, the liou. Member

.. .

r. i ~ .. ~.,~:i

used to me these words—" It is on your part neither courteous
nor courageous." To that I replied —" Courageous is not a
' word to be used in that way in this House." And then, Sir,
I left, the House.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. ANSTEY —The Hon. Member is perfectly correct in
the reprrt he has made of my words. But he has omitted
the circumstance which gives those words a meaning. He
crossed over to this side of the House when I was endea-
vouring to ascertain the nature of the attack made upon me
during my absence; and, in an excited manner, the Hoo.
Member said to me, You have comeback, and you should
have been here to defend your borough." I said, " That is
no business of yours." He said, "It is." And then I
said, To make an attack on me in my absence for a neg.
lect of duty was neither courteous nor courageous." Those
were the words I used and those were the reasons for using
them.
An HON. MEMBER—But withdraw them—withdraw
them.
Mr. ANSTEY—I do everything, of course, due from 'me
to the House.
Mr. MAIIER—Oh, but that won't do at all.—(Roars of
laughter.)
Mr. ANSTEY—If any explanation is necessary I am
perfectly willing to give it. But I do not understand that
the offensive language, or the offensive manner of the Hon.
Member has been explained, or even alluded to; and under
those circumstances the House will really see that it is not
for me to speak fi-st.—(Oh, oh.)
The SPEAKER—Is the House to understand from the
Hon. Member for Youghal that the Hoe. Member does not
mean anything personally offensive to the Hon. Member for
I%leath ?—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY (after some hesitation and in a very
solemn voice)—l mean, Sir, nothing personally offensive to
any man.— ( Roars of laughter.)
The SPEAKER—Is the Hon. Member for Meath satisfied
with that explanation?
Mr. GRATTAN—The Hon. Member says he does not mean
anything perssnallyt ffensive to any man. Now, lam a man ;
and I am therefore quite satisfied.—(Great laughter and
tremendous cheers from Mr. O'Flaherty and the O'Gorman
Mahon.)
The O'GORMAN MAIION (who rose amid cries of "No,
no," "Sit down")—Sir, I wish only to make one observation
that may be of some use. I have to express a hope that
my Hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Clements) will at once pro-
ceed with his address, and this additional hope that the
House will never again degrade itself by entering into such
personal matters as have occupied us during the last five mi-
nutes.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The "scene" then closed ; but it was some time before the
indications of excitement and amazement subsided.

Mr. CLEDIENTS renewed his address to the House; but,
in the prevalent " buzz" we did not catch his few remaining
remarks.

Mr. G. MOORE would not support the motion of the
Hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French); and he be-
lieved that the Hon. Member had only proposed the mo-
tion for the purpose of obtaining the opportunity of making
a speech.. He would not either find any fault with the
present Government. The conduct of the Government had
been exceedingly frank and straightforward. They had
done all that could have been expected from them, and
much more than was to have been expected from the late
Government.--.(Near, hear.) But he should like to know
how far the financial arrangements of the late Government,
and on which this Bill was founded, had met with the ap-
probation of the present Government?—(Hear, hear.) The
whole country party of Ireland—all the supporters of the
present Government—were unanimous in complaining that
they were wronged in this matter.—(Hear, hear.) They
demanded investigation into the circumstances, which
investigation they thought would bear out their case; and
they appealed with ail the more confidence to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, knowing that his opinions, as heretofore
expressed, as regarded the burdens on land, so entirely
accorded with their own.—(Hear, hear.) It was not many
years ago since the Right Hon. Gentleman, supported on
the occasion by the whole of his party, had proposed that
a very considerable portion of the relief of the pauperism of
Ireland should be paid out of the consolidated fund. The
argument urged at the time, in opposition to the Right
Hon. Gentleman' was that local supervision was necessary to
economy, and that local supervision would be superseded by
a centralised system of relief. But such an argument had
no application whatever to a case in which the relief had
been governed and administered by a centralised authority
alone, and in which local supervision and local authority
were entirely excluded from control of the funds, or from in-
terference with the expenditure.— (Hear, hear.) He did
hope that the present Government would act, in regard to
this subject, in conformity with their recorded votes and
opinions.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I wish to
recall the attention of the House to the real question before
us. The Bill before us is really a Bill of indemnity, and the
facts are these. The late Government, with, under the cir-
cumstances, a wise discretion, performed certain
acts which the law did not justify. They em-
bodied in a Treasury minute measures which they
deemed necessary in a period of exigency; and it
should be recollected that all the propositions on that mi.
nute, though they may not have been so comprehensive as
may have been desired, or so extensive as some persons may
have hoped, were all propositions of arrangements of a reme-
dial and mitigatory nature. Whatever may be the dif-
ferences of opinion on the great question which has been
touched upon in the course of this debate, namely, the rela-
tions that should exist between England and Ireland with
reference to claims made under remarkable, and I may say
unprecedented circumstances, which will be fresh in the
recollection of all present, there can be but one
sentiment as to the character of the measures with
which the Bill under discussion is connected. They
were remedial measures—they were measures devised
to soften, to ameliorate, and to relieve; and there-
fore I could not have imagined that a Bill like this
would have met with any opposition in this House, and
least of all could I have conceived that an amendment, to
read that Bill a second time this day six months, would
have come from Ireland, and from the Member for an Irish
county.—(Cheers.) We can lay no claim to any credit in
connexion with this Bill save the humble credit of not
shrinking from doing justice to those who have preceded
us. The Bill was prepared by the late Government; it was
submitted to my consideration when I first entered office by
my predecessor; and it appeared to me that it was more
than a just, that it was an equitable and a kind Bill. It did
not appear to me that in sanctioning it I gave any general
opinion upon the large question of the state of Ireland. It
simply appeared to me notwithstanding the peculiar circum-
stances of the session, and notwithstanding the anxiety
which we felt not to crowd the paper with numerous Bills,
but merely to carry out the measures which were abso-
lutely necessary, that this was an absolutely necessary
measure, and that it was what might be passed without op-
position, and even with warm feelings on the part of Irish
Members.—(Cheers.) It is unnecessary for me to vindicate
this measure. I have not heard as yet a murmur against
it. It is not pretended that this is a Bill to add
to the taxation of Ireland. The relief which it secures may
be less extensive than is desired, but it is a measure of
relief, and it stands on its own merits. Those who support
it are in no way pledged not to consider the larger question,
and it is therefore quite needless for me to vindicate a law
not a portion of which has been challenged, questioned, or
criticised. Some Hon. Gentlemen have intimated that they
would have preferred that the whole question should have
been considered through the medium of some larger propo-
sition. All I can answer is that this is a proposition founded
upon an examination of the facts, and as a direct iremedy to
a certain extent for a peculiar and overpowering grievance.
Those who support it are not stopped from bringing forward
their general views on the subject ; but I cannot understand
that any one could desire that the passing of this Bill should
be postponed, as suggested by the Hon. Blomber for Roscom-
mon. The Hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) has made an
appeal to me, couched in very ornate and courteous language,
which I cannot comply with, because I cannot see that it
bears any reference to the question before us. It is enough
for me to say that I shall always be ready to uphold gene-
rally those opinions with respect to taxation to which the
Hon. Gentleman has referred. But I must say, not by parti-
cular acts.—(Hear.) Such principles as I have laid down I
trust I shall always assert, being convinced of their justice,
and feeling convinced that if applied in a spirit of justice
they would conduce to the advantage of the community.—
(Cheers.) Undoubtedly, in the consideration of a question
of that kind Ireland is not to be omitted.—(Loud cheers.)
I have never considered the question of local taxation and
omitted the question of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) On the
contrary, I have always kept the question of Ireland
before the House, and I have shown how Ireland has suf-
fered from an inequitable system of local taxation.—
(Loud cheers.) With regard to the general condition of
Ireland—as to the distress under which she labours; as to
those burdensome engagements incurred in consequence of
art unprecedented combination of circumstances, from
which she has not yet successfully emerged—l have no he-
sitation in saying that there is, on the part of her Majesty's
Government, a sincere desire to review the state of
Ireland in a comprehensive manner, with the hope of
supplying some effective remedies to those social grie-
vances of which there has been such loud complaint.—
(Cheers.) But I must tell the Hon. Member for Mayo that
that is a task which is not to be undertaken in a hurried
manner—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Moore)—and it certainly
cannot be dono in a session in which on every occasion her
Majesty's Government, like other Governments, are exposed
to being " worried."—(Laughter.) In serener hours we may
be able to survey the circumstances like statesmen, and to see
the different bearings of all these various questions one
upon the other; and with such opportunity I should cer-
tainly feel it to be the duty of the present Government—and
I should certainly exact it from any Government, as one
of paramount urgency—to consider the social grievances of
Ireland, with the object of applying adequate remedies.—
(Cheers.) It was no idle boast of my Right Hon. and
Learned Friend ( Mr. Napier), on Wednesday, when he said
that we were prepared to deal with the long-vexed question
of landlord and tenant. That is a subject which had
engaged his attention long before the formation of the
present Government, and, undoubtedly, there is much
anxiety to settle that great controversy.—(Cheers.)
But that also is a question unconnected with the present one.
It is an easy thing to come forward to this table and to pro-
pose votes of money to necessitous proprietors. That, how-
ever, is not to my mind the manner is which we should
deal with burdens on land. We must view that question
under its various aspects. We must endeavour to penetrate
the deepest recesses of the question, and to grapple with all
its most complicated relations. It is quite useless to attempt
to relieve the proprietor or even the occupier in Ireland
either from the'burden of an imperial loan or from the-
weight of local taxation unless, at the same time, the tenure
of tnat land is placed in a more rational and .satisfactory
state—unless all those questions which arise from the tenure,
of land are, at the same time, put in a position which may
offer some chance -of a more satisfactory state than that
which for many years has been experienced in that country.
It is with those feelings the Government are anxious to deal
with what is called the " Irish question ;" and when we have
the opportunity of viewing that question in all its various
aspects, and in all its relations, we are prepared to consider
the whole question of the local taxation of that country, and
of the particular burdens under which society now labours.
IWe shall do it with an earnest desire to do what we can to
aegilrrl.aivtieeitnfautsei the condition of that country, and to remove the
real sources of social grievances. This, however, has nothing
to do with the Bill betore the House. For that,Bill we are
responsible only -officially. It is a Bill of indemnity for
measures undertaken for the relief of a class which is less
circumstances
ihgohptehanvoenb.eeiAnioamnbtiecrisp
fartoemd ;
wdeirlithpeesre.
of the peeevasses
Sion
ro.fthat.h
_e this_oba as o notte r
whichth e
has
n il
o d opportunityprevailed.--(
neeldao frnouln a discus-
elesesELL would look anxiously for the realisation
there should
on which that remission which the House had just heard. No doubt
boa remission, but it was very desirable that
this Bill
miraculous resurrect":
general condemnation of the prin&phst
from
haetrtuhst treated that ithtehe
to the people of Irelandon was based. It was of imp°, tance
Government Government
ltd.
nothing evear.) done
bootainng atl
nhdoneofcsp, lltarrirenal
oatiinopdnl on
Which this membert• they should have some dis-
-1 yvinaLfeouoonndeddit.ioTnhoefr e
someNeas
any thing troegarrertetsetditetphroa
that
eas.—(
parts
' relief to the suffering people Ireland. If ateto give
Ireland theyu he Government
had a policy forght to expresait frank]
Sir H. W. BARRON said he was rather surprisedthaty.th
, 481, the present e
not do
ROCHE
• lion, Member 012QL"" voveruraent to declare

a policy, after being a most abject and consistent supporter
of the- policy of the late Government, which had done so
much mischief in Ireland.
Mr. ROCHE rose to explain. The Hon. Member had said
that he was an abjtct and consistent supporter of the late
Government. It was not fair that the Hon. Gentleman should
go on to argue on incorrect premisos.—(Hear, hear.) He
begged to say that he never was an abject or a consistent
supporter of the late Government.—(Loud laughter.) The
Hon. Gentleman was
going on to address the House. when
Tito SPEAKER said the Hon. Gentleman rose to explain,
but he was making a second speecb.—( Hear.)
Sir H. W. BARRON said that the Hon. Gentleman was
at all events a steadfast supporter of the late Government in
all their measures in that House. He was sure the Hon.
Gentleman would not deny that. Now it was net in his
recollection, or the recollection of his reading—(Loud
laughter)—that any Government had so misgoverned, had
so ruined, every interest in Ireland, as the late Government,
and that was the reason of his sitting on that (the
Ministerial) side of the House.—(lronical cheers.) The
people of Ireland would back him in that opinion—uinety-
nine out of every hundred would back him in that opinion.
The only remedy of the late Government was taxa ion,
taxation, taxation —(Laughter.) In 1845 the poor-law
taxatian was 316,°00/. under the late Government it rose
to 2,130,00,11. At lea;,;t 200,00 t farmers had been swept
off the land, and 2,060.000 of the inhabitants had been
driven to emigration. Hon. Gentlemen opposite pressed,
forced, and irritated the Government to a dissolution, and
yet they wanted the Government to come forward at once
with a policy and remedial measures for Ireland. The
people of Ireland lost at least 30,000,000 by the failure
of the potato crop, and they lost 5,000 000/. annually in
other crops since the famine. Yet the Government only in-
creased the amount of taxation on the people. That was
,
their only remedy. At least one-fourth of the debt ought.
to be remitted. The local burdens of Ireland in many cases
amounted to not merely 55 or 65., but 20e. In the pound, as
was proved by -Indisputable evience. Persons might cross
the Atlantic and get land in America for roach less than the
taxation to which they were subjected in Ireland. He had
opposed the late Geyeroment, and he should oppose the pre-
sent one, if they pursued a similar course with regard to his
country.
Mr. V. SCULLY said the sole question for Ireland was,
whether she would
accept a remission of only 75,000/,
which was a one hundredth part of the entire debt, or
about 21/2d. in the pound. His country was entitled to much
more.
The O'GORMAN MAHON said, such speeches as the
House had heard that night from
some of his countrymen
subjected Irishmen, in the eyes of honest Englishmen and
honest Scotcbmen, to the imputation of being either fools or
rogues.— (Hear, hear.)
, As an Irishman, he disdained any
identification with that class of persons. Those who said
that Ireland owed no gratitude to England were men with
whom he could never coincide. He thought his country was
greatly indebted to the members of the late Government for
offering the present boon.
alr. F. SCULLY said that a vast number of the electoral
divisions in Ireland would receive no redress under that
Bill; and in many instances those divisions were reduced to
a state of great poverty and privation, and would have come
within the provisions of the present measure, had it not been
for the great care and discretion with which their local affairs
had been administered. "

Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not wonder that the Right
Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should
have expressed his surprise that a Bill which had so very
simple an object as that should have led to so much dis-
cussion. But he (Lord J. Russell) believed that that was
what generally happened in the case of Bills relating to
Ireland—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and more especially
Bills relating to the taxation of that country.— (Hear,
hear.) The object of the present measure was to remit
the payment of a sum of 75,000/. to certain districts in
Ireland, which had suffered peculiar distress, and he honed
the House would not refuse its assent to that arrangement.
The principle, he thought, could be extended beyond the
present ease. Government would do well to exercise their
own judgment in deciding how far they would adopt the
kind of relief hereafter, and how far they would adopt a
species of relief which would be injurious to the adminis-
tration of the poor-law in Ireland. He would not enter upon
the question of the state of Ireland, but he would just ob-
serve, that out of the sums voted to meet the distresses of
Ireland, and charged on the consolidated fund, 3,500,0001.
had been borne by the, people of the United Kingdom. The
great difficulty had been created by the food of Ireland
having been taken from the people suddenly, and that the
debt had arisen in consequence. With regard to the future,
he hoped Government would apply such remedies to the
wants of Ireland as circumstances called for, and would
justify. He regretted to hear the statement of the Attorney-
General for Ireland in reference to the sending threatening
letters, and he trusted the subject would receive the atten-
tion of Government. In meeting the difficulties of Ireland,
he felt that if they exempted the landlords of Ireland from
their fair share of liability they would add to, instead of
lessen, the evils. He was happy to hear the statement of
improvement in the west of Ireland, which he trusted would
prove a foretaste of what was in store for Ireland.

. ........... .. _ s.
Mr. H. HERBERT said a great deal of the existing dif-
ficulty arose from the conduct of the late. Government.—
( Hear.) He was the last person to support those who were
anxious to break the law with reference to the repayment of
the poor-law advances. He would only, however, consent
to carry out the same [principle as regarded Ireland which
was held to he good in England.
Mr. WAKLEY said, that the Member for Waterford had
attached himself to one set of doctors, who would only adopt
a particular system towards Ireland, but let them look at the
result. The Irish Members complained of bad measures for
Ireland ; why did they not try their hand and
bring in good measures? He was sure they would be sup-
ported by English Members, who desired nothing better than
to see Ireland in the same condition as England; when the
landlords of Ireland had protection, what good did it do for
the people of the country?
Mr. WHITESIDE did not intend to trespass on the time
of the House. When the Hon. Gentleman opposite spoke
with reference to the condition of Ireland, and laid on the
Irish gentry the blame of that condition, he begged to pro-
test against his conclusions. If it were necessary to have
a poor-law in Ireland half a century ago, who had the
power !o enact that law for Ireland? who but the Parlia-
of England?--(hear, hear.) As to why Irish Members
did not bring in measures for Ireland, he would not stop
to explain; but when the Hon. Gentleman referred to his
Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer he
should have recollected that, on one side, her Majesty's
present Gavernment was taunted with not dissolving Par-
liament immediately, whilst, on the other, they were at-
tacked for not introducing measures.—(Hear, hear.) He ex-
pected snore justice than that for a Ministry only a few
weeks in power; and who had not yet been given an op-
portunity of b-inging forward measures which might be
found to be acceptable and satisfactory.—(Hear.)
Mr. O•FLAHERTY deprecated the taunts of the Noble
Lord (Lard J. Russell) against Irish Members for speaking
on general questions.
He begged to say that, as an Irish
Member, he should always exercise his right to speak on
any subject he pleased. He should also call on the lion.
and Learned Attorney-General for Ireland to explain what
he said in reference to the Ribbon system iu Connaught-
Lord J. RUSSELL explained,, and declared he did not
,in-
tend to taunt any Hon. Member for speaking on whatever
Mr. NAPIER, was not aware he had said anything in re-
ference to the spread of the Ribbon system in Connaught. He
subject he pleased.—(Hear hear.)
alluded to threatening notices being
served in several parts of
Ireland, but did not allude to Connaught —(Hear, hear-)
The Bill was then read a second time.
PROTECTION OF INVENTIONS ACT.
Mr. HENLEY moved that this Bill be read a second time.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped the Bill would be passed
through the House with all possible dispatch. If not passed
this session many meritorious persons would be injnred, in-
asmuch as inventions exhibited by them at the Great Expo-
sitionn
piratel." - Wear, hear.)
oCr
amendment,
Locwoourad::' i,
tihnif i t had
The Bill was then read a second time, as also committed,
of last year, if
and ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.
not protected, would be certain to be
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Mr. BELL took exception to the first clause, and wished
The House having
to know if it was intended that a commission should issue on
gone into Committee on this Bill,
the report of' a Committee of that House, or on the motion
of an Hon. Member? He wished to have the matter ex-
plained,purposes.—( Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE said he intended to move, by way of
might be availed of detrimentally for party
eanst,itthat the tirst five lines of the first clause should
amendment,
be emitted, in order that there might be substituted words
to this effect : —" Tnat after the report of a Committee
-,ommittee generally,
ap-
pointed to inquire into an election of any particular borough
or county, or of a n
House to inquire into the corrupt practices of any borough
appointed by the
twhehivcihewthtehsaetparaccotmictnesiswsieornesahloleugleddistsouhe.7e been
committed, in such case an address should be sent to the
o general," in the amendment.
RUSSELL would object to the limitation of the
POLE assented to the suggestion.
WAKLEY said, no
tees; but, under the circumstances,beenapplied
he
eo
sthhoeuelldecntiootnocpopmosme commit-
tees;
He suggested the adoption of the word " extreme" instead
of
3,1 s i,therr Mr. WA
wordw A ,
notice had been given of the
amendment, and he wished, therefore, it should be post-
poned. The amendment changed the character of the clause.
Ur. WALPOLE said the amendment wassi necessary pro-
tection to the minority, in
lideubgaimpgnee.tpoTnehde,
an
anconstitutionia_course. case the majority saw fit to take
Mr. HEADLAM asked, Would there be a public prosecutor,
in case the commission reported? If not, the amendment
would be of little or no values
Mr. ANSTEY said if the amendment was adopted the Bill
would not meet such a case as that of St. Alban's. He
thought this proved the danger of narrowing the clause by
any majority of the House was the
House itself; the minority was unknown to the:Constitution.
He therefore moved that the further consideration of the
as he did not wish to obstruct
the course of the 8i11..,.
clause speschioaul
Mr. W. MILES supported the amendment. The clause as
it stood would place the question in exactly the same position
as it stood before. He therefore thought his Right Hon.
Friend's amendment was absolutely necessary.
Mr. V. SMIM thought it would he difficult for a Select
Committee to arrive at sufficient information on the subject
of alleged corrupt practices.
Mr. WALPOLE said it was far from his intention to
take the House by surprise, as he had given the Noble Lord
an intimation that he would introduce an amendment to
that effect in Committee. _ ,
Mr. T. BARING feared that a Select C •
Committee might be
influenced by party considerations to institute
.a vexatious
proceeding against any borongh. If they once left in the
hands of the Howe the power to decide the tenure of the
seat of any Hon. Member, it would be a serious interference
with the rights of constituents. The House would be hold-
ing out a premium to constituencies to return Members
favourable to the majority of that House, otherwise there
was the threat of a Committee of Inquiry being issued.
These .were not his opinions alone—they were the opinions
of one of the ablest statesmen of that House—who had
stated that the Grenville Act was passed because they be-
lieved that that House was not a fit tribunal for the trial of
such questions. That was the opinion of Mr. Fox, and he
hoped they would take warning by the opinion pronounced
by so high an authority.said there Lord J. RUSSELL
great difficu
• lties in obtaining evidence with regard to corrup-
tionboroughs. If, h
existing in these
of the fact was obtained, the House would then he asked to
assent to an address to the Crown, to appoint a Committee of
i Inqury. If that was agreed to, then there would be a Com-
sisting of b
mittee appointed, con ,arristers of experience; they
would go down to the borough, and take evidence on oath.
If the bribery could not be proved by legal evidence, the
whole cave fell to the ground. So that in the event of the
House acting incorrectly, and without sufficient inquiry, the
borough would escape harmless, and no proceedings would be
taken. In the event of the bribery being proved, then there
would be a report laid before both houses of Parliament. A
Bill could then be introduced, and, atter going through all
its stages, could be sent up to receive the assent of the other
House,.and all that must be done before the borough was
disfranchised, He thought, under those circumstances, that
the interests of the borough were sults
—eiently protected. The
object of the Bill was not to extend the powers of the House,
1
but to provide a better nom of iAquilT
,Ttie ap. Gentle_

man appeared to him, therefore, to have taken unnecessary
alarm.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished to know if the
Noble Lord agreed to the amendment proposed by his Right
Hon. Friend? (Lord J. Russell was understood to assent.)
He was obliged to the Noble Lord. What the Bill proposed
was, that under certain circumstances a commission of
inquiry should issue, and on their report a Bill could be
founded.
Sir P. WOOD approved of the proposition to examine
witnesses on oath ; and he suggested likewise for adoption,
that the witnesses should be idemnifled and protected against
consequences which might flow from their evidence.
Mr. R. HILDYARD observed, if they proceeded in the
mode proposed by the Bill, he had no doubt their proceedings
would be marked by the calmness and deliberation which the
case demanded.

Mr. WAId2Y said the objection of the Hon. Gentleman
opposite proceeded oa a mistrust of the exercise of judicial
power by the House.
Captain HARRIS suggested that they should alter the
existing law as little as possible, and should rather proceed
by strengthening the law than changing it altogether.
Sir A. COCKBURN did not entertain the same apprehen-
sions as some of his friends as to the tyrsnnic exercise of
their power by majorities in that House, though he admitted
that there had been occasions when an oppressive use of
their power had been made by majorities. However, he did
not think that, where the object was merely inquiry, ma;o_
rities would be found in that House to act oppressively.
Considering, then, the importance and value of the 13111 for
the purpose of preventing corruption, he thought Hon. Gen-
tletnen would do well not to peril the Bill by refusing to ac-
cept it as presented by the Government. He would suggest
that in the clause referring to an address to the Crown, an
alteration should be made so as to prevent its appearing that
the address to the Crown should be forwarded on the report
of the Committee, as would b 3 the case if the clause re-
mained unaltered, instead of being founded upon the decision
of the House itself. All thee lection committees were the
scorn of the country. Unless a barrister happened to be
upon them they were at the mercy of the counsel before
them. Under this Bill the expense would be immense, and
the delay prodigious, and at the same time the effect would
be futile. He would, after the unfortunate confession of the
Noble Lord, test the sincerity of the friends of the purity
of election, and divide on his proposal to postpone this
clause.

Mr. BRIGHT said if the Bill passed, as proposed by the
Government, all the gain would be that at a particular stage
of the proceedings in a case like that of St. Alban's, the de-
lay of a Bill might be saved, and this was a very small gain
indeed.—(Hear, hear.) The Committee would not be so
free from party policy perhaps as the present election com-
mittees. He regretted that the proposition of the Govern-
ment should have been so easily assented to by the Noble
Lord. His object was really to cure this monstrous leprosy
of corruption which impaired the efficiency of Parliament.—
(Hear, hear.) The measure in its present form would plainly
be entirely nugatory. —(Liberal cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I really
despair of inducing the Opposition to assent to any measure
this session.—(Hear and laughter.) This is the fourth time
this evening we have been obstructed in our endeavours to
accelerate the close of the session. We wished the Militia
Bill to be read a second time the day after the recess; who
rose to object to the arrangement? The Hon. Member for
the West Riding of Yorkshire—(Hear) —wished a few days
more; and when I said I was anxious to fix a day for the
financial statement, another Member asked me in the name
of Ireland to give them a few days.—( Hear, hear.) Almost
the whole evening has been spent upon a Bill which is only
r
a Bill of indemnity to the late Government for a proper and
prudent arrangement as to the consolidation of Irish an-
nuities.—(Hear.) And after having at nearly eleven o'clock
fixed Tuesday for the Committee on that Bill, another Irish
Government, and which, as a dissolution
of Parliament is impending, ought not be neglected
AGgßp
re
ionenl
vdl t
sell
enier
nfnmotgr
awabm,neyn,we
ttaahhst maeuo
nrle
apemwto
ebes
utetpnrioni
lef e tutahhpi ete
Committee on that somewhat
e the holidays.—(Hear, hear.)
a Bill of great interest—also a
opposition, rises to request the
(Hear)—we are told it is,of no value, because the Noble
Lord—the highest authority on that side of the House—ac-
cepts the amendment of the Secretary of State, and we are
requested not at present to press the amendment.—( Hear,
hear.) Sir, notwithstanding our disposition to accelerate
the progress of public business I cannot acquiesce with his
suggestion—(Cheers)—and feeling assured that the amend-
ment of my Right Hon. Friend will render the Bill more
secure to the liberties of the people, and more valuable for
the object we have in view, I shall call on the Committee to
decide upon it.—(Loud cheers, )
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Walpole's amendment ... 137
Against ...............
Majority
The clause as amended was then ordered to stand part of
the Hill.
On clause 6,
Mr. WALPOLE moved another amendment. As the
clause was then drawn the Commissioners would have power
to inquire into corrupt practices at previous elections, dating
it might be, 10 or 20 years back, and by coupling those
practices with the practices at the last election lay a foun-
dation for the disfranchisement of a borough—though there
might have been an intervening election at which no cor-
ruption had taken place. His amendment would have the
effect of allowing the Commissioners, if they found corrup-
tion at the last election to go back to the previous one, and
so on until they came to an election at which those prac-
tices had not been proved to exist, when the inquiry should
stop. With this view he begged to move, first, the omis-
sion of the words in the clause, "for such a period respec-
tively as they think proper."
Sir A. COCKBURN opposed the amendment as having
a pernicious tendency, and suggested that if in the prosecu-
tion of their inquiries the Commissioners found that there had
been an intermediate election at which corrupt practices did
not prevail, they should report that fact to the House.
Mr. STANFORD said, it appaarod to him that the system
now recommended was calculated to fetter the action of the
Commissioners, who ought to have the freest scope in prose-
cuting their inquiries.
Mr. BRIGHT deprecated discussing points which were not
fairly before the House. He suggested, if this further alte-
ration were to be carried out, it would be better to report pro-
gress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was quite
willing to adopt the proposal.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be better to have
the proposed alteration printed. He also thought it would
be unwise in any manner to fetter the Commissioners in their
inquiry.—(Hear, hear,)
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the House
resume&
The Passengers' Act Amendment Bill passed through
Committee.
The Sheep, &c., Contagious Disorders Prevention Bill was
read a second time.
The Copyright Amendment Bill was read a third time.
The Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill passed through
Committee.
The Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill was read
a third time.