presented a Petition from the merchants and other inhabitants of Liverpool, complaining of the great distress which a number of persons in that town and its neighbourhood suffered from the number of forged notes in circulation, and praying the House to take such steps as might render forgery more difficult. The right hon. gentleman observed, that not only Liverpool, but the whole county of Lancaster, was interested in having some effectual check put to the practice of forgery, as it was well known that the circulation of money there consisted, for the most part, of Bank of England one and two pound notes.

The petition was brought up; and, on the motion that it do lie on the table,

stated, that the inconvenience resulting to the poorer classes in general, in Liverpool and the whole county of Lancaster, from the great number of forged notes in circulation was so great, that a meeting was held some time back for the purpose of erecting provincial banks, where the Bank of England notes might be received, and the detection of forged notes be rendered less difficult. At that meeting a hope was expressed that the Bank themselves would take some steps to render the forgery of their notes more difficult, but in this he was sorry to find his constituents disappointed. No such steps had been taken, and the consequence was, that the evil continued rather to increase than diminish. Indeed, so great was the prevalence of forgeries, that though the Bank had called in some of their notes of a certain date, and offered to pay them in gold, many poor persons who held small sums in them, were afraid to have them presented lest it should turn out that they were forgeries, and the whole be detained. He thought this was a case in which the House was called upon to interfere, if the Bank did not of their own accord devise some means to check the evil.

observed, that not having been in the House when this question was before it on a former evening, he wished to correct a mistake which had been made, with respect to prosecutions by the Bank solicitor. It should be known, that all the prosecutions which were carried on by the I Bank were under the direction of a select committee of the Directors, and that the solicitor had only to obey the instructions which were given to him.

said, the Bank would be glad to find that provincial banks were established as the hon. gentleman had mentioned, for they had no desire that their small notes should circulate in counties so remote from London. As to the number of notes in circulation in Lancashire, he could not see how it was to be prevented by the Bank, since they had on several occasions given notice in the gazettes through the Speaker of the House of Commons, that they were ready to pay their one and two pound notes of certain dates in gold. The Bank felt disposed to do every thing in their power to prevent the increase of forgeries.

did not impute any disinclination to the Bank to guard the public as far as they could, from the evil now so generally felt and confessed. But he did think that something should be done for that remote and extensive county, which limited its currency to the Bank of England notes exclusively. In answer to the alleged neglect of the holders of the notes of 1815 and 1816, not forwarding them, he believed that the hazard of these notes being rejected as forgeries, was balanced against the desire of receiving gold or fresh paper.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal those parts of the acts of the 25th and 30th of Charles 2nd requiring a declaration against Transubstantiation, and asserting the worship of the church of Rome to be idolatrous. He began by apologising to the House for the frequent delays which had occurred in bringing forward this motion. He had put it off in consequence of the absence of so many Irish members, and he was also afraid, that if the question of Catholic emancipation should be brought forward in the present session, his motion might be supposed to interfere with it, which was a circumstance he by no means desired. He was sorry to find that his motion was mistaken by some persons as a question concerning Catholic emancipation. It had indeed by some been understood as the Catholic question. It was no such thing, for he should never think of taking upon himself, even if he had the abilities so to do, that important measure, from the so much more able hands in which it was already placed. His motion was rather a Protestant than a Catholic question, for it was a greater stain upon Protestants to be revilers in this respect, than it was upon Catholics to be reviled. It was a sort of argument in favour of his motion, that though its object was so long known, there had been no petitions presented against it, from which it was natural to infer, that Protestants were in favour of it. The first part of the declaration which he wished to see abolished, was that which related to Transubstantiation, though it was not so objectionable as the other, which condemned the religious worship of the church of Rome as idolatrous. He saw no right that any legislature had to make any man swear to the belief or disbelief of any doctrine, except it was one by the belief in which the safety of the state might be affected. The hon. general then read that part of the declaration which referred to this tenet of the Roman Catholic faith, and also the part which condemns the sacrifice of the mass as idolatrous. The law ordaining these declarations was, he observed, passed when there were many rumours and alarms of the plots of the Catholics, though he believed most of them were unfounded. The established church was, however, then considered to be in danger, and the more so as Charles 2nd was a Catholic in his heart, and as his brother, the then duke of York, openly professed the Roman Catholic religion. But even then an opposition was made to the bill in the House of Peers, by the bishop of Ely, who declared the Roman Catholic religion not to be idolatrous, and he was answered by bishop Barlow. The bill passed for the reasons already assigned; but it could not be imagined that the same reasons existed at present. The established church was not in danger, and he conceived that the declaration ought to be got rid of as altogether unnecessary. The real test was, the oath of supremacy, and he conceived that to be sufficient for every purpose connected with security of the church or state. If a person took the oath of supremacy, he thought it quite enough, for their belief in Transubstantiation did not by any means imply a belief in the supremacy of the pope. He would mention, for instance, the Christians of the Greek church, all of whom believed in Transubstantiation, but none of them in the supremacy of the pope. It was too much to exclude any man from a seat in that House who did not believe the latter, merely because he conscientiously adhered to the former doctrine—The hon. general then contended, that the doing away of this illiberal and unnecessary declaration, would contribute very much to the cordial union, of Catholics and Protestants, which had already begun so much to manifest itself in Ireland. A great deal of what already existed, he attributed to the judicious discouragement of Orange processions and other party distinctions in Ireland. The Catholics of Ireland would, he was certain, feel extremely grateful for the abolition of the unnecessary and useless attack upon their religious worship, which was contained in the declaration. He had already known the effect of it upon them; for at a meeting of the Catholics of the county of Clare, and at the aggregate meeting of the Catholics of Ireland, held in Clarendon-street Chapel in Dublin, in the last year, thanks were voted to him for even the notice which he had taken of them. He was certain that the safety of the two kingdoms would never be more permanently secured than when the Catholics and Protestants should be cordially united by conciliatory measures. He felt anxious for the success of this motion, and he hoped that if it should not meet the sanction of the House at present, some more able member would bring it forward in the next parliament, in which he did not expect the honour of a seat.—The hon. general concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal such parts of the acts of the 25th and 30th Charles 2nd as require, in Certain cases, declarations to be made against the Belief of Transubstantiation, and asserting the worship of the Church of Rome to be idolatrous."

Mr. W. Smith, after a short pause, rose to second the motion.

begged to be understood as imputing to the hon. and gallant general the best intentions in submitting the proposition then before the House. He believed, however, that it was imperfect in point of order, as the motion should have been for a committee to consider of the laws whose repeal was proposed. But his objection to it was not on the ground of form: it arose from the conviction that no practical conclusion could be inferred from its adoption. The laws moved to be repealed were associated with other enactments, which many persons in the country deemed of the highest importance. So strongly was this felt by the advocates of the Catholics, that in 1812, when a bill for their relief was introduced, the measure of indulgence was wisely separated from any general repeal of the test laws, and even a special law of that nature was proposed for the Catholics. To urge, therefore, any such repeal, solely on abstract grounds, was to commit the House on a most embarrassing question, without the chance of any practical object being the result. It would be impossible to keep such a discussion distinct from the consideration of the Catholic question: and the hon. and gallant general must feel, that if entered into, it would have the effect of forcing the consideration, in opposition to the intentions of those most interested. Without any feeling of disrespect to the hon. and gallant mover, he felt it his duty to move the previous question.

agreed in most of the observations made by the noble lord upon the question, but he did not wish, as it had been brought forward, that it should pass without observation. He was satisfied that if it were carried it would not lead directly to any practical good, as affecting the present restraints upon the Roman Catholics; at the same time he concurred most heartily in the principle on which it went. There was an old saying, that "words will not alter the nature of things;" but it could not be denied that words often went to give a very different colouring to things, and often to mislead public opinion with respect to them. It was the case with the declarations to which the hon. mover alluded; they did not, he was certain, keep any one man out of parliament, but at the same time their exis- tence tended to keep alive a feeling towards the Roman Catholics, which they by no means deserved. With the belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, however absurd, he thought the House had no right to interfere; and there were many men who would refuse to make the declaration who, nevertheless, were as well qualified to take a seat in the House as any member who had at present the honour of sitting in it. The real test was the oath of supremacy, and therefore he conceived the other to be unnecessary, and would wish to see it expunged from the Statute book: its continuance there could be of no use whatever.

The previous question was then put and carried without a division.

moved for leave to bring in a bill for the improvement of parts of Hainault forest, in Essex, with a view to encourage the growth of naval timber. He adverted to some plans of improvement in the forests that had been entertained with a similar view. In Epping forest it had been found there were so many villas connected with forest scenery, &c. that any plan must be accompanied with considerable limitations.

said, he had no objection to extending to the Crown the fullest; power, in order to make the property of the Crown lands most available to the public interest. What he had to express his surprise at was, the diversity exemplified in the manner in which these sales were negociated. In looking into the voluminous reports on the subject, he saw items which, to understand, required some explanation; and others which, in his judgment, no explanation could clear up. The diversity with which the honours and forestal privileges were disposed of, required at least some explanation. In some instances, as appeared by the reports, large sums were paid by individuals, while in others they were bestowed without any remuneration. In the purchases a great diversity was also observable: for instance, a sale was effected in favour of a noble lord, a cabinet minister, for ten years purchase, whilst in other instances, the transfers were made at twenty-five or thirty years. Nine thousand pounds and a few hundreds, were all that the noble lord paid for 500l. per annum. Had it been an open sale, he had good reasons for believing that a very large sum would have been received for such a purchase. It was indeed evident from the reports, that where a public competition was allowed, eighty years purchase was given. It was, however, but a solitary instance; as, after a minute search, he could find no public sale, but the one he alluded to, namely, a portion of Crown land purchased by a gentleman of the name (he could mention the name as there was no undue favour) of Corbett in Merionethshire. As to honours, he had an instance in a worthy baronet, a member of that House. That worthy baronet, he would name him, sir Walter Stirling, solicitous of this description of glory and honour—barren as they were—had actually paid 3,000l. for such a privilege, while, in a variety of other instances, they were lavished on individuals without any pecuniary consideration. He would instance another case, which it was his intention, on some future day, to bring specifically under the consideration of the House, which was that of the barony of Kendal, which had been obtained by lord Lonsdale at thirty years purchase; his lordship not having paid a farthing, as the hon. baronet had done, for the honours of the acquisition. There was no competition in this case more than in the others which he had mentioned. It was offered to no one but lord Lonsdale, to whom the possession of it was unquestionably more valuable than to any other person. It was true that it had been valued at only thirty years purchase by two surveyors on oath; but any one who had witnessed the proceedings in a court of law, on subjects connected with the value of property, would know how to appreciate such an opinion, for never were there two or even ten surveyors brought forward on the one side in such proceedings, but two or ten were immediately brought forward on the other, to swear to a value different from that sworn to by the former. It was a mockery, therefore, to talk of the opinion of two surveyors, as a test of the value of landed property. The fact was, however, that seven or eight years ago lord Lonsdale did, on such an opinion, obtain the barony of Kendal for 14,000l., although he understood it would at the time have fetched full four times that sum if it had been put up to auction; and he was acquainted with a wealthy individual, who told him it would have been worth his while to give three times that amount for it himself. He understood that since the purchase, the noble lord had gained more than the sum which he originally gave, by enfranchisements; All these circumstances were calculated still more distinctly to prove, that the only safe way of dealing with the property of the Crown was, to set it up by auction.

agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman in his general principle, although the way in which the hon. and learned gentleman had stated the cases which he had adduced was by no means candid towards his predecessors in the office which he (Mr. H.) had the honour to fill, and whose proceedings must have undergone the revision of the lords of the treasury. Instead of throwing out insinuations, it would have been more candid, on the part of the hon. and learned gentleman, to have called for papers elucidatory of the subject, which papers would show that there had been a sufficient reason for the course pursued in those cases. He admitted that it was very desirable, when the Crown directed the sale of its landed estates, that it should be open to competition. Such was the general rule; the property was extensively advertised, and every competitor was afforded an opportunity of offering his bidding. But the fact was, that the greater part of what was sold consisted of trifling fee-farm rents, which would not pay the expense of an auction. In all such cases it was the general rule, when it was wished to sell them, to offer them to those who were most interested in the acquisition, at thirty years purchase. Since he had been in the office which he held, he knew but one instance in which the general rule of inviting competition had been departed from; and that was the other day, when, one of the Crown estates was sold to a member of parliament (although sitting on the other side of the House), on the assurance that he had, some years ago, obtained a promise that if it were ever sold it should be offered to him; and the price which that hon. gentleman gave was, he believed, full as much as any competition could have procured. With respect to the particular cases adduced by the hon. and learned gentleman, as none of them had occurred since he was in the department, he was not able immediately to explain them; but if the hon. and learned gentleman, instead of throwing out insinuations against cabinet ministers and others, would bring forward any specific transaction, he was persuaded it would not be found to warrant the inference which the hon. and learned gentleman attempted to draw from it. For the reason that he had just assigned, he was unable immediately to explain the circumstances attendant on the purchase of the barony of Kendal by lord Lonsdale; but he was satisfied that on investigation there would appear sufficient reasons for the course adopted by the treasury. Would the hon. and learned gentleman say, that a person having for many years held certain estates as a lessee, was not a reason for giving him the refusal of the purchase on proper terms? It was very easy, after the sale of any estate, for a person disappointed of the purchase to complain of the mode in which it had been disposed of; but the cases alluded to by the hon. and learned gentleman he had no doubt were free from all just grounds of imputation. The general rule of inviting competition he had always recommended with reference both to the public interest and to his own character, as the only mode in which a fair price could be obtained by the public; and he had endeavoured to obtain from parliament the power thus to dispose of all such unproductive property of the Crown with a view to benefit the public resources.

said, that as he knew something of one of the transactions to which the hon. and learned gentleman had alluded, he thought it his duty to offer to the House a few observations on that transaction. The barony of Kendal had been in the possession of the Lonsdale family as crown lessees for 150 years. It consisted of a variety of small rents, the expense of collecting which was as great as the value. It was proposed by the commissioners of the Crown lands to sell these rents. Lord Lonsdale did not employ the surveyors, but they were employed by the commissioners of the Crown lands, and the price fixed by them was such, that there was not a member of that House who would have given it. They were in fact valued at forty years purchase; an enormous price, which they could never have produced, had they been sold by auction; for the rents amounted to little more than 300l. a-year. In reply to the honourable and learned gentleman's assertion, that lord Lonsdale had recovered his original purchase money by enfranchisements, he could say with certainty that the noble lord had not obtained 1,000l. by those means. In his opinion, and he could form some judgment on questions of this nature, lord Lonsdale had given one-third more than the value of the property, and twice as much as any other person would have given for it, he himself having at the time a life-interest in it.

said, that the right hon. gentleman, and the hon. baronet had misunderstood him. He had made no charge against any one. He had only asked, why one person had been allowed to acquire crown property at ten years purchase, while from others twenty-five, thirty, and even eighty years purchase were required? The hon. baronet had also completely mistaken what he had said about the barony of Kendal. His argument was—why did not the Crown do as the purchaser of that barony had done?—He had enfranchised the occupants at a certain rate each, pocketed the money thus obtained, and still reserved the honours attached. Why did not the commissioners pursue a similar course, and thus secure the advantages resulting thereon to the country, instead of throwing them into the lap of any favoured individual?

said, he could not hear such a statement made, without endeavouring to counteract its effect. He could assure the House, that the noble lord had never yet received a thousand pounds, perhaps not above five hundred pounds, for enfranchisements on the property. Could this paltry sum be considered any appropriate or advantageous return for so very large an advance of money on the purchase?—or must it not be obvious to all that these misrepresentations and clamours were perfectly without foundation?

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

said, he rose to make his promised motion for copies of the correspondence that had taken place between this government and that of the Netherlands respecting Aliens. When the noble lord opposite moved for the continuance of the Alien act, he had stated the principal grounds to be, the necessity of co-operating with foreign governments, for protecting those governments from the machinations of disaffected persons, and the dangers they might incur from them. The noble lord, he observed, shook his head; but so he had understood him. He was astonished when he recollected that the noble lord had also said, that the Alien bill was brought in purely for the protection of British interests. Now, this assurance, he could by no means reconcile with the admission of the noble lord to which he had before alluded. He proposed, by the production of these papers, to come at the true state of the intention of his majesty's government in this respect; and he should, if it were considered expedient to conceal the names of persons who might be the subject of these communications, consent to the copies or extracts being made out in blank, as was not unfrequent in such cases. He concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies or extracts of all correspondence, since the 20th of November 1815, between any of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, or his majesty's ministers abroad, and the ministers of foreign states, relating to Aliens; also, copies or extracts of all correspondence, since the 20th of November 1815, between his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and his majesty's ambassador in the Netherlands, relating to passports granted or refused to individuals either going to or coming from the Netherlands, not being natives of the United Kingdom, or of the kingdom of the Netherlands, or any of their respective dependencies."

denied that he had drawn any argument in favour of the bill from the situation of the Netherlands. He had only endeavoured to show, by way of contrast, the advantage to this country of having an Alien bill. He called on gentlemen to point out an instance in which government had abused the power vested in them, or had acted in subserviency to the wishes Of other governments. He objected to the information which the hon. gentleman had called for, as he would contend that government had never used the powers of this bill for any other purpose than for excluding from this country those suspected persons who were likely to disturb the general peace. He objected to making such disclosures without any cause being shown for their necessity, with respect to the character or designs of any individuals.

said, it was very well for the noble lord to urge, that no unconstitutional power had been made use of under this act; but the power intrusted to them was so extraordinary, that he apprehended the whole thing must be considered as an abuse altogether; and if a single individual had been sent out of the country, he would defy the noble lord to show that the interests of the country required it. What was the nature of the measure respecting which information was now denied? Was it too much to demand an account of individuals towards whom this power had been exerted? He recollected the case of some merchants who were coming to this country to try to obtain their debts; from information given, they were said to be coming upon some plan of assassination; but it proved to be only a malicious trick of the creditors here. He recollected the case of a professor of music, who, being informed against, was about to be sent out of the country under the Alien act, but being acquainted with some clerk in office, he escaped. It was impossible not to see on what slight grounds the powers given to government by this bill might be exercised. In his opinion, it was a measure most disgraceful to those who had proposed it; most unconstitutional; hostile to the spirit of liberty, and contrary to the policy of all former times. The noble lord had given no reason why he should not furnish the information, and therefore he felt it his duty to support the motion of his hon. friend.

thought the reasoning of the noble lord was in favour of the production of the names, as he had stated that the objects of the bill were truly British, and that no person had been sent out of the country in subservience to any foreign power. It was necessary for the House to know the spirit which actuated ministers upon this subject, and to have a correct statement of what had taken place between the British government and that of the Netherlands. From the production of that correspondence it would appear whether ministers had interfered or not with the Aliens of foreign governments. The noble lord admitted that if we interfered in the case of the Aliens of foreign governments, we could not deny a similar right of interference on their part. He was inclined to think that the measure was intended to operate for other purposes than those that had been alleged.

thought it a very bad symptom when a government having the means offered to it of exculpating itself from a charge preferred against it, refused to avail itself of them.

said, he could not receive the noble lord's explanation as satisfactory. He would now ask him whether he had not joined with the rest of the allied powers at the time of the treaty of Paris, in demanding that certain Frenchmen should be given up who had taken refuge in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and on the banks of the Rhine? If so, this would show that he did interfere with other powers in a manner that must be conceived to be highly unjustifiable. He should, however, take the sense of the House upon his motion.

The House then divided:

, in moving for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire into the state of the laws relating to the Office of Constable in Ireland, and to report their observations thereon, wished to state shortly to the House the grounds on which he was induced to submit that motion to the House, and the consequences which he expected to result from it. From his own experience, and from various communications which he had had with magistrates in different parts of Ireland, he was of opinion that the laws for regulating the office of constable required alteration. With respect to the magistracy of Ireland, though there might be some few exceptions, he believed that it was generally good; and any person, acquainted with the magistrates would say that, generally, they were well calculated to execute the law. But the constables, whose appointment and payment did not rest with the magistrates, but with the grand jury, were in many cases ill qualified for the situation they filled, By the existing law there must be ten constables for each barony, whether large or small, whose salary was about 20l. a year each. He would recommend that the appointment of constables should be given to magistrates at the sessions; that there should not, as now, be ten to every barony, as some baronies were three, four, or even five times larger than others; and that each constable should he paid in proportion to the services rendered by him.—In legislating for Ireland great mistakes were often made, from copying the practice of this country, without considering the difference of the state of society in Ireland. In this country, the execution of the laws might be left to the ordinary police constables, because every individual feeling the benefit of the laws, was anxious to assist in executing them. But the benefits of the English constitution were not felt in the same manner in Ireland; as the people of that country had not the same extension of the constitution, they did not take the same interest in the execution of the laws. In point of fact, the law might be said to be administered by military force. He thought, however, that some auxiliary police might be better than an army for preserving the tranquillity of the country. Of the Irish government, it was but justice to say, that it had endeavoured to limit and restrain as much as possible the use of military force in Ireland. If such a committee, as he proposed, were appointed, he thought some means might be fallen on for discovering such an efficient auxiliary police as he had alluded to. Whether some thing like the peace preservation appointment, but less in number, should be extended to each county, or whether the principle of the Dublin police should be extended more generally, might be a consideration for that committee. At present warrants were executed by the military, and in all the assize towns the courts were surrounded by military. He conceived that many of the outrages which had taken place in Ireland, might have been prevented in the beginning by an effective police. With such a police, a large army might be in a considerable degree dispensed with, by which means a considerable reduction of expenditure might be effected. Nothing kept Ireland so much in its present backward state from the want of capital, as the apprehension entertained in this country, that from the defective execution of the laws, money lent could not be recovered. He believed if a good police existed in Ireland the people would be as peaceable as any in the world—no people were more amenable to authority when it was properly exercised. The number of absentees, from which Ireland suffered at present so much, could not be expected to decrease till a more efficient system was introduced. He trusted that the right hon. secretary for Ireland, would say that he would undertake himself some measure to meet the defects to which he had called the attention of the House; but it was his duty, in the mean time, in compliance with the wishes of many respectable persons in Ireland, to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the laws relating to the Office of Constable in Ireland, and to report their Observations thereupon to the House."

said, it was impossible, at this period of the session, that any good could arise from an inquiry such as had been proposed by the hon. baronet. Supposing the result of such committee was the confirmation of the present system, no advantage would be derived from it; but supposing the result was otherwise, and that the present system was condemned, it was now too late to introduce any other in the room of it. Now, would it be prudent to pass a condemnation on the existing law without providing any substitute for it? The subject to which the hon. baronet had called their attention was one upon which he (Mr. Peel) had been long occupied; and he could safely say, there was nothing which he had more at heart than the perfecting the police system of Ireland. He had stated, in the beginning of the session, that the efficiency of the present system had in many cases not been sufficiently tried. The grand juries had power, by the bill which he had brought in, to appoint in each barony a certain number of constables, and they had the power of allotting a salary not exceeding 20l. a year to each constable. He had said, that the local authorities might have in many cases appointed a more efficient description of constables. The county of Longford was one of the most disturbed counties of Ireland. It had been restored to tranquillity principally in consequence of the increasing exertions of a most invaluable magistrate, a member of that House, lord Forbes. Previous to the act brought in by him, there was no retiring allowance to con- stables. Means were taken to remove those constables whose age and conduct rendered it expedient to remove them, and a more efficient description was appointed. The system which the hon. baronet had too generally condemned, was here fairly carried into execution. No magistrates in that county had found it necessary to have recourse to a military force. They divided the constables into two classes, one of which received a salary of 12l. and the other of 20l. a year. His main objection to any general system of police, such as had been recommended by the hon. baronet, was, that in many counties there was no occasion for that police, and it was hard to subject them to an expense for which there was no necessity. Grand juries were alone responsible for the appointment of constables. But government were responsible for the execution of two other acts. The first of these was the Insurrection act. He was happy to be able to say, that in no instance since it had been last continued, had the government found it necessary to carry it into execution, notwithstanding the reduction which had taken place in the military establishment. The act expired with the present session, and he should not propose its continuance. Another act, of a much more constitutional nature than the insurrection act, and for which the government was alone responsible, was the Peace Preservation bill; and he would ask those who were acquainted with that part of the country, whether he had taken too much credit to the Irish government, when he said that that act had completely succeeded? The hon. baronet had proposed the general extension of that bill; but to this there was an objection, that the executive were vested with ample powers at present to put it in execution. The executive had obtained a power last session of defraying the whole expense of carrying the act into execution in any district, except one-third, from the public funds. In only one instance, that of a district in the North of Ireland, had government borne two-thirds of the expense, in some cases it had borne one, leaving two-thirds to the district. But his objection to the extension of the Peace Preservation bill were two fold.; first it was totally unnecessary in many districts; and, secondly, it would be unfair to charge many districts, which had always been in a tranquil state, with so heavy an expense as it would occasion. But he had a stronger objection to its extension. At present when a district ceased to be disturbed, the establishment was withdrawn, and transferred to another place, and thus it was impossible to form local connexions. But he was quite sure if it was to become a permanent system, it would be impossible to prevent it from degenerating into abuse. In no instance had government attended to any local recommendations. No person could be more alive than he was to the advantages of an efficient police; but the constitution of such a police required much consideration. He did not wish to panegyrise the present system as a perfect one; but it would be impossible to transfer the power now vested with the grand juries to magistrates, without a previous inquiry, and there would be greater facilities for conducting such an inquiry early next session. He had called for a return from the different counties of Ireland, which in some instances he had obtained, of the number of constables appointed in every barony, and what was paid to them, and he had no objection to move for such returns on that subject as he had himself expedited. With respect to the pledge he had given last year respecting sheriffs, it had been completely redeemed. He hoped he might be excused here for travelling a little out of the question immediately before the House, and alluding to a circumstance that had occurred at the close of the last session. He had then given a pledge for an alteration in the mode of appointing sheriffs. This pledge he assured the House he had amply redeemed. The judges were directed by the lord lieutenant to examine the grand panel on their several circuits, and select three names in each county of persons whom they had reason to think were fit to fill the office of sheriff. These returns were to be made to the lord chancellor, who was to examine the lists before a full attendance of the judges, and then make a return to the lord lieutenant for his selection. This had been impartially and effectively done: and he had the opinion of the present lord chancellor of Ireland, who had formerly been a baron of the exchequer here, that the manner of selection pursued was as perfect and as unexceptionable as he had ever seen it in England. The result of this departure from the painful task of selecting sheriffs, previously imposed upon the executive government, was, that in no year had Ireland been possessed of so impartial and respectable a list of sheriffs. The government were determined to give effect to so excellent a system as this. They would rigorously pursue it; and the advantages would be eminently felt by the country.—He concluded by hoping the hon. baronet would not, at this late period of the session, press a motion which could lead to no immediate practical result.

agreed in the general views taken by the worthy baronet on the affairs of Ireland, though he was obliged to differ with him in this particular instance, and to express his concurrence in every thing which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman opposite, whose administration of the internal affairs of Ireland entitled him to the gratitude of every friend to the country. There were no new outrages to call for any new law; and the act of the 33rd of the king, which gave armed constables to the counties, was quite sufficient with the subsequent acts, for every fair purpose. It was impossible not to admire the tranquillity which reigned in Ireland, notwithstanding the overwhelming distress and poverty under which the poor people of that country laboured.

thought a revision of the police system for the internal affairs of Ireland highly desirable. The people should be shown, by a proper local appointment of constables, known to them and acquainted with their circumstances, that they were wrong in the notion they had formed, that the laws were made and carried into execution by their enemies. He had strong objections to a law, liable to be called into sudden operation, and the severity of which constituted the chief reliance for its efficacy. For instance, he thought the punishment quite disproportioned to the offence, which would send to Botany Bay the unfortunate peasant, who might be found out of his house after nine at night, or with the lock of a gun concealed in his cabin. Something might, he thought, be done, by the establishment of penitentiaries, to correct occasional bad propensities among the lower orders.

said, it was not his intention to propose a more general extension of the preservation of the peace bill. It seemed to him, that the object of his measure was mistaken by the right hon. gentleman. It was not to be concluded that every thing was right because no great disturbance existed. Recourse was had too frequently in Ireland to the assist- ance of the military for civil purposes. A body of not less than twenty-four soldiers was sometimes employed to take possession of a cabin, or a few acres of land. It was this which he was desirous to obviate. He was glad the right hon. gentleman expressed an intention of taking the matter into his own hands, and would consent to withdraw his motion.

The motion was then withdrawn.

said, he did not mean at that late stage to oppose the further progress of the measure, but he still entertained great objections to it, because it affected the rights of the subject, where his purse was concerned. He would protest against this curtailment of the rights of what were called the lower orders of society. The motive for introducing this law was said to be the tumultuous proceedings which sometimes occurred at vestries, in consequence of their numbers, and the consequent difficulty of transacting properly the business of the parish. All public meetings were in some degree tumultuous. The same objection might be brought against elections, or even against that House. He saw no evidence to prove the necessity of the bill. For his part he had never experienced the impediments which the measure was designed to obviate.

had also great doubts as to the propriety of the measure, and should be very glad to hear any grounds pointed out for this innovation. The only case brought forward to justify it, was but the case of an individual. The present mode of management had been found most beneficial. He trusted, therefore, the House would pause before they set it aside by the bill now before them. He had presented a petition against the bill from the town of Reading, which he had the honour to represent, in the parishes of which town, the poor-rates had always been exceedingly well managed by the ordinary vestries. They were naturally jealous of any interference in a system from which they felt no inconvenience.

said, that the object in view was, to follow the analogy of kirk-sessions in Scotland, so far as the very different system of poor laws in England would admit. In Scotland, the weal- thier classes had the greater influence in managing the provision for the poor. By this bill it was proposed to bring back the wealthier classes to attend parish-vestries. Their absence was occasioned by the numbers and the clamour of others who attended, of whom some were connected with paupers, and some were employed in trades which made it their interest to be liberal to certain paupers. In 1807, the late Mr. Whitbread had introduced a measure, the same in principle, and similar in its modifications to the present. Surely the lapse of time, the increase of population, and the increase of paupers, had not, since 1807, made such a measure less necessary. He begged leave to read to the House the sentiments of Mr. Whitbread on this subject. He had remarked that the tumultuous assemblies and the clamour of vestries had disgusted the wealthier and the more respectable classes from attending; and, to remedy this, he had proposed to give two votes to those who paid a certain sum of poor-rates; to others three; and to others four, which was the highest number of votes to be allowed. Mr. Whitbread had been singularly conversant with this subject. His great attention ensured accurate discrimination; and, what must have some weight with gentlemen on the other side, he could be suspected of no hostility to the poorer part of the constitution of vestries. He would appeal to any member, whether it was reasonable that one who paid a third, and even a half of the poor-rates, should have no more influence in vestries than one who paid the very lowest sum. The same principle which was proposed in this bill had been adopted in other assemblies. It was so with the proprietors of East India stock. Mr. Gilbert's bill had gone infinitely farther. It had disfranchised all who had not been rated to the amount of 5l. But he now thought it better, that the right of all who pay rates to vote should be retained; but that those who paid a certain proportion should have a greater number of votes.

could see no reason for adopting a new principle on the present occasion. He never yet knew an instance in which at parish meetings the lower classes were not ready to be guided by the example of those above them, to adopt any reasonable proposition. The evil now complained of grew out of the absence of those who ought to take the lead on such occasions. He thought the bill calculated to do much good, but this particular provision would make against it, and would excite jealousies which it would be desirable to avoid.

professed himself friendly to the bill, because it was calculated to encourage the attendance of persons of character at vestries. No law could force men of intelligence to attend, but it ought to remove every obstacle that repelled or disgusted men of intelligence. Yet, though he was friendly to the bill, he thought the principle of it might have been better adapted to the evil. The bill proposed, that every one who paid 50l. should have two votes; 75l. three votes; 100l. four votes; 125l. five votes; and 150l. six votes, which was the utmost number allowed. Now he had to object to this arrangement, that, according to it, parishes might be divided into separate classes, and seven or eight persons, who represented neither the population nor the property of the parish, might have the whole control. He should therefore prefer, that every one who paid to the amount of 25l. should get an additional vote; 60l. a third vote; 100l. a fourth vote; and so on. By adopting a scale of this kind, the objection which he had mentioned could be avoided.

said, he had seen those who hardly paid any thing to the poor-rates, interrupt the proceedings of a vestry, and force all the respectable persons to retire. To such an evil it was desirable that a remedy should be applied.

The bill was then read a third time. Mr. S. Bourne moved a clause to except the city of London from the operation of the bill, which was agreed to. Mr. Barclay moved a similar clause for Southwark, which was also adopted. Mr. Shaw Lefevre rose to move a clause, that the town of Reading should be excepted. Mr. D. Gilbert asked if Reading was, like London and Southwark, governed by local laws. Mr. S. Lefevre answered in the negative. The bill was then passed.

, after some observations, in which he urged the impolicy and cruelty of that clause by which the parish officers are empowered to take away children from their parents when unable to support them, and to place them in schools established for the purpose, moved that the clause should be omitted.

said, he had in- tended to move a clause as an amendment, providing, that the children of dissenters should not be compelled to attend the places of worship of the established church. He agreed with the hon. gentleman who spoke last in his objection to the clause he had mentioned.

said, that the clause was, in point of fact, a return to the statute of Elizabeth, and he could not believe that it would afford any additional encouragement to the improvident marriages of the poor. The effects of the prevailing practice of administering relief were most detrimental, both to the poor and to the children; for the money intended for the benefit of the latter was too frequently spent in dissipation, whilst they were left starving at home. The hon. gentleman had talked of the felicity if a cottage life; but where there was an actual incapacity of maintaining the family inhabiting the cottage, he feared that felicity was not the general character that belonged to it. In the present state of the poor, and the laws affecting them, in this country, he could not imagine any thing more humane or desirable than the regulation provided by this cause.

felt assured that the intentions of those who framed the present measure were most humane; but he must object to every regulation which did not go to the principle of making the labourer's wages equal to his maintenance. Every measure that stopped short of that object would only serve to confirm the existing evil, and to continue the system of paying those wages to a certain degree out of the poor-rates. It was to be lamented also, that children should be separated from, and grow up without any affection for, their parents; for he knew not how the place of that affection could be supplied. No good could be effected whilst the poor were taught to believe that there was no disgrace in dependence on a public fund. He disapproved, therefore, of legislating on the presumption that parents would be unable to support their children.

supported the clause, and contended that in all the southern parts of England the wages of labour had decreased in a greater proportion than the poor-rates had advanced. In a pecuniary view, it was indifferent to the labourer whether he received the whole amount of his wages from his employer, or the moiety of them from the parish; but the effect of the latter practice was, to debase and demoralize him. The great recommendation of the clause was, he thought, that it would tend to raise wages, at the same time that the children, by being placed in schools, would learn various kinds of industry or handicraft, instead of being, as the children of a particular district generally were, confined to the knowledge and exercise of one.

opposed the clause, as contradictory to the principle of the report, and on the ground that the House, before it passed, ought to have distinctly in view those ulterior measures which were to be founded on it. His fear was, that the bill would be found in practice to carry a bad principle still farther, by thus legislatively recognizing its existence, and that the poor would marry as improvidently, when their children were to be provided for in the proposed manner, as they were inclined to do at present. The separation, indeed, might only add to their carelessness by extinguishing their natural affections. He thought, however, the committee had done much, and deserved well of the House and the country, though he could not help suggesting the propriety of withdrawing this particular measure for the present. He entertained a sanguine hope that great advantages would be derived from their continued labours, and believed that the work of improvement would be most effectually commenced by a diligent inquiry into the present system of administering the poor-laws.

supported the clause, as a judicious compromise between many conflicting evils.

objected to the clause. It would not, he said, prevent the wages of labour from being made up out of the poor-rates; for it told a man, that if he made an improvident marriage, his children should be supported out of the poor-rates; with a threat, that if he behaved ill they should be taken from him. By the effect of the poor-laws the earnings of the poor had been gradually lessened, though the nominal amount of wages had been increased. It was, nevertheless, too much to say, that the character of the poor had been degraded by the poor-laws. It had been degraded by the effects of taxation and low wages; and these low wages had been occasioned by allowing money out of the poor-rates. To take away the children and support them was the same thing as to allow the present wages out of the rates. The spirit of the clause was in contradiction to the report of the committee, and tainted the whole measure: it would have no effect but to encourage improvident marriages, and the increased competition for employment must again lower the wages of labour. He thought the bill might be generally beneficial, but that the clause in question, was highly mischievous.

opposed the clause. He said, it would have the effect of breaking down the character of the few among the poor, who laboured successfully to remain independent.

supported the clause. It had, he said, only the common failing of all human institutions—a balance of good and evil. He thought the good prevailed: we could not recede from the system of poor-laws all at once; all that we could do, was, to mitigate their ill effects. The clause in question did not take the children from their parents under circumstances half so harsh as the old law; they were now retained in the parish, but before, might be sent away to any distance. The children were now to be educated; before, they might have been taken away, and their education neglected.

The House then divided: For the clause, 46; Against it, 14: Majority, 32. The bill was then passed.