entitled his projects to be fairly considered at present.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer trusted that the hon. Member did not contemplate drawing upon the public purse in aid of the objects he had in view.

Mr. Alderman Wood replied, that that formed no part of his plan.

that he understood there were many streets in the city of London, and other quarters of the metropolis, which were almost impassable from their confined breadth, and the crowd of carriages which blocked them up, and that it was absolutely necessary to widen them in several places. One of the principal objects of the Committee would be, to consider of the best means of procuring a remission of the tolls at Waterloo and Southwark bridges. These tolls were a source of great annoyance and expense to many labouring men who were obliged to seek employment in Southwark. He calculated, that to carry into effect the various improvements which he proposed, would require not less than 1,000,000l. To repay this sum, he would propose to levy an impost of 6d. a ton on coals, which would bring a return of more than 50,000l. a year. He proposed to form a new street from Southwark-bridge to the Bank of England, which would be very convenient for persons coming from the west-end into the city; another from Waterloo-bridge to the North-road; another from the Bank through Lothbury to the Post-office; another from the Postoffice to Smithfield; another from St. Paul's to Blackfriars-bridge; another from Holborn to the Strand; another from Westminster-abbey to Belgrave-square; and also one of considerable size passing through Southwark. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee to consider of the most effectual plan for raising of money to carry into effect the necessary improvements required in the cities of London and Westminster, borough of Southwark, and counties of Middlesex and Surrey, and for the purchasing of the interest of the proprietors of the Waterloo and Southwark bridges, that they may be thrown open for the use of the public, free from toll.

Mr. Hume hoped, that when he seconded, the motion of the hon. Member, he might not be understood as consenting to his proposal for raising the money by a continuance of the duty on coals. No one could visit the city of London without being made aware of the great importance of the communications being facilitated, as the loss of time and annoyance experienced from the present condition of the streets was incredible. He thought the success which had attended the plans of the hon. Member on former occasions,

He

Sir Robert Peel hoped that a very enlarged and comprehensive view of the subject would be taken. They were now in the same situation with respect to improvements in the Metropolis in which they had been placed with regard to railways when those great national undertakings were first projected. When railways were first planned, perhaps the fittest course would have been to appoint a commission of able practical men, to survey the whole of the country adjoining the proposed railway, and lay down the course of the main line of road; but now they were so far advanced, that it was almost too late to legislate on comprehensive principles with respect to them. hoped that nothing would be done with respect to the remaining improvements of the Metropolis till the various plans proposed had been impartially considered, that due foresight would be used as to the probable extension of the Metropolis, and that not only the present, but the future, convenience of the public would be consulted. It was manifest that very great improvements might be effected, and he hoped that Government would not hesitate to consent to a temporary advance of the public money, if that should be necessary. He did not mean to say, that the public should sustain any loss; he had always maintained that the Metropolis had no greater claim on the public funds than the rest of the empire; but if great benefit could be secured to the Metropolis by a temporary advance on adequate security, he thought that would be a perfectly legitimate application of the public money. He thought that if it were possible to appoint a commission in which the public might have confidence, to take an enlarged view of the question, such a step would be very desirable.

Mr. O'Connell moved, as an amendment to the motion, that the said Select Committee do inquire into the state of the law relative to Lotteries, foreign or otherwise, in which schemes have been advertised or circulated, or tickets or shares disposed of, in the United Kingdom, and to report their opinion thereon to the

On Clause 4, for establishing a Court for the Revision of the List of Voters, the Court to consist of not less than twelve Barristers, to be appointed by the Speaker, vacancies to be filled up by the Lord Chancellor,

Mr. Wakley moved, that the words "His Majesty" be substituted for the words Speaker of the House of Commons," and" Lord High Chancellor."

ment.

Mr. Hume submitted to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, that this was a proper subject for the investigation of a separate Committee. There was no sort of connexion between the two objects proposed [hear], and he thought the two inquiries might easily be conducted so as not to interfere with each other.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very glad that the subject of Foreign Lotteries had been introduced. His attention had been lately directed to the question, and he was engaged in preparing a Bill, which he believed was calculated, in its operation, to redress some portion of the evils which were complained of regarding them. He should introduce it in the course of a few days, and the House would see whether it answered that purpose. If it did not, he should support the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. Undoubtedly, the evils to which these speculations gave rise called for an immediate remedy.

Mr. O'Connell would not press his amendment.

Original motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.] On the motion of Lord J. Russell, the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Registration of Voters Bill was read, and the Bill recommitted.

Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.

The Committee divided on the original. clause-Ayes 58; Noes 38: Majority 20.

Mr. Maclean moved, that the Barristers be required to have practised three years below the bar, and three at the bar.

The Committee divided on the amendment, Ayes 113; Noes 2: Majority 111. On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,

Lord Granville Somerset observed, that there was a very important matter to be taken into consideration, namely, the time which would be taken up in effecting the registration. The Bill proposed that every district should have the registration effected once in each year. Now, he had found that last year 475 days were taken up in completing the registration. The hon. Member opposite might reply that that was an extraordinary year; but he would take the two years preceding, which were not extraordinary, and the average number of days occupied in the registration was 323, in which computation Sundays were not included. It was evidently a physical impossibility that the number of Barristers to be appointed could perform this duty, and he should therefore divide the Committee against the clause.

Mr. Warburton contended, that every question must be decided by the balance which appeared between conveniences and inconveniences. He did not agree with the noble Lord in thinking that so much time would be consumed in the registration as had been wasted under the old system, owing to the incompetency of the tribunal which had to decide on questions relating to that subject.

Sir W. Follett said, that in his judg ment, it was not so much a matter of importance whether the number of Barristers was large or small, as whether the appointment should be vested in the Government. He had a strong objection that the Revising Barristers should be creatures and nominees of any Government. It was objectionable in the highest degree to invest the Ministers of the day with the power of appointing officers filling

such important stations as these Barristers, who had a power of deciding on the validity of all the voters in every town and county in the United Kingdom. This was too dangerous a power to be thus flippantly bestowed. The House, in adopting the clause, would be acting with gross inconsistency. In cases of petitions against the return of Members at contested elections they did not leave the matter to the decision of the Ministry, nor even to the decision of a majority of that House; but they required a Select Committee appointed by the Ballot. The proposition of investing the Ministers with so tremendous a power as the nomination of Commissioners, on whose decision the elective franchise all over the Kingdom was to be in most cases decided, was so objectionable and unconstitutional, that he should support the proposition of the noble Lord if he pressed for a division.

The Committee divided on the clause,
Ayes 88; Noes 55: Majority 33.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 6 was agreed to.

On the question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill,

Mr. Goulburn said, that by this clause, if the Revising Barrister should be taken ill, a Deputy was to be appointed. Now, was it intended that they, having enacted that the Revising Barrister himself should be prevented from sitting in Parliament for any borough, city, or county, for which he had revised the list, that the Deputy to be appointed should be placed under the same restriction?

The Attorney-General considered that they ought to be placed on the same footing with the Revising Barristers themselves, and it would be necessary to introduce a proviso to that effect.

Sir James Graham begged to enter his protest against the propriety of vesting the appointment of Revising Barristers in the officers of the Crown.

Mr. Jervis cited, in justification of the proposal, the case of the Welsh Judges, who, until within a few years, had always been appointed by the Crown, upon the same principle that it was proposed now to adopt with reference to the Revising Barristers.

Sir James Graham remarked, that the precedent put forward by the hon. Member for Chester was an unfortunate one, inasmuch as the manner of appointing the Welch Judges had long been a theme of general and deserved reprobation, and in

consequence of the objections that have been raised, the practice in that respect had been altered.

The Attorney-General begged to remind the right hon. Baronet, that there was a wide difference between the cases of the Welch Judges, as formerly appointed, and that of the Revising Barristers to be appointed under this Bill-namely, that the Welch Judges did sit in Parliament, which gave rise to the charge of political jobbing as against them, while the Revising Barristers were expressly incapacitated from holding seats in Parliament, not only for the time being, but for a period of eighteen months, after being employed in that capacity, in respect of the places for which they had revised the lists, whether city, borough, or county.

Sir Frederick Pollock begged to ask if no jobbing could be done unless the parties had seats in that House? If it was considered necessary to exempt certain individuals from sitting in that House, was it not sanctioning a much worse principle, to say that persons under the influence of the Crown should have the power ministerially to decide the question as to who should sit in that House?

Mr. Charles Buller was strongly disposed to join in the objections that were taken to this clause. It certainly was a most extraordinary principle that the Revising Barristers were to be appointed by one person, while the substitutes for the Revising Barristers, when a necessity arose for their appointment, was to be appointed by another, who could not be so well acquainted with their fitness as he whom they had excluded.

Mr. Maclean contended that the Lord Chancellor might appoint a person as a supernumerary Revising Barrister, who might not be of more than two or three years standing; and the scale of payment of these individuals was to be determined by the Lord Chancellor; he was to award what he should deem meet. He had great objection to lodging this power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Warburton had no objection to postpone the clause.

Clause postponed.

On the question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill, the Committee again divided-Ayes 107; Noes 67: Majority 40. Clause agreed to.

On its being proposed to consider Clause 18, there were calls for "Mr. Brotherton,"

Mr. Brotherton rose, and said that he owed an apology to the House for not persisting on a former night in his motion for an adjournment of the House at twelve o'clock. He had submitted, however, on that occasion, to a power which he felt that he was not able to resist. He had not undertaken the task of moving the adjournment at twelve o'clock at night from any unworthy motive-from any morbid love of notoriety-he had undertaken it because he felt that the system of midnight legislation was not only injurious to the health of hon. Members, but was also highly prejudicial to the interests of the country, and to the sober and deliberate judgment which those interests imperatively required. He desired on all occasions to act impartially, and he hoped that he had done so. He was sorry, however, to observe that there seemed in certain quarters to be a desire to break through the very wholesome regulation on this subject, to which the House agreed at the commencement of this Session. He therefore felt himself called upon not to give way to-night, and he should therefore move, that the Chairman do now report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Warburton thought, that the hon. Member for Salford had not fairly stated the regulation to which the House assented at the commencement of the Session. The understanding then was, that no new matter should be commenced after twelve o'clock, but that was not to prevent the matter in hand at that hour from being brought to a conclusion. He considered that the hon. Member, in making his present motion, was guilty of a decided breach of the understanding which had formerly been made between him and the House.

Mr. Shaw said, that he had never understood that the hon. Member for Salford had consented to let business go on till three or four o'clock in the morning, because it had commenced before twelve o'clock at night.

Mr. Praed expected the hon. Member for Salford to persevere in his Motion; and reminded him that he had frequently moved the adjournment of the debate when a new Speaker rose at five minutes past twelve o'clock.

Colonel Sibthorp said, that if the hon. Member for Salford felt any hesitation in pressing his motion, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bridport, he

would take upon his own shoulders the responsibility which the hon. Member declined, and would move that the Chairman do now report progress.

Mr. Aglionby was not aware that the House had ever come to any understanding on this subject with the hon. Member for Salford. For himself, he had not been a party to any such understanding, nor would he now. He would not let the hon. Member for Salford be the sole judge whether the House ought or ought not to sit after twelve o'clock. He should certainly divide the Committee on the question of reporting progress.

The Committee divided on the motion for reporting progress.-Ayes 39; Noes 85-Majority 46.

Colonel Sibthorp moved that the House do adjourn.

Sir John Hobhouse hoped that this motion would be resisted. If the House determined not to sit later than twelve o'clock at night, hon. Members must make up their minds to continue sitting to that hour till the middle of September. He, therefore, hoped that hon. Members would not obstruct the public business by making motions of this kind. He denied that Government had ever come to any understanding with the hon. Member for Salford on this question.

Mr. Wallace said, the hon. Member for the University of Dublin himself spoke frequently fifteen or twenty times after twelve. For his part he never did and never should adhere to the rule of adjourning at that hour. It was departed from almost every night. He did not wish to make any harsh observations upon the course pursued by the hon. Member for Salford. No hon. Member ought to be permitted to dictate to the House what was or what was not important business, or prescribe a time for closing their discussions. They were sent there to do the public business with the greatest possible speed. He must remind the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that while that hon. Member was absent in Dublin, in the discharge of his duty, he and others must be in that House at all times during the Session. It might be very convenient for hon. Members to concur in a motion for adjournment, who were not in their places all day watching the public business. Were they, after proceeding so far with this important Bill, to give it up at so early an hour as twelve?

Mr. Brotherton would take with calmness the observations of the hon. Member for Greenock. He had never pretended to make himself a judge on this matter, and as a proof of it, he would appeal to the House whether he had ever divided it before to-night on the question of adjournment.

Colonel Sibthorp observed, that though the hon. Member for Greenock had alluded to the hon. Member for Salford as "the guardian of the night," he had never yet been under his control; and if the hon. Member for Salford intended to vacate his present post, he was prepared to take possession of it. He was determined to take the sense of the Committee again on the question of adjournment, and he hoped that hon. Members would support him in so doing.

Mr. Shaw reminded the House that the understanding with the hon. Member for Salford, which his Majesty's Government now repudiated, was a compromise made with a certain party in that House. He was sure that hon. Members could not have forgotten that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had given notice that he should move the adjournment every night at ten o'clock, but that promise, like several others from the same quarter, had never been performed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it was quite clear that the continuance of such desultory conversation tended only to exhaust the patience of the House, without advancing the business of it in the least degree. That the Bill before them was of importance no one denied, and that it was one of exigency, in point of time, was equally admitted. It had been re-committed a third time, and, therefore, it remained to be shown by hon. Gentlemen who knew that they were a minority, whether they would interrupt public business, not for the purpose of reserving points upon which a difference of opinion was likely to arise-because he was willing to reserve any such points-but for the purpose of retarding the business of the House. We say, that with a view to give the people of England a remedy for admitted evils, let us proceed with the points upon which we are all agreed.

Mr. George F. Young did not wish to impede the business of the House, but

conducted at late hous.

The Committee divided on the question of adjournment-Ayes 30; Noes 83Majority 53 Clause 18 was then agreed to. On Clause 19 being put,

Colonel Perceval begged leave again to move, that the Committee do adjourn.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer entreated the House to go through those clauses to which no objections were taken, and postpone the rest to another evening. It was not wished to entrap hon. Gentlemen into an acquiescence to clauses against which they entertained any objection. But if they would oppose clauses now, to which they would at another hour assent, why then let the country understand that such was the spirit in which these hon. Gentlemen were prepared to legislate.

Colonel Perceval said, that a great number of Gentlemen, who were the best informed upon the subject of this Bill, and on whose judgment he and his friends. placed implicit reliance, were gone home, upon the understanding, that the proposition which was made at the early part of the Session for adjourning the House at twelve o'clock, would be adhered to. He did, therefore, feel it his duty, under those circumstances, to persevere in his endeavour to prevent the Bill going on any further to-night.

Sir John Hobhouse would ask, whether anybody could deny that the opposition now offered by gentlemen on the other side of the House was not a most fruitless, injudicious-he would not call it unfair, because nothing was unfair in that House,— and most unfounded opposition. If those respectable Gentlemen, who so well understood the provisions of the Bill, were gone away, still he begged leave to say, that many Members who had taken part in the debates upon the Bill, and who seemed to understand its details were still present. There were the hon. Member for Oxford, the hon. Member for Yarmouth, and the hou. and gallant Member for Lincoln-a wise gentleman in his generation-all those who seemed to understand the subject best, still remained. If public business was to be impeded, let it be understood by whom it was so impeded, [laughter, amidst which, the laugh of Col.Sibthorp was distinguishable.] "There is a well-known Latin proverb," continued