The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-16 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 16, 1853,

1 all Agua Fria -$ —14 p
1» all Anglo Aui,Lrin. Gold 4 d pai
I.1?s. all, Anglo Californian p,
2 Australasian d par
20j. 5 Australian
1 all Australian Cordillera
1 all Australian Freehold d
1 all Ave Maria — gd
1 ? all Baden (Gd. Duchy of) d par
1 all British 2_ listen. Gold d
20 13.5 Bri;;ish Iron
35 241 BrazilianlmP.(issued
at X 5 pro. 4 41
30 all Do. Cocaes & Cuiada 3i 4
20 15 Do. St. John Del Rey 331 341
1 Carson's Creek
40 all Cobre Copper
5 1 Colonial
15 Co )iapo
60 104 111
St. all Copper Min. of Eng —7o
25 all Do. Pref. 74 p. cent 7 8 p
5 all English and Austria
Copper Smeltg.Co 2 -- lAd
20 all General
2 all Great Nugget Vein $ $ r
2 all Do. Registered
3 all Great Polgooth
1 all Lake Bathursi;
1 all Liberty
3 all Linares
1 all Lond.&Californ.Gold
Quartz Crush. Co. 3-8 $
1 all Mariquita
10 9 Mexican&S.Americn 7 8
1 all New Granada par— 4 p
1 all Nouveau Monde 4 p 11
10 5 Nova Scotia Mining
and Copper Smeltg.
5 1 Port Philip — par
1 all Quartz Rock
50 all RI-Jmney Iron
15 15 Do. New 7 - 9
30 10i Santiago de Cuba 5
1 all South Australian par
10 7 Tin Croft
284 all United Mexican 3i 44
1 all Waller 4d par
1 all West Granada d
1 all West Mariposa
1 all Yuba
JOINT-STOCK BANKS.
40 all Australasia 794 804 bonus
50 all British N. American x d
20 2 Chrtd. Bnk. of India,
- Australia, & China 1 p
100 25 Colonial —
100 20 Comm r•cial of Lond —
20 10 English Scoaish and
Australian id 4 p
20 122 Lond. Char. Bk. of
Australia l4 1i p
50 20 Londo n and County
50 10 London Joint Stock — ~„
100 20 Lond. & Westminster —23 A
20 2 Loadon Bank of Aus-
tralia and India
50 221 National of Ireland — x d
25 all Oriental Bank of
Co:poration 4B 50
25 5 Do. New
100 25 Provincial of Ireland xd & bon
10 all Do. New
5 1 Royal Austrain.Bkg
& Gold Imn Co 4 dis— par
25 all South Australia 45 —47xd x all
25 all Union of A uszalia 794 —86 A
... 22 Do. New B4
50 10 Uniou of Lor.dol
40 all Union of Madrid......

MARKET NEWS-(THIS DAY.)

COVENT GARDEN.

The supplies of both fruit and vegetables in to-day's
market were very extensive, yet the demand ruled steady,
at our quotations. The imports from the continent have
been very liberal.
FRIIIT.—Pine apples, English, 4s Od to 8s Od each ; ditto
colonial, is to 3s Gd each ; green gage and Orleans plums
(foreign), 3s Gd to 4s Od per basket ; hot-house grapes,
3s to 6s; Hambro ditto, Os to Os Od per lb ; apples, dessert,
10s 0(1 to 15s Od ; cooking ditto, Os to 008 per bushel ; pears,
Os Od to Os per dozen ; lemons, is to 2s Od ; oranges,
4s to I.os per 100 ; pomegranates, Od to Od each ; almonds,
5s per peck ; Barcelona nuts, 20s per bushel ; cob-nuts,
s per 1001bs. chesnuts, 8s to 20s per bushel ; straw-
berries, 4d to is Od per pottle ; peaches and nectarines,
8s to 10s per dozen ; apricots, 4s to 6s per dozen ; melons,
3s to 8s each ; cherries, 2d to is 6d per lb. ; gooseberries,
2s to 3s 6d per bushel ; currants, 2s 6d to 5s Od per half
sieve.

VEGETABLES.—Cabbages, Gd to is Od ; Brussels sprouts,
2s Od to 3s Od per half sieve ; brocoli, 3s to 6s ; greens,
2s 6d to 4s Od per dozen bunches; broad beans, is Gd
to 2s Od per half sieve ; French beans, Gd to is Od per
100 ; asparagus, Is to 4s per bundle ; sea-kail, Os Od to
Os Ocl per basket ; rhubarb, 3d to Os 6d per bundle; cauli-
flowers, is Gd. to 4s per dozen ; potatoes, old, 80s to 120 s ;
per ton; ditto, new, 8s Od to 21s Od per cwt. ;
turnips, 3s Od to 4s Od; carrots, 6s Od to 8s Od per dozen
bunches ; cucumbers, Os 2d to is 6d each ; celery, 9d to
is 6d per bundle ; spinach, is Od to 2s Od per half sieve ;
old onions, 6s Od to lOs Od per bushel ; young do, 4d to 6d
per bunch ; leeks, 3d to 4d per bunch ; shallots, 6d to 8d ;
garlic, 6d to Bcl per lb ; endive, 2s 2d to 3s Od per score ;
small salad, 2d to 3d per punnet; horse-raddish, is Od to 38 Od
per bundle ' • mushrooms, is 6cl to 2s Od per pottle ; parsley,
3s Od to 4s Od per dozen bunches ; turnip greens, is •3d
to is 6d per bushel ; beet, is Od to is 6d per dozen ;
le!::,uces' 6d to 8d per score ; radishes, 6d to is per dozen
hands ; tomatoes, 6s Od to 8s Od per dozen ; mint, 3d to
5d per bunch.__

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat •on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

Some considerable time was taken up with a discus-
sion on a technical point connected with an Estate Bill,
about which there was a dispute as to whether the
standing orders had been complied with. The point in-
volved in the discussion was of no interest whatever to
the general reader,
LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Lord BROUGHAM complained of the treatment
which his bill had met with in another place for the
amendment of the Law of Evidence. The bill was in-
troduced last November, and their lordships gave
it a second reading in March, and referred it to
the select committee. After it came out of that
committee, it was re-considered, and ultimately
passed by their lordships. The principal object of the
bill was -to correct an omission in the Law of Evidence
Act, and to enable a husband and wife to give evidence
in civil actions. The bill was sent down to the
other house on the 6th of June, and there it had
slept ever since without any step being taken about it,
thus leaving the circuits to commence without
suitors having the benefit of such an important change
in the law. So far as Scotland was concerned the change
had taken place, having been accomplished by a separate
bill ; and they were now in this anomalous state, that
they had one law of evidence in England and another in
Scotland.

The LORD CHANCELLOR could assure his noble
and learned friend that no one could more regret the
delay which had taken place in the passing of the bill than
he did, but lie could at the same time tell his noble and
learned friend that no disrespect was meant to him in
the delay. The Common Law Commissioners de-
voted a good deal of attention last winter and
early in the spring to the mode of procedure in
our courts of law ; and it was at his own re-
commendation that his noble and learned ;!friend
consented to abandon his measure on the subject, and
confine his bill to evidence given by husband and wife,
It seemed, however, that the Common Law Commission-
ers had prepared a bill which embraced precisely the
same principle, and the delay arose from a desire on the
part of the Government, to inquire fully into the merits of
that measure, which was a bill ofmore than 200 clauses. He
had, however, recently seen his hon. and learned friend
the Attorney General on the subject of his noble and
learned friend's bill, and he had now reason to hope the
bill would receive the attention of the other house in the
course of a few days.
Lord CAMPBELL said owing to the want of this
bill there had been a failure of justice in many cases, and
he was glad to hear that there was now a disposition to
press it forward elsewhere.
The subject then dropped.

reward were paid to the sailors in these cases ought to be
provided by the country.
After a few words from Mr. CARDWELL,
Mr. G. HUDSON opposed the amendment.
The committee then divided, when the numbers
were—

For the amendment
Against it
Majority

20
131
-111

The clause was then agreed to as were also the re-
maining clauses of the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER obtained
leave to bring in a bill for the remission of the Consoli-
dated Annuities in Ireland.
The house then adjourned until six o'clock.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
SAVINGS' BANKS.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY gave notice that, upon Mon-
day next, he would put a question to the Chancellor of
tho Exchequer, is order to ascertain whether any of the
money lodged in savings' banks had been invested in Ex-
chequer-bills ; and if so, to what amount and under what
circumstances.
ACCOMMODATION OF ASSISTANT-SURGEONS

the Irish law officers came to that decision, approved of
their decision. The Government, therefore, did not intend
now to institute any further proceedings in the matter.
The course suggested by the hon. gentleman ought to be
taken long ago, so that these rev, gentlemen might be
prosecuted at the next assizes. If they decided on prose-
cuting no legal proceedings could be taken till next spring,
so that they would be prosecuting in 1854 for transac-
tions that took
,place in 1852. (Rear, hear.) But it
might be said, prosecute for the sake of example."
Well, another election had taken place for the same
county, where these transactions complained of took place
—the same candidates stood, and the election passed off
in perfect tranquility, and no complaints had been pre-
ferred against the conduct of any person, whether lay or
clerical. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, a prosecution was not
necessary for the sake of example. If he were asked, "Do
you concur in condemning the conduct which these rev.
gentlemen pursued? He must say that he did ; and such
was the opinion of her Majesty's Government when they
expressed their wish that a prosecution should take place.
But when he said that, he did not think that their conduct
—reprehensible as he considered it to be—was in such
marked contrast to the conduct of the Roman Catholic
clergy generally in Ireland as to make it fit that these two
clergymen should be selected for punishment. (Opposition
cheers.) However reprehensible their conduct, it did not
stand so prominently forward "that they should be picked
out and made the subject of legal proceedings. (Hear,
hear.) He was bound in all sincerity to say that the con-
duct of the Roman Catholic clergy from some of the high-
est to the lowest rank, was such as to give great pain to all
those who wished to see the ministers of religion, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, retain that respect and
reverence which was essential to the due discharge of their
sacred calling. (Hear, hear.) Things had been said and
done by the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland which, if
said and done by the Protestant clergy in this country,
would have raised an outcry from the Land's End to John
o'Groats. (Hear, hear.) But then, on the other hand,
there were circumstances in the crisis of the last election,
which, although they did not in the least justify the con-
duct of the Roman Catholic clergy, offered some palliation
of it. There was a great political crisis which they looked
upon as a religious crisis, for they were threatened with
the withdrawal of the endowment of Maynooth, and they
anticipated, though erroneously and unjustly, that the
party then in power would use that power against the
liberties which were given by former acts of Parliament to
the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen. Some allow-
ance should be made on this account for the excitement
of the Roman Catholic clergy. But he would abjure the
house to draw the veil of oblivion over these transactions,
and not to rake up ktnimosities which he hoped had passed
away for ever. (Hear.) He therefore hoped that the de-
bate would not be continued any longer, because he was
afraid, if the discussion went on, things would be said
which would have a mischievous effect both in England
and Ireland. (Hear.) He would then ask the house to pass
on to the more practical business of legislating for their
distant dominions in India—(hear)—hoping that a better
time would come, when both clergymen and laymen, priests
and landlords, would agree to allow elections to be carried
on with a more free exercise of choice, and more in har-
mony with the spirit of the constitution. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME said that he was very much afraid the noble
lord would find himself disappointed in the hope that free-
dorn'of election would henceforth be permitted to be exer-
cised, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, without the
intervention of party spirit, and intimidation of one kind
or other. The people of Ireland asked for the ballot to
put 'an end to such intimidation, and he would advise the
noble lord and his colleagues to try that remedy. (Hear.)
The noble lord blamed the Roman Catholic clergy, but he
(Mr. Hume) might with equal justice blame the Protestant
clergy, who interfered with elections as much as the
Roman Catholic clergy, though perhaps not so openly and
directly. The clergy on both sides had a perfect right to
interfere if they did so in a proper and fair manner. The
legislature could not prevent such interference, but if the
noble lord really wished to see interference put an end to,
he would give the people the ballot. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Col. NORTH Mr. Sergeant SHER,
and Mr. Mums,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose for the purpose of asking the
house whether it was desirable that this discussion should
be any longer upon the formal motion of the adjournment
of the house till Monday. (Hear, hear.) The question
had been brought forward and answered, the two learned
gentlemen had expressed their views upon it, and as it was
not possible to come to any other result than the agreeing
to the motion for the adjournment of the house till Monday,
he trusted that they might be allowed to turn their atten-
tion to the more practical business of legislating for the
people of India. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for adjournment was then agreed to.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 10, providing that directors appointed by her
Majesty should be eligible to seats in Parliament,
Viscount JOCELYN moved an amendment, giving the
Crown the power of removing any director, on address
from either house of Parliament, declaring that his object
was to prevent the directors from being ever actuated by
party spirit.
Sir C. WOOD admitted that it was most desirable that
the directors should be as independent as possible. Taking
the words of the act, with respect to judges, " quanidirt se
bene gesserint," ha had endeavoured to use the best English
form for the purpose of providing that the directors should
continue in office as long as they did their duty. The
words which he had adopted were, in fact, borrowed from
the County Courts Act.
Mr. HUME said this clause was a most important one,
and should be well considered. He recollected a noble
lord's being removed from the Government for having
voted for the repeal of the duty on barley in Scotland ; and
it was impossible to say that the proposed power of re-
moval would not be exercised in a similar spirit. He had
no hope that any suggestion of his for the amendment of
the bill would be attended to ; otherwise, ho would., sug-
gest that the removal of the six nominees ought to be made
to rest with the proprietors, in order to prevent the ano-
maly of different rules being applied to persons holding the
same situation.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said every statesman of emi-
nence had been of opinion that the great evil to be got rid
of was the power of the Court of Proprietors. As the clause
tended to diminish that power he should vote for it ; but
if the noble lord pressed his amendment to a division, he
should also vote for that.

Sir H. MADDOCK said, what the hon. member for
Montrose suggested was so utterly repugnant to reason that
he trusted the committee would not assent to it. He was
not aware of any instance in which a director had been
displaced from office by the proprietors. It should be borne
in mind that hitherto few directors had had seats in that
house, and he did not think the number at all likely to be
increased. The independance of the directors could only
be secured by limiting, as far as possible, the range of se-
lection, and he should. hereafter propose an amendment for
the attainment of that object.
Mr. E. ELLICE (Coventry) thought the committee was
involved in considerable difficulty through the course pur-
sued by the Government. The Government, jealous of
the Court of Directors, thought their object could only be
attained by nomination from the Crown ; while some hon.
members were of opinion that the best course would be to
give to the directors themselves, or at least to three-
fourths of their number, the election of persons in the same
category as those from which the Crown was to make its
nomination, reserving to the Crown a veto. There was a
great constitutional objection to giving to six persons no-
minated by the Crown, the right to a seat in Parliament,
but the amendment of the noble lord did not moot the
case,
.and therefore he must vote for the clause.
Mr. OTWAY did not much value the Court of Direc-
tors, but as long as they remained he should wish to see
them independent. If, therefore, the noble lord pressed
his amendment, he (Mr. Otway) must support it.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it was essential that mem-
bers should not go to the division under the impression
that these appointments were to be held during pleasure.
The words misbehaviour" and " inability" had already
received a legal interpretation in an act of Parliament, but
independently of that, it would be quite impossible to re-
move a director merely for giving a hostile vote. If a
director should be convicted iu a court of law of taking a
bribe in the disposal of his patronage, or, if his inability
should be proved, then the Crown would have power to
remove, but that was totally .distinct from a power de-
pending merely on will or discretion.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said that after what the noble
lord had just said, he (Mr. Seymour) did not see how he could
oppose the amendment. Tho superior judges could only
be removed on address from both houses, and he did not
see why these gentlemen should not have equal protection.
The clause put them on a level in this particular with the
judges of the County Courts, whereas, in his opinion, their
position would be more important.
Sir C. WOOD said he had inserted in the clause the
same words in English which in Latin formed the tenure
of the higher judicial appointments.
Mr. ELLIOT feared that the effect of the clause would
be to make the nominated directors completely dependent
on the Minister of the day.
Lord J. RUSSELL feared that the bearing of the clause
was not understood. The elected directors would be re •
movable by the proprietors, and why not the nominated .tec
directors removable by the Crown ? Besides, the appoint-
ments
would be for six years, end it was very improbableie
that any President of the Board of Control would in
office all that time.
After an observation from Mr. ELLIOT and Mr. CATLEY
respectively,
Mr. COBDEN said that in his opinion the expediency
of the amendment of the noble lord would depend on the
fate of the following clause, which gave the nominated
directors a right to sit in that house. If they were to sit
in that house, the more independent they were made of the
Crown the better ; if not, he thought the best way would
be to have the responsibility of their appointment and re-
tention with the Ministers of the Crown.
Mr RICH said that his experience of Parliament taught
him that whenever proceedings were to be taken against
an individual, especially if that.individual where a mem-
ber, Parliament invariably flinched from the duty. He
should, therefore, prefer to have the power of disidace-
ment in the hands and oil the res).onihilitv cd" -ministers.
III:II:HT was alemi, ni,,re an;end meet
ie' ‘I I:NI A N iof.olue,l hi, , that, the limo- Ic.d
by.

•
Mr. BRIGHT then expressed his intention to support,
the amendment of the noble lord, and if that motion
should be lost to move the rejection of the clause.
Mr. MANGLES was understood to support the clause.
Lord JOCELYN said, he had heard nothing to justify
him in withdrawing his amendment.
Mr. V. SMITH doubted whether the proposed amend-
ment would make the nominee directors more independent.
It would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the
Crown than to compel the Minister, when a director be-
came incapable, to ransack all his infirmities, as the ground
of an address to the Crown for his removal. (Hear.)
The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority

43
90
-47

Mr. BRIGHT then moved the rejection of the
whole clause, on the ground that it would be im-
proper to have in that house six persons nominated
by the Government, and who would be at the beck
of the Government, and holding situations with good
salaries and an immense patronage. The number of
nominees fixed upon was only six,, but that number might
hereafter be multiplied, and. a proportionate addition made
to the 35 placemen which the ministers could at present
muster on any occasion when their assistance was re-
quired, without taking • into consideration the great
many other members who, though not holding places,
were equally subservient to the powers that be. lie
thought that, if these persons were allowed t sit
in that house, their services in Leadenball-street would be
rendered much less useful, while in Parliament they could
never maintain the position of independent member,.
(Hear, hear.) It was impossible that they should forget
who had appointed them, or with whom lay their re-elec-
tion, and the consequence would be, that the seat of a
nominee in the Court of Direction would be converted
into a political office, under the Government of the day.
Sir C. WOOD said that he could not agree with the re-
proaoblul tom of "ploomon," which had been applivd.
to Ulm geritaglgiil. 110 could uotj °out:olv° thilt.

• - -- -
any one considered the class of persons from which
these gentlemen were to be selected, he could think that
they at all belonged to the category of those who were
members of the Government, and who were appointed
to office, because they were the political supporters of that
Government. That was not, however, the character of
the men, and it was a total abuse of the term to call them
" placomen." As to the honourable member's observation,
with reference to what he considered the large number of
placemen who held seats in that house, he (Sir C. Wood) could
only say, that within his experience, the number of those
placemen holding seats had been reduced by some 5 or 6,
and lie did not think, therefore, that there was any ground
for the apprehension that the introduction of these nomi-
nees into Parliament, assuming that they would not be in-
dependent, could give the Government such an overwhelm-
ing numerical strength in that house as the hon. member
anticipated. He wished to call their a,ttention to what the class
of persons was from which these nominees were to be selected.
They would be persons who had returned from service in
India, after a residence there of, perhaps, some 30 or 35
years, and who, so far from being accustomed to bow to
the beck of a government, had been themselves the inde-
pendent rulers of countries hardly inferior in extent to
this kingdom. Was it likely, then, that such persons—
greatly experienced and advanced in years—brought up as
they would have been in the Indian school, where they
were trained to the exercise of power and authority, and
where they acquired an independence of character and
spirit--was it likely that they could be treated by any
government as placemen ; or that they would submit to
such a species of control from the Government, or from any
other body in that house ? (Hear, hear.) It was impro-
bable that these gentlemen would be induced to support
the Government, which had nominated them, in order to
insure their re-election on the expiration of the period of
six years, which was allotted for their term of office,
since the likelihood would be that, at the end of that
period, there could be a change of Government—(hear,
hear)—and there would be no dishonourable motive which
could operate with these gentlemen in their conduct in
that house. (Hear, hear.) He could hardly perceive how
the independence of these gentlemen could be at all risked
by their holding seats in that house, and it could not be
denied that they were the most fitted persons to take part
in any deliberations which affected the administration of
Indian affairs. He considered, therefore, that, looking at
the character of thesngentlemen,
.the situation in which
they would be placed, and the position which they would
fill, they could not be in any respect obnoxious to the
charge of being placemen, or of being in any way depon.
dent on the Ministry which had appointed them. (Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN thought this was by far the most important
clause in the bill. With reference to what the right hon. gen-
tleman had said, he would observe that they did not wish
to deprive constituencies of the power of electing any can-
didate who might be considered eligible. But what he
contended for was this, that gentlemen who were nomi-
nated to sit on the Board of Directors, should make their
selection, and confine themselves either to that house or to
the board. In the United States of America the constitu-
tion prohibited any man, who held an office of emolument,
from having a seat in Congress at all. If it be true that
there was already a vast amount of work to be done by the
Board of Directors, the fair argument then was, that the
directors, who would be nominated by the Crown, would
have enough to do without being engaged in that houso.
(Hear, hear.) Indeed, it was impossible that the members
of that house who had no other duties to attend to could
perform their work efficiently in the house. Would any
roan then tell him that any person could properly attend
to his Parliamentary duties, and at the same time could
efficiently do his duties in Leadenhall-street, for which he
was paid, in addition to a right of patronage. (Hear.)
The point they were now deciding upon, was what broke
up the Government of Mr. Fox—namely, the patronage of
India, and he could say they would be wanting in that
jealousy which distinguished their' forefathers, if they ad-
mitted into that house six men, or it might be ten men,
dependent on the Ministers of the Crown. He therefore
called upon the committee to oppose the clause.
After a few words from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY and Sir
C. WOOD,
Lord STANLEY argued that the right hon. gentleman's
argument in favour of the independence of his placemen
contradicted itself. India was no longer a place for
amassing fortunes at once, and gentlemen who went there
generally returned, not advanced in life and perfectly inde-
pendent in situation, but under 50, and in circumstances
that would induce them to keep their re-appointment in
view, and so render them subservient to the party which
appointed them. On these grounds he objected to the bill.
In ordinary circumstances, therefore, you would have the
nominee swayed by feelings of gratitude to the Minister to
whom he owed his appointment for some considerable
period after that event ; and again, governed by analoganalogous
feelings for a considerable period before the expiration of
their tenure of office, looking forward to a re-appointment
by the same authority. But even if they were to enjoy
entire independence, which yet he could not think was pos-
sible, he did not think it would in that case be desirable
that these gentlemen should have seats in the house. For,
in order to have things go on smoothly in an executive
office, it was not expedient to have those who filled that
office putting themselves in opposition to the Government ;
he could not think anything could be more inconvenient.
(Hear, hear.) He wished the house to suppose that a great.
question of Indian policy should come on, such, for instance,
as the Affghan war —say some two years afterhe had secured
hisappointment as a director, and whilst he had a seat in the
house. It would be possible for him to resign his seat either
in the house or at the board, but no man can tell him that he
would vote without embarrassment or that he would find it
very easy to act upon his convictions, and vote against the
Minister to whom he owed his appointment. Again, they
could not say that the exclusion of these gentlemen would
be any infringement upon the rights of the electors; in-
deed, the argument had no application to the case. Let
them take a parallel instance. Any mercantile company
taking an agent, say, into their employment, had,a perfect
right to say that, as they paid handsomely, they expected
the whole of his time, and make it a condition that they
should not accept a seat in Parliament. That was a con-
dition which they had a perfect right to make, and there
could be nothing in the case of the Government to deprive
them of the same right. There was one more argument :
it was said that it would not be worth the while of those
who had been high office in India, but had come home,
and others of the same class, to accept seats at the board
if a condition were annexed excluding them from Parlia-
ment. On the contrary, he believed that they would find
that, even for the terns of years proposed, these seats would
be objects of ambition to the persons contemplated by the
Government, and that they would be much competed for
by persons who had been in the Indian service. But in
case it were so, that having made the experiment they
should afterwards find that they could not get the class
of persons contemplated for these offices, the remedy of the
plan lay in increasing the salary, and otherwise rendering
the plan more eligible—but it was not desirable, in order
to attain an end attainable in any other way, to render the
danger of corruption more imminent in the house by giv-
ing seats in Parliament to the six nominees of the Crown.
Sir J. W. HOGG, after referring to the argument which
the noble lord who had just addressed the house had used
on a former debate, said he would entreat the house to
consider how they would defeat the measure by pursuing
tbo course which had been proposed. If hon. members
once created the impression abroad that those men we to
be the mere nominees of the Crown, men of high princi-
pies would not accept the office. (Hear.) He was himself
opposed to the principle of nomination, but the house had
adopted it, and his desire now was to see it work well.
(Hear, hear.) If, then, they asserted that these men were
to be at the beck of the Minister, and that at the same
time they wore sent into the Board of Directors they were
to be refused seats in that house, they would find it diffi-
cult to obtain independent-minded men to accept the office.
(Hear.) Throughout the whole of the service in India
every man felt himself to be identified with the public ser-
vice ; and lie thought the same thing would occur with the
men sent into the Court of Directors. (Hear, hear.) He
could assure the hon. members for Manchester and the
West Riding that they were right in their estimate of the
labour performed by the Court of Directors. With refe-
rence to what had been said about admitting those nomi-
nees to seats in that house, he would observe that, although
the Board of Directors consisted of 30 members, at no time
bad there been more than seven of the directors in Parlia-
ment ; and he believed that of the six nominees not more
than one would obtain a seat in that house. And he would
say to hon. members not to agree to a course which would
place the other directors in a better position than those
who would be nominated by Government. (Hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said they had heard a good deal of the,
devotion of the directors to the interests of India, the de-
. votion of the whole of their time and the whole of their
mind, and he was induced to ask, if that were the cm?,
than attend
the
bus
busi-
ness es roe
of
t thheei rhtime
?wamrs whhalcchotuhlielythcoeyulddodmevoortee
to the circular of the Minister, and come down to the
house with their votes at the service of the Government, ?
The question had been treated in language that almost
assumed that there was a kind of Roman virtue abroad in
these days, such as made any precautions as to the compo-
sition of the house unnecessary. Why did the President
of the Board of Control not raise the question broadly and
directly, by bringing forward the statute of Anne for the
. purpose of repealing ? They would then be fairly dealt
with by the Minister, which they were not when it was
proposed to i epeal a statute of such importance by a clause
in a bill like thi.. The right' hon. gentleman then re-
ferred to the 25th clause of the 6th Anne, c. 7, which pro-
hibited all who held any new office created since the act
from sitting in Parliament, and returned to the present
composition of the house under this bill. First, they had
the President of the Board of Control, then two secretaries
and six nominee directors, or, in other words, six under-
secretaries ; in fact, this department of India would be re-
presented by nine individuals in the house, all holding
office under the Crown. Was there any parallel to this ?
By an Act of Parliament more than two under-secretaries
could not sit in this house. But here were eight under-
secretaries connected with one department, and all to be
in the house. It was the more important, as connected
with the speech of the President of the Board of Control,
who seemed to ignore the precautions of former days, as
though it,wer, i0t0,7,k necessary to have safeguards as
t., do. t.I lie said he mom vote
;hi.

1,1,1 J. 1:1,;i1.:1.1. did liai. in the least. wonder that
theft: should he .aue jeatou§y iii,splayed at the introduc-
tion of six members into that house holding appointments
to which they had been nominated by the Crown; but, at.
the same time, it was rather extraordinary to find that
those hon. members who displayed that jealousy were those
who had been ready to leave the nomination of the six
directors iu the hands of the Crown, and thus give more
influence to the Government than they had hitherto pos-
sqbueawliefiaekde,ntehde,
sessed. (Hear, hear.) No man could, he thought, deny
that if out of the eighteen directors
't in Parliament and
the twelve. chosen by
the proprietors were permitted to
position above them
itnhflenseixnceehoofsetnhobsye tchheosCenroblyvnthievecrreo,ots,O
Crown Nbveouldi
and the effect
the proprietors, and that was a course very
those chosen by
that taken by hon. members who opposed
much opposed to
would be to place in a
fortnight ago. With regard to the broad
this measure a
principle proposed to be taken into consideration by the
right lion. gentleman the member for Manchester, which
`vas that the exclusion of placemen from Parliament,
and the consideration of the necessity of repealing the sta-
tute of
Queen Anne, it appearedto him that the
right
on.
gentleman could not have read the act with care, or he
would have perceived that it was nothing more than a com-
promise between the two great parties in that house. The
'Tory party had maintained that no person named. by the
Crown to any appointment should be permitted to sit in
Parliament, while the great Liberal party, adopting what.
appeared to him to be a more reasonable view, said that
there ought to be no restriction upon the right' of a con-
stituency to elect whomsoever they pleased, and that per-
sons holding office were as well entitled as any °tines to
sit in that house. The principle was debated on the broad
principle, and there seemed to be no likelihood of coming
to an agreement till Mr. West suggested that a person
holding office should vacate his seat, but be eligible
fur re-election ; so that the act wa9 in point of fact a
coi-hproudic, which Lad fur a bong time gone by the

name of " West's expedient." (Hear, hear.) Since that 1
time the question had been one as to the numbers of
persons holding office who should be allowed to sit in
Parliament, and the number of persons holding officeunder
Government, and sitting in that house, was not so
great as it had been in former times. When the matter
had ever been discussed in that house it had not only been
on account of a feeling of jealousy for the independence. of
the house, but it had also been with a view of considering
the expediency of discontinuing the office. It was always
assumed as if the whole six members would sit in Parha-
meat at the same time. He could make as good a bugbear
as that with respect to the East India Company, if expe-
rience did not stare him in the face and contradict him.
He might say, " Look here ! here are 24 directors belong-
ing to a great company ; only think what powerful influence
must be exercised by these 24 gentlemen, all sitting in the
House of Commons, and enabled to decide the question in
favour of any party they choose ;" but that every one knew
the case was not so ; that they never had had the 24 mem-
bers of the board sitting together in that house, or acting
as one body; that the most they had was some five, or six,
or eight, and he did not know an occasion on which theca
had all assembled together in Parliament. They had al-
ways been divided—two or three on one side of the house
and two or three on the other; but, if the whole of the
24 did not sit, why suppose the whole of the six would sit ?
(Hear, hear.) The largest number of the directors that
had sat: was eight, or one-third of the whole body, and it
was likely that one-third of the six—namely, two, would
be the whole number of those members liable to sit in
Parliament. Well, then, how many of these two would
follow the Minister of the day? It was supposed, and in
his opinion most unwarrantably, these gentlemen would
be in the same situation as gentlemen holding office under
the Crown during pleasure, and that they would be always
ready to give a vote in favour of Government. But it
seemed to him a most irrational supposition that such
should be the case. In the first place they would be gen-
tlemen with a certain qualification, and having served 10
or 20 years in India. They would be most probably
pointed out to the Minister of the Crown for those quali-
fications, and would probably have come home with no
great political bias, which might be in favour of the Go-
vernment of the day, or which might be against them, and
if there was a man of very great eminence in opposition to
the Minister of the day he thought no President of the
Board of Control would venture to oppose him on that
account. But, even if a person nominated by the Crown
was so fortunate as to obtain a seat in that house, it
was still most improbable he would consider himself
under such obligations to the Government that he would
think himself bound to support them on all occasions.
On the contrary, he should think that a person so situated
would generally vote with his own party, voting indepen-
dently, and denying that he was to be looked on in the
same way as a person holding office during pleasure. He
was put there not to belong to the Government—he was
not there to carry on the general business of the country—
but to concern himself with the affairs of India, and give
the best advice he could to the Court of Directors. Any
man of independent mind would say they must not sup-
pose if he took the office he was bound to vote with Go-
vernment on every occasion, and, if he said so, no Presi-
dent of the Board of Control would venture to contradict
him. Well, then, the probability was, they would have
this great danger—that they would have one of these gen-
tlemen on one side of the house and one on the other.
Such was the mighty danger—such was the great hobgob-
lin that had been raised up against the proposition.
(Hear, hear.) But it was obvious the person nominated by
the Crown was not in the situation of a person holding
office during pleasure. When a Ministry resigned those
holding office under them, resigned with them, and others
of the opposite party were put in their place. But the
gentleman belonging to the Board of Directors would remain
and retain his seat, and no one could suppose that the
Government which came in would have such influence over
him, or that he would have such subservience to the Go-
vernment, that he would change his opinions for them.
Besides, they were not to suppose they were sitting in a
Parliament dependent on a close borough nomination.
The member of the board who was sent to that house
would be elected on a certain principle—he was a friend to
free trade or to protection ; be was for the ballot, or
against it ; he was for the Established Church, or for the
voluntary system ; he was elected on these principles, and
he was responsible to his constituency, and no change
of Government would induce him to change his politics
with them. He submitted, therefore, that whatever might
be the appearance of six members nominated by the Crown
having a right to sit in that house, the real practical dan-
ger was very little, and that, with respect to the broad
principle laid down by the hon. member, it was no broad
principle at all, but was merely a compromise made for
convemence' —and, as he thought, a very useful compro-
mise, which enabled members holding office under Govern-
ment to sit in that house ; and if that broad principle had
been admitted for which the Tory party contended, no one
holding office under the Crown would have had seats in the
house, and the constitution of the country would have
been totally different. (Hear.)
Mr. RICH contended that, while the India Board was
represented by its members in that house, and the Govern-
ment by the Secretary of the, Board of Control, the Go-
vernment nominees would neither represent India nor the
Government, and stood, therefore, in a most anomalous
position. The house had acted on the principle of getting
rid of the subordinate officers of Government, as in the case
of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital and in other
instances, and these directors would not be in such a high
station that they ought to have seats. He recommended
that there should be a limitation placed to their tenure of
office. If they were to have seats at the board renewable
at the pleasure of the Minister, he was afraid they would
not do much honour to themselves. The best men for the
office of directors would be those who on their return from
India would be least desirous of a seat in the house, and
who, probably, would not have means enough for it. Feel-
ing the directors nominated by the Crown could not be in-
dependent, he would vote against the clause.
Mr. V. SMITH expressed his great satisfaction at the
present discussion, and tendered his thanks to the hon.
members for Manchester and the West Riding, and others
for the votes he would have received from them on a pre-
vious evening on the amendment he introduced respecting
the composition of the board. There was no word of abuse
which had not been lavished on the gentlemen whom the
house the other night determined to appoint as part of the
board ; but, objecting to that as he had done, ho would not
consent to place a hand on a portion of the board and to I
exclude six of the 18 members of the board they were
about to form from Parliament. He did not think there
was anything in the argument that these gentlemen would
have no time to sit in the house—there were many others
engaged in business in the house from whose presence they
derived great advantage, but he must say there had been
an inconsistency in the arguments of the right hon. baronet
the President of the Board of Control and of the noble lord
the member for London ; for at one time they had con-
tended these gentlemen would not be at the beck and call
of the Minister, and at another they said that the number
of officers of Government sitting in Parliament had been
so much diminished that there could be no harm in admit-
ting them. (Hear, hear.) He contended that these gen-
tlemen would be liable to the influence of the Crown,
though he thought there would be certain advantages in
the discussion of Indian affairs in having them present.
At a future period he would propose to excude one of the
secretaries of the Board of Control from a seat in the house.
(Hear, hear.) He thought it would be better to have one
political secretary and one permanent secretary. (Hear.)
That change would only diminish by one the number of
the members of Government with seats, and the use of a
permanent secretary would be greatly felt. If they formed
a board—six to be elected one way, six to be elected ano-
ther, and six to be nominated by the Crown, who alone
could not sit in Parliament, they would draw a most invi-
dious distinction, and in the difficulty, which he admitted
to be very great, the best way appeared to be to leave the
constituencies of the country to chose these gentlemen at
pleasure.
Sir H. MADDOCK was not surprised to find the clause
had given rise to the constitutional jealousy of the house
but thought that jealousy might be much lessened if the
Government would make a slight alteration in an earlier
clause of the bill. The only reason for supposing these di-
rectors would be dependent upon the will of the Minister
was to be found in the duration of their office and its re •
newel. He strongly recommended the President of the
Board of Control to consider the propriety of limiting the
appointment for a term of years without any capacity of
reappointment. They ought not to have the power of re-
turning the same six persons indefinitely, and if they
wished to retain the services of the beat qualified persons
in India, they would make the office of brief tenure.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority -60
The clause was then agreed to, as was clause 11.
Clause 12, enacting the oath to be taken by directors,
was then proposed.
Mr. HUME moved, as an amendment, that a declaration
should be substituted for the oath.
Mr. BRIGHT approved of the amendment.
Mr. HADFIELD believed that the moral sense of the
country,l. was shocked by the multiplication of oaths.
m • EWART commented on the inconsistency of enact-
ing a new oath when Parliament had occupied itself for
several years past in repealing old ones.
Mr. J. B. SMITH and Mr. ELLICT supported the amend-
ment, the latter gentleman
observing' that having substi-
tuted a declaration for the oath formerly takenwith re-
spect to the qualification of
members of Parliament, he
could not conceive it necessary to require an oath from' di-
rectors.
Sir C. WOOD said he had already
to
ready proposed to leave out
the oath as to qualification,
instead Y • the oath would ; an
then substitute a declaration
simply stand as an oath of
office, pledging the persons not to allow themselves to be
actuated by improper or corrupt motives. He must say
that, if an oath was to be takenoirnerorenin than when
he
could hardly conceive a case m
when an
oath was to be imposed on a man that he would discharge
a trust without being influenced by any .
enirupt motives.
Mr. G. PHILLISIORE had hoped the Governmentes.
would have taken the present opportunity of getting
of the administering at least of one oath, and rid
thereby
read a moral lesson to the country.
Mr. NEWDEGATE was opposed to the dispensing with
an oath on this occasion.
Mr. E. BALL supported the amendment, believing that
the honour of the person appointed would be a sufficient
security for the faithful performance of the trust confided
to him.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE believed that no oath was taken by
the Ministers of the Crown on their assuming office, but
that they simply made a declaration that they would pro-
tect some of the most valuable institutions of the realm.
That declaration was of the most solemn and binding obli-
gation. Surely, if a declaration was sufficient protection
.for the Protestant Church and for the proper performance
of the high office of a Minister of State, it was quite suffi-
cient to secure a due discharge of the duties of a director
of the East India Company.
Sir C. BURRELL was understood to say that he saw
no hardship in requiring an oath to be taken by a director
of the East India Company.
Lord STANLEY believed that a man was equally liable
x• xmallies whether he violated an oath or a solemn decla-
ration, and he did not therefore in that point of view
think that the doing away with an oath was of any very
important
moreconee consequences. es.
something But he apprehended there was
proposed amendment than the
mere
changing of an oath ;or a declaration, and, that it was in-
tendedcase,it tit°ffoimrdpeldyntoLase% " oath being needless in the present
he should support thenannity Bernlhimself of that opinion
Mr. V. SMETII had o
' doubt a declaration, sub-
. jectine the person taking it to penalties, would be equally
binding as an oath • and ho thought his right hon. friend
Vit. C. Wood) would d o well toa(op, the amendmentpro-
posed, and at once substitute a declarationt
for an oath.
Sir R. INGLIS considerwmalatheerrostnenmsent of the hon.
and learned serjeant (Shee)
Ministers do not take office upon a mere erroneous, _namely, that
on the contrary, that they have an oath solemnly but,
tered to them. The proposition before the comlrten,l3iNvnis%
not merely to abolish the oath in this instance, but t 7-0"
abolish oaths generally. Knowing the influence which

oaths had on the consciences of men, he, for one, could
never agree to that proposition.
Mr. MASTERMAN very much objected to oaths being
taken unnecessarily ; and in this case he thought the right
hon. gentleman (Sir C. Wood) would do wisely to yield
upon this point.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that the general expression of
opinion on this occasion ought at once to influence the
right hon. gentleman (Sir C. Wood), and induce him to
accede to the proposal which had been made. He believed
the concession would be exceedingly well received by all
parties.
Mr. I. BUTT did not wish, by his silence, to have it in-
ferred that he assented to the proposition that the taking
of an oath was contrary to religion or morality. It was
erroneous to say that any penalty attached to an oath or a
declaration which bound a party for his future conduct ;
it was merely an obligation on the conscience. But the
question they were now debating had been most inconve-
niently raised. Surely, if in any case they were justified
in requiring an oath, they could not more legitimately or
fairly impose it than upon men who were intrusted with
the government of a great population like that of India.
The real question which lurked under this proposition
was, whether or not they would retain a solemn recogni-
tion of a Divine Providence in the administration of human
affairs. What ese v a the di ffirence bet veen an oath and
a declaration ? When that question was fairly brought
before the house he was perfectly ready to maintain it.
Believing that there was no case more solemn, or in which
it was more right to apply it, he should certainly support
the administration of an oath to those whom they were
about to intrust with the administration of our Indian
empire.
Mr. COBDEN said, the only argument of the hon. and
learned gentleman was that they were not doing right in
dealing with this question on the present occasion. He
did not understand the hon. and learned gentleman to say
that the efforts which had been made to diminish the
number of oaths were unwise, and surely ho did not mean
to deny that they had now been for some time gradually
abolishing oaths. Was he ignorant that the Duke of
Richmond once boasted in the House of Commons that he
had been instrumental in abolishing some millions of oaths
per annum ? Did he object to that ; would he revive those
oaths ; would he restore the oaths which were taken in th•
Custom-house, for instance ? The hon. and learned gen-
tleman did not object to the principle of diminishing the
number of oaths, but he objected to deal with the subject
now. But how were they to prevent an increase in the
number of oaths except by stopping the principle when it
was proposed to introduce it, as in the present case ? What
was said now was, not that they would abolish all oaths
taken by magistrates, lord-lieutenants, and every other
official. They were not proposing to prevent the hon. and
learned gentleman from cross-examing a witness according
to law under the responsibility of an oath, nor from going
into a committee-room to discharge their functions the
responsibility of which he professed weighed upon him
when he had taken an oath. For himself, he hoped he
should go into a committee-room without having taken an
oath with just the same feelings of respon.sibility as if he
had gone through that ceremony. The single question
befo.e the committee was, whether or not they would
consent to increase the number of oaths in a case where it
had been clearly demonstrated to be unnecessary.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, he did not think the hon. gen-
tleman had quite followed the argument of the hon. and
learned gentleman opposite. The hon. and learned gentle-
man did not argue that it would be incompetent or unwise
for Parliament to abolish oaths when they were unneces-
sary, or when they were taken upon trivial occasions ; but
what he said was, that this was not a trivial occasion, or
an insignificant or trifling oath, but an oath taken upon a
solemn occasion, and for solemn purposes. The question
was not, as had been stated by the hon. gentleman the
member for the West Riding, whether or not they should
add additional oaths to those already taken ; because there
was an oath now imposed upon persons elected to the office
of director of the East India Company, and, some parts of
it being thought unnecessary, it was proposed to leave them
out—but it really was, whether the occasion of taking an
office of this great importance,' power, and responsibility
was one fitted for taking an oath. If it was a fitting occa-
sion, then the principle was not in question, but if it was
not, then the oaths taken by the Lord-Lieutenant, the Lord
President of the Council, and all other persons holding
office in this country were improper, and there ought to be
an act passed to abolish them.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majorityagainst the amendment —39
Mr. J. B. SMITH then moved the insertion of the
words " Or a declaration," with a view of making it op-
tional for persons whether to take the oath or make a de-
claration.
Sir C. WOOD said that the general law already pro-
vided for cases where declarations could be substituted for
oaths, and there was, therefore, no occasion for insert-
ing a particular provision in the bill to meet this particular
case.
Mr. J. B. SMITH thought there would be less objection
on that account to insert this provision.
Mr. BRIGHT thought the right hon. gentleman was mis-
leading the house entirely on this point. A declaration
could only be substituted for an oath in the case of persons
belonging to the Society of Friends, of Moravians, or of
Separatists, all three very small bodies. Indeed, he believed,
he had never met with but one Separatist in his life. How-
ever, the great bulk of persons, 99 out of 100, would be
obliged to take the oath, and it was possible that they
might thus shut out a number of persons whose services
would be very valuable. The bill introduced by the Re-
corder of London for the purpose of substituting declarations
for oaths in certain cases would not meet this case, as it
applied only to judicial:oaths, and would afford no relief to
those who were called on to take the oath of office for a
director of the East India Company. He really thought
the Government ought to give way, especially after the late
division, when almost every member on that side of the
house, except the members on the Treasury bench, had
voted in the minority. It was only by coalescing with hon.
gentlemen opposite—a course which was considered trea-
son to the Treasury bench, when gentlemen on that side
of the house took it—that the Government had obtained a
majority of 39, a number, no doubt, which the hon. baro-
net below (Sir It. H. Inglis), the great stickler for oaths,
would no doubt think more highly of than ever. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.)
After a few words from Mr. E. BALL,

Mr. HAYWOOD said, there were a great many per-
sons, not Quakers or Moravian, who had conscientious
objections to taking an oath, and they should have the
option of making a declaration.
Lord STANLEY asked if the sects now privileged by
law in other cases would be exempted from taking the oath
under this act ?

Sir C. WOOD wished to say, that if an oath was to be
taken at all, this was an occasion on which it should be
taken. (Hear, hear.) If it was wished that oaths should
not be taken, then let there be a general measure for that
purpose, but he objected to a partial proposition in a bill
like the present. (Hear.) In answer to the question of
the noble lord (Stanley), he had to state that, whenever
by the existing law a person was relieved from taking
an oath he would also be relieved under this bill. (Hear.)

Mr. J. B. SMITH said, this was not a question of
oaths. What he proposed was, that there should be the
option of making a declaration on the part of those who
were neither Quakers nor Moravians, but who, neverthe-
less, objected to taking an oath.
The committee then divided ; the numbers were—
For the clause 124
For the amendment B5
Majority for the clause —39
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 13 being read,
Mr. BRIGHT proposed to report progress.
Sir C. WOOD hoped the committee would allow them
to proceed with that and the 14th clause.
Mr. BRIGHT had no objection to proceeding with the
two clauses. Referring, then, to clause 13, he contended
that it would be impossible to prevent canvassing by the
proprietors of East India Stock.
Sir J. HOGG explained that the by-laws to be drawn
in accordance with this clause would preclude the directors
and the proprietors from canvassing.
Lord STANLEY doubted whether the by-laws would
have the requisite power, and suggested that Parliament
should establish a more direct prohibition.

Mr. MILNES thought it wag a strange clause. It would
disturb all the ordinary rules of society, and prevent any
candidate for the office of director asking a friend over the
dinner-table for his support.
After some further conversation,
Sir C. WOOL) said he was perfectly ready to give up the
clause.

The clause was then rejected.
On clause 14, fixing the quorum of the General Courts
of Proprietors at 20, being read,
Mr. BRIGHT said he looked upon the object of the
clause to be to snuff out that moribund body, the Court of
Proprietors. He believed that very few persons generally
attended the Court of Proprietors, and, if the quorum were
fixed at 20, it would be very easy for the hon. member for
Honiton, when ho wished, to give the hint to his friends
to quit, and then the Court would be broken up.
Sir J. HOGG maintained that it was desirable to fix a
quorum, in order to prevent two or three proprietors merely
from keeping the Court sitting, as had beon the case, so
late, even, as 1 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. HUME proposed to make the quorum of the Court
of Proprietors, exclusively of the directors, present, 10,
instead of 20, as in the clause.
The amendment was negatived, and 20 was retained.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Monday.

DUBLIN PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION
BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
EXPENSES OF ELECTIONS.BILL.

On the order of the day for considering the amendments
to this bill, _

Mr. HUME said that he wished to propose several addi-
tional amendments, and he hoped the further consideration
of the measure would be postponed to some day on which
a discussion could take place.
Mr. C. BERKELEY suggested that the hon. member
for montrose should defer the provisions he wished to
engraft upon the bill until next session—(a laugh)—when
the noble member for the city of London intended to bring
forward a general measure on the subject of the represen-
tation.

Sir H. DAVIE said he had never heard of any complaint
in Scotland with regard to the proceedings to which the
bill referred, and he would, therefore, oppose the applica-
tion° f the measure to that country.
Mr. FORBES could not see, if this bill was a good one,
as
he supposed it was, why it should not apply to Scotland
as well as to England.
Mr. E. DENISON thought the provisions of the mea-
sure unreasonable, and that the best course would be not
to press it further.
Colonel SIBTHORP had before said that he looked upon
this as a mean, dirty, shabby bill, and he still entertained
the same opinion.
—however he might regret that
Entertaining that opinion
et that an hon. friend of his should
be excluded from the eligrloise—he hoped that that would be
the effect of the bill.powerhooefv:r dared to attempt to deny
his constituents the
their proper feel-
ings on such occasions was unwornbe returned by
them. He should only have expected toech a bill from one
who had not a shilling in his pocket. . and gallant
member concluded by moving that the further considera-
tion of this bill should be postponed till that day three
months.
Mr. GEACH, also, felt very strong objections to this
bill, because he thought it attempted to do that which
never could be done—viz., to put down the expression of
popular feeling. There was a large class of the commun-
ity who were not intrusted with the franchise, but, at the
same time, it was admitted that those who were intrusted
with it were trustees for those who were not. Well, then,
this largo class of non-electors had scarcely any means of
expressing their opinions, if the Legislature put down the
use of all outward emblems, such as mustering under flags
and marching in procession with music. Those classes had
a right to express their opinicns, end if they were deprived
of the means of peaceably expressing them, they would be
driven to adopt a way which would be more difficult to
deal with, and greatly more injurious, (Hear.) Besides,