rose, pursuant to notice, to propose that the House should adopt a new Standing Order, declaring that no bill for altering the regulations of any particular trade should be read a first time in that House until such bill had the sanction of the report of a select committee. He briefly set forth the advantages to be expected from adopting this proposition, and stated the chamber of commerce at Birmingham to have voted a petition praying for the adoption of such an arrangement. He then moved, "That no Bill regulating the conduct of any Trade, altering the Laws of Apprenticeship in relation to any particular business, affixing marks to designate the quality of any manufacture, prohibiting the manufacture of any species of commodity, or extending the term of any patent, shall be read a first time in this House, until a Select Committee shall have inquired into the expediency or inexpediency of the proposed regulations, and shall have reported to the House the result of such inquiries."

opposed the motion. The present moment was, he observed, a most unfavourable one for the introduction of such a measure—a moment when petitions were coming in from all quarters, complaining of distress, and praying for relief from the operation of certain restrictions affecting trade. If the House should entertain the motion, he hoped it would not be allowed to have a retrospective effect. But he looked upon the appointment of a committee for the introduction of a bill regulating trade, in some instances as vexatious, and causing unnecessary delay. If, therefore, the House would go with him, he would move the previous question.

would not support the motion if he conceived it calculated to throw any obstacle in the way of any petitioners to that House; but, if he understood the object of the hon. and learned gentleman, it was to procure more attention to bills of the nature to which he had alluded than they might otherwise receive. Inconveniences had arisen from the passing of bills on the spur of some particular distress, which he thought would be avoided by having them previously submitted to a committee.

was glad to find such a measure introduced. It was not an uncommon thing to find bills passed in one session relating to trade?, without consulting those parties most interested, which it was found necessary to repeal in the next, in consequence of representations of their bad effects. If this measure was calculated to injure trade, how came it to have been prayed for by the chamber of commerce of Birmingham?

though he would offer no observation upon the merits of the proposed order, yet, considering that a standing order was a most important subject, he did not wish to see it passed without due consideration.

replied, that he had given notice of such a measure as this in the last session of the last parliament. The hon. member could not therefore say that the House were at all taken by surprise on this occasion. His object was for the benefit of those engaged in trade.

conceived that the question was one of serious consideration, and ought to be sent to a committee.

thought that the proposed order would be a good one; but he agreed in the suggestion of sending it for consideration to a committee.

said, he had no objection to refer the matter to a committee, if the House thought proper.

called the attention of the House to the distressing situation in which Irish paupers were placed by the practice of removing them from this country to any part of the, Irish coast. He proceeded to suggest a plan, by which he thought the evils to which those unfortunate persons were, exposed might be in a great degree remedied. He wished specific places to be named to which they were to be sent—notice to be given of their coming, and arrangements made for their reception when they arrived at the place of their destina- tion. He moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend so much of the poor-laws as authorize the arrest of Irish paupers, and the transportation of them to any part of the Irish coast.

did not mean to oppose the motion, as he had no objection to make the poor-laws more perfect than they were at present. The hon. member had, however, fallen into some mistakes. The Irish poor might obtain settlements by service, or by holding tenements of a certain rent. If greater facilities were not afforded to them for gaining settlements in this country, it must be admitted that it was no fault of his, as he had been disposed to bring in a bill that would have effected this, but the proposition had not met with the approbation of the House. He said, he knew of no law that authorised the arrest of a man in this country for being a pauper, and it was new to him to hear of carrying paupers to their home described to be transportation.

said, that no man could be removed from this country till after he had been examined before a magistrate. He, however, agreed that the Irish poor were at present exposed to great hardships, and was glad to hear a measure proposed, that had for its object the diminution of the evil.

thought the subject one which merited inquiry.

moved for leave to bring in>g bill to prevent the inconvenience arising from the too great facility of procuring copies of the specifications of Patents, enrolled by grantees of letters patent, for the sole and exclusive vending of manufactures within this realm.

observed, that the motion was contrary to all sound and liberal views of commercial policy, and that instead of concealing the specifications, of patents, every possible facility ought the to given to render them public. The legislature ought never to lend it self to any measure which was calculated to prevent the diffusion of knowledge.

said, that the object of his motion was not substantially to interfere with the facilities of examining specifications, but to Introduce such a modification of them as would limit the privilege of examination to such persons as were competent judges of the application of them.

felt it his duty to call the attention of ministers and of the House to a calamity, greater, perhaps, than had ever fallen on any country before. Of fourteen banks in the South of Ireland, no fewer than eleven had stopped payment. The consequences were dreadful to contemplate, as the people were now absolutely reduced to a state of starvation. The food which the country people had been in the habit of bringing into the towns was now quite withdrawn. No supplies could therefore be obtained; for as no circulating medium remained, the country people knew that if they brought any food into the towns it must be seized upon by the populace without payment, as no means of paying were in their possession. He begged in the strongest manner to call on the chancellor of the exchequer, as he valued the very existence of a considerable portion of the population of Ireland, to give his attention to this subject, in the hope that he might elicit something from him of a consolatory nature, which might, in this most pressing emergency, be forwarded to Ireland by that day's post. He hoped he should hear from the right hon. gentleman not only that government were disposed to do something, but that measures had already been adopted to mitigate the evil.

deeply regretted the distress to which the hon. gentleman had called his attention, but could not give that answer which he had desired to obtain. He was sure the House would feel the painful situation in which government was placed on the present occasion. To interfere in such cases was always a matter of great difficulty, and though the attention of government had been directed to the distress now felt in the South of Ireland, he was not prepared to give what the hon. member might consider a satisfactory answer.

felt the deepest regret at the answer which the hon. member had just received from the chancellor of the exchequer. He concurred with the right hon. gentleman in admitting that extreme caution was necessary in such cases; he knew that interference on the part of parliament on such occasions was seldom thought advisable, and did not know that it had ever been called for on behalf of Ireland. He, however, now felt it to be his duty to warn the House that the present situation of the South of Ireland was one of great danger. Though it was not for government generally to interfere where distress was felt from local failures, he hoped it would not go forth to the world that they could do nothing on the present occasion.

rose to move, that the Speaker should issue his writ for the election of a citizen to serve in parliament for the city of Dublin, in room of the right hon. Henry Grattan, deceased. In the absence of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, who from some circumstances, found it impossible to attend, he had been requested to address a few words to the Chair on this most melancholy occasion. He could assure the House, that in acceding to the request which had been made to him, he felt the deepest sense of his own inability to do justice to that immortal name which must connect itself with all that he had to say, and he could with equal truth assure them, that by acceding to it on this occasion he by no means evinced a partiality for such proceedings in general. Far from approving of such a course being pursued in cases of an ordinary description, he was ready to admit that if the practice were extended beyond the very narrow limits within which it had been of late years con6ned—if friendship, or any other inadequate cause, should make such addresses degenerate into matters of course, he should most sincerely deplore the departure from our recent custom, and heartily wish to return to the modest silence of our forefathers. Indeed studied panegyric on the dead was not consistent with the general character and simple habits of Englishmen; it was a practice rather suited to an enslaved people than to a land of freemen, for those who were debarred from the manly exercises open to the natives of this country, and restrained to a few subjects might be expcted, in the absence of other themes on which they might dilate, to exhaust themselves in laboured orations and in worthless praise; Hitherto, in modern times, the House had preserved a very becoming temperament on these subjects, and such tributes had been limited to cases of recent death, where warm respect, admiration, and af- fection, made it impossible for any difference of opinion to prevail. The bounds which had thus been observed ought not to be exceeded. The House had acted wisely in reserving such distinctions for occasions of an extraordinary nature. Were this not done, the practice would soon resolve itself into a hollow and hypocritical parade, conferring no honour on the subject of it, reflecting no credit on the House, and degrading to the feelings of the nation. If he should be ashamed of being found wanting in respect to the memory of those he had most loved and honoured on earth, he should not be less so of suffering feelings of personal regard to influence him on an occasion like the present, so as to induce him to bring forward the merits of an individual as entitled to public admiration, where it was at all doubtful whether posterity would confirm the decision that might be come to in the first instance. The honours they might render to those who were no more ought to be strictly confined to such cases as he had supposed. They owed this as well to the memory of those who had received such honours as to those who had not received them, to their own characters, as well as to those of their friends, for many who had not been so distinguished were entitled to the highest honours that friendship could bestow, though not to that peculiar mark of public consideration in that House which ought to be the appropriate reward of exalted public virtue and transcendant talent. He could not but insist that the restraint imposed on their feelings ought to be continued, for that eulogium and those plaudits would become utterly worthless, if for a moment it could be doubted that they were sincere. When he stated that exalted virtue, great public services, and transcendant talent, were the conditions on which such honours should be granted, and uttered the name of Mr. Grattan, he was confident that every one who heard him would be ready to reply with eagerness, that he had satisfied them all. Mr. Grattan had been peculiarly distinguished in the course of his parliamentary career. He was the first (so far as he was informed) and certainly he was the only individual of our age to whom parliament had voted a recompense for services rendered to the country, by one who was no more than a private gentleman; and who had neither civil nor military honours. Mr. Grattan was the only man to whom a parliamentary grant, under such honourable circumstances, had ever been made. It was near forty years since the Irish parliament voted an estate to Mr. Grattan and his family for his public services; not indeed as a recompence, because it was wholly impossible to recompense such services; but, as the vote itself expressed it, "as a testimony of the national gratitude for great national services." These were the words of the grant. He need not remind the House what those services were, or what were the peculiar terms in which they were acknowledged: the only thing necessary to be said was this—that he was the founder of the liberties of his country. Mr. Grattan found that country a dependent province upon England, and he made her a friend and an equal, he gave to her native liberties, and he gave a name among the nations of the earth, a brave and generous people. So far as he (sir James Mackintosh) knew, this was the only man recorded in history whose happiness and glory it was, to have liberated his country from the domination of a foreign power, not by arms and blood, but by his wisdom and eloquence. It was Mr. Grattan's peculiar felicity that he enjoyed as much consideration in that country whose power over his own he had done his utmost to decrease, as he enjoyed in that for which he had achieved that important liberation. But there were still more peculiar features in the general character and respect which he was so fortunate as to maintain in both kingdoms. It must be admitted that no great political services could be rendered to mankind without incurring a variety of opinions, and of honourable political enmities. It was then to be considered as the peculiar felicity of the man whose loss they deplored, that he survived them for a period of 40 years; he survived till the mild mellowing hand of time, and the private virtues of advanced age, in him so particularly conspicuous, had produced so general an impression, that that House divided as it was on other subjects, all united to do honour to his talents and merits; and followed by their admiration to the end of his career, he doubted not that the tribute which he called on the House to render to his memory, would be deep, sincere and unanimous. He had said that such honours should only be bestowed in cases where posterity would be sure to approve the decision. Grattan, he was certain, every one must feel, would be a great name in our annals. His history would fill a most important space upon the page of history, for it would be connected with the greatest events of the last century. Fertile as the British empire had been in great men during our days (as fertile as it had been in any former period of our history), Ireland had undoubtedly contributed her full share of them. But none of these, none of her mighty names,—not even those of Burke and Sheridan, and Wellington, were more certain of honourable fame, or would descend with more glory to future ages, than that of Grattan. He had not touched, neither did he intend to touch, upon any question which might have a tendency to provoke political discussion; he meant no allusion which should apply to any opinions entertained by hon. gentlemen; but he might be allowed to observe, that that conviction of his great public services which had obtained for Mr. Grattan the gratitude of his country in the year 1782, was totally distinct from the opinions which might be formed upon other subsequent acts of his, and particularly as regarded the union; for, whatever those latter opinions might be, this at least was certain—that no safe and lasting union could have been formed between the two countries till they met upon equal terms, and as independent nations. What Mr. Grattan said of the union—which he (sir J. Mackintosh) trusted might be lasting to eternity—was this—that, instead of receiving laws from England, the Irish members in this country would now take their full share and equal participation of the duties of legislation, and of the conduct of the affairs of both kingdoms. Whatever therefore might bethought by some individuals of the union, the reward which Mr. Grattan had formerly received was equally merited; and he was still equally entitled to the approbation of his countrymen. If he might be permitted to mention the circumstance, he would observe, that there was one strong peculiarity in Mr. Grattan's parliamentary history, which was, perhaps, not true of any other man whoever sat in that House. He was the sole person, in the history of modern oratory, of whom it could be said, that he had arrived at the first class of eloquence in two parliaments, differing from each other in their opinions, tastes, habits, and prejudices,—as much, possibly as any two assemblies of different nations. Confessedly the first orator of his own country, (of which, he would say, that wit and humour, sprang up there more spontaneously than in any other soil), he had come over to this country at a time when the taste of that House had been rendered justly severe by its daily habit of hearing speakers such as the world had rarely before witnessed. He had therefore to encounter great names on the one hand, and unwarrantable expectations on the other. These were his difficulties, and he overcame them all. He had out-stripped the affectionate expectations of his friends, and he had made those bend to his superior genius, who had, perhaps, formed a very different estimate of his powers. He had felt himself called upon to allege these peculiarities of character and qualification in order to justify his address to the House—in order to show that the present case was beyond the ordinary rule, and could establish no dangerous precedent. This great man died in the attempt to discharge his parliamentary duties. He did not, indeed die in that House, but he died, in his progress to it, to continue his efforts in that cause of which he had so long been the eloquent advocate. He expired in the public service, sacrificing his life with the same willingness and cheerfulness with which he had ever devoted his exertions to the same cause. It was not for him to define what those services and exertions were. He called on no man to remodel or to alter his former opinions relative to that great measure which Mr. Grattan was about once more to propose to them; but he would only mention, that Mr. Grattan considered it in the same light as he (sir J. Mackintosh) had always done. Mr. Grattan risked his life to come into that House for the purpose of so proposing it; because he believed that it would be the means of healing the long-bleeding wounds of his suffering country; of establishing peace and harmony in a kingdom, whose independence he had himself achieved; of transmitting to posterity, with the records of her political the history of her religious liberation; of vindicating the honour of the Protestant religion; of wiping from it the last stain that dimmed its purity, and of supporting the cause of religious liberty, whose spirit went forth in emancipated strength at the Revolution, and was adopted into our laws, although its principle was long unknown to the reformers themselves. There was one important circumstance in the case of Mr. Grattan winch was well entitled to observation; his was a case without alloy; it was an unmixed example for the admiration of that House. The purity of his private life was equal to the brightness of his public glory. He was one of the few private men whose private virtues were Followed by public fame; be was one of the few public men whose private virtues were to he cited as examples to those who would follow his public steps. He was as eminent in his observance of all the duties of private life, as he was heroic in the discharge of his public ones. He (sir J. Mackintosh) had not the honour to know Mr. Grattan until late in life. Among those men of genius whom he (sir J. Mackintosh) had had the happiness of knowing, he had always found a certain degree of simplicity accompanying the possession of that splendid endowment. But, among all the men of genius he had known, he had never, in advanced age, met with a man in whom native grandeur of mind, with vast stores of knowledge at his command, was so happily blended with rational playfulness and infantile simplicity, such native grandeur of soul accompanying all the wisdom of age, and all the simplicity of genius as in Mr. Grattan. He had never known any one in whom the softer qualities of the soul combined so happily with the mightier powers of the intellect. In short, if he were to describe his character briefly, he should say, with the ancient historian, that he was "Vita innocentissimus; ingenio florentissimus; proposito sanctissimus." As it had been the object of his life, so it was his dying prayer, that all classes of men might be united by the ties of amity and peace. The last words which he uttered were, in fact, a prayer that the interests of the two kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland might be for ever united in the bonds of affection; that they might both cling to their ancient and free constitution; and (as most conducive to effect both those objects) that the legislature might at length see the wisdom and propriety of adopting a measure which should efface the last stain of religious intolerance from bur institutions. He trusted that he should not be thought too fanciful if he expressed his hope that the honours paid to Mr. Grattan's memory in this country, might have some tendency to promote the great objects of his life, by showing to Ireland how much we valued services rendered to her, even at the expense of our own prejudices and pride. The man who had so served her must ever be the object of the reverential gratitude, and pious recollections of every Irishman.—When the illustrious dead were gathered into one common tomb, all national distinctions faded away, and they seemed to be connected with us by a closer union than laws or governments could produce. It was natural to dwell on their merits, and on their probable reward; and he felt that he could not better close what he had to say on this subject than by applying to Mr. Grattan the lines written on one who had successfully laboured to refine our taste and our manners, but who had nothing in common with Mr. Grattan but a splendid imagination, and a spotless life. Of Mr. Grattan, when he should be carried to that spot where slept the ashes of kindred greatness, might truly be said,

"Ne'er to those chambers where the mighty rest,

"Since their foundation came a nobler guest;

"Nor e'er was to the bowers of bliss convey'd,

"A purer spirit, or more welcome shade."

agreeing with the remarks made by the hon. and, learned gentleman, as to the occasions on which a public tribute of applause should be rendered to those who were no more, perfectly entered into the feelings which had been expressed with respect to Mr. Grattan, and thought no individual could hesitate in awarding to his name the honours claimed for it. No man had ever rendered more splendid services to the country, than the individual whose loss was deplored both by the House and the country. He could remember when he (lord C.) first came into public life in 1790, that Mr. Grattan was there in the zenith of his talents, and certainly no talents had ever asserted greater supremacy over a popular assembly than his had done. He was of opinion, that in the great transaction which had been alluded to, England profited not less from the talents of Mr. Grattan than Ireland had done. By the victory which he bad previously gained, Mr. Grattan had laid the foundation for that measure which had united the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland into one empire, and dissipated those mists which had before prevented both countries from seeing their true interests, Mr. Grat- tan had first overthrown the commercial bigotry which once existed, in consequence of his exertions, and the advantages resulting from this were now felt in the wealth which each country poured into the other, and which it was now the business of parliament to make fructify, and increase the commercial prosperity of the empire. The hon. and learned member had, with great good taste, abstained from going into any subject which might have originated a difference of opinion, when he called the attention of the House to the sentiments uttered by Mr. Grattan in his last moments, respecting the Catholic question. Whatever were his (lord Castlefeagh's) feelings on that question, he thought with the hon. and learned gentleman, that to introduce any thing relating to it on the present occasion would be foreign to the purpose. Whether Mr. Grattan was right in the view which he took of that question or not, it could at least be said that his death was consistent with his life, and that, in his attempt to perform what he considered to be a duty to his country, he had given a memorable testimony in the last effort of his feeble frame, but great mind, of fidelity and attachment to the cause. He deeply regretted he could not more adequately express his high political veneration for the extraordinary talents this distinguished character displayed on various occasions, in many of which he had himself been opposed to him in argument and sentiment. Of one thing he wished the hon. and learned gentleman to be convinced by the vote about to be given on this occasion, that the members on his side of the House were as anxious as those on the opposite side to do justice to the rare endowments and extraordinary talents, of that distinguished and lamented individual, whose virtues he was persuaded would long live in the memory of the British nation, confuted the erroneous idea that was but too prevalent, that the poverty of Ireland was the wealth of England.

entreated the pardon of the House for occupying their attention for a few minutes on a subject which to him was so deeply interesting. He was glad that this occasion had not been allowed to pass, without paying that just tribute of panegyric to the memory of the late Mr. Grattan, because he thought it was due to the feelings of the House of Commons, to the feelings of Ireland, and he would add, of England; for we had also shared the advantage and glory of his talents. He would not enter into a detail of the public life and character of Mr. Grattan—it was satisfactory and consoling, that upon such an occasion all party differences, should be laid aside. In truth, that great man was now far removed from all party differences, he had already taken his place among kindred spirits, to whom his distinguished virtues on earth had long been approximating him. That great man was as delightful in private life as he was in public. One great beauty in his character was, that love of retirement which the ardour of his patriotism led him to forsake. Encircled as he had been for the greater part of his latter years by his family in the most picturesque and beautiful spot near Dublin, to his last days he felt and admired all the silent charms of nature with all the freshness and ardour of a first affection. He had had many opportunities of seeing him in the midst of his family and friends, and of observing with what urbanity he gave himself up to the pleasures of domestic life. These recollections made him feel far more deeply the irreparable loss which himself, in common with the whole nation, now sustained; but they suggested another more useful feeling—the intimate connection there was between great public and great private virtues. In truth, Mr. Grattan's political exertions had been so productive of beneficial fruits to his country, because they were deeply rooted in the domestic virtues.

observed, that the great public services which had been rendered both to Ireland and to Great Britain by the eminent and lamented individual in question, had been well described by his hon. and learned friend. Having witnessed all the exertions of Mr. Grattan's political life, after his introduction into this country, he begged to be allowed to say a single word on the subject. He had never known a man whose patriotism and love for the constitution of his country seemed so completely to extinguish all private interests, and to induce him to look invariably and exclusively to the public good. His mind was of a character which enabled him completely to triumph over party feeling on all, questions of great public importances—He could not abstain from remarking, that to this particular praise Mr. Grattan was entitled in more than an ordinary degree; for although it was well known that he was no friend to the Union at the time that it took place, yet almost his last breath was exhausted in the expression of a fervent wish that that Union might never be disturbed. Although he would not allude more particularly to the topic on which that conduct was exhibited, yet well he remembered that when Mr. Grattan was apprehensive that the love of liberty, which no one had more zealously infused into his countrymen than himself, carried to excess, might betray them into licentiousness.—He freely subjected himself to unpopularity, with a view to avert the evil, and to recall those who were giving way to it to a just sense of the beneficial and excellent qualities of the constitution under which they lived. Mr. Grattan showed true wisdom in thus manifesting that the love of liberty was never so substantially gratified as when it was gratified with a due observance of that proper rule and subordination without which the principles of civil society must immediately dissolve.

trusted he might be permitted to occupy the House for a few moments, with the expression of those sentiments which were common to all who had ever known the revered individual whose loss the country had now to deplore. He was fully sensible that whatever might be said on the subject, might do honour to themselves and to the country; but could add no honour to the memory of such a man as Mr. Grattan. The hon. and learned gentleman who had introduced the topic to the House, had expatiated on the character of his illustrious friend with an eloquence and a feeling to which every breast responded. It had been truly said by the hon. and learned gentleman, that if they wished to read the history of M. Grattan, they must read the history of his country. With every memorable occurrence in Irish history during the last forty years, Mr. Grattan's name was connected; and he had stamped it with his character. It was superfluous to dilate on this subject. To Mr. Grattan's exertions, Ireland principally owed her independence. In his own words, the revolution then achieved was "alone in the history of empires, the revolution accomplished without shedding a drop of human blood." He would abstain from dwelling on any topic calculated to excite a difference of opinion; but it was impossible to contemplate the occasion an circumstances of Mr. Grattan's death, without some reference to that particular question, which, to the last moment of that great man's existence, occupied his whole heart and soul. Without entering into any discussion whether Mr. Grattan's opinions on that question were right or not (the House knew his, Mr. V. Fitzgerald's sentiments upon it) he could not refrain from observing, that there was, in the very manner and time of Mr. Grattan's death, a consecration of his opinions on that most important subject which was well calculated to augment their force and impression. He recollected that on the first occasion on which he had the honour and the happiness to hear Mr. Grattan in parliament, in adverting to the talents and services of his eminent but deceased contemporaries, Burgh, Yelverton, and Flood, he observed, that although they had not lived to witness the restoration of the independence of Ireland, their genius might be said to survive, even in the measures which they had themselves failed to accomplish. Mr. Grattan was more felicitous. His fame rested, not on measures which had failed, but on measures which had succeeded; but he (Mr. V. Fitzgerald) trusted that with respect to other great principles so often and so admirably maintained by him in that House, his genius (to use his own expression) might survive and operate, though his mortal part had ceased to exist.

declared his conviction that the House would make allowance for the feelings which must animate every Irish bosom on contemplating the qualities of the most distinguished and useful patriot that his country had ever produced. Without stopping for a moment to consider his own incapacity to address the House on such a subject, he should be ashamed to sit silently in any assembly where he had a right to deliver his sentiments, when the name, of Grattan was mentioned; and he was sure that his sentiments were in unison with those of all who heard him, when he expressed his deep lamentation for the loss, and his profound veneration and gratitude for the services of the illustrious individual in question. He by no means intended to enter into any detailed panegyric on that great man. He was totally incapable of the task; and if he were capable of it, it would be altogether superfluous. His principal reason for rising was to mention to the House that a document—the dying exhortation of Mr. Grattan to his Catholic countrymen—addressed to a gentleman who stood by his bedside, and by him immediately afterwards committed to writing—had been communicated to him (Mr. Becher), which, with the permission of the House, he would now read—[The hon. member here read the document in question so rapidly, that we could collect only an imperfect report, to the following effect:] "I wished to go to the House of Commons to testify with my last breath my opinions on the question of Catholic: Emancipation; but I cannot. The hand of death is on me. I am not afraid of death; but I fear for my country if the object which I have so long cherished should not be accomplished. I sincerely wish the Catholics to be relieved from the oppression under which they have long been labouring, because I have always considered them to be loyal men, worthy to he placed upon a footing with the other members of the community, and to be allowed to worship God according to their own consciences. I wish the question to be settled, because I believe it to be essential to the permanent tranquillity and happiness of the country, which are, in fact, identified with it. The Catholics have behaved well under many trials. If their hopes should be again disappointed, I most earnestly deprecate any coalition on their part with the advocates of Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments. Were the friends of those doctrines to be successful in their object, nothing could ensue but the subversion of the constitution, and the establishment of the wildest democracy. There is one thing more. The Catholics must cautiously avoid becoming parties to any dissensions that may unfortunately prevail in the royal family" [Hear!]. Nothing could, in his opinion, be more favourable to Mr. Grattan, than this proof, in his dying moments, of his anxious solicitude that his Catholic countrymen might not fall into error.—He (Mr. Becher) trusted that they would not do so. At the same time, he trusted they would not fail in the attainment of the important object which they had in view. If they should fail, he was persuaded it could only be by a departure from the dying injunctions of their unwearied champion and best friend; and who had taken so solemn an opportunity of giving wholesome advice to them, as he had so frequently done to those who were to legislate for them. He had gratified his own feelings in having said these few words; he hoped he had done no injury to the memory of the great man of whom he had been speaking; and he trusted he had not committed an unreasonable trespass on the patience of the House.

said he rose to move for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire into the duties payable by the Act of Union, of ten per cent on British manufactures imported into Ireland, and on Irish manufactures imported into England. Such a committee was necessary, in consequence of the chancellor of the exchequer having brought in a bill to continue these duties for twenty years longer than the time prescribed by the Act of Union. This bill would seriously affect the interests of the British manufacturers, because it would continue a heavy tax upon their goods, and thereby diminish the demand for them in Ireland. It would also, by continuing this tax, injure the Irish consumers. The cause of distress in the manufacturing districts being a want of market, it was obvious, that this measure would be a great evil, by its effect in raising prices to the Irish consumer, and thus limiting the quantity he could otherwise purchase. If the import of English manufactures into Ireland was quite free, the use of them would be greatly extended; at present every one in Ireland paid twenty or thirty percent more for every article of manufacture than he would pay if there was no duty upon it; and 200,000l. a year was thus levied upon the Irish people, under the plea of protection, and encouraging Irish manufactures. The continuance of these duties appeared to him, and to many others whom he had consulted, as a violation of the Act of Union. The sixth article declares the general proposition, that all articles, the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country, shall go to the other free of all duty. Then there comes two limitations: first, as to countervailing duties; second, as to these protecting duties in schedule No. 2. The limitation to the general proposition is, that these duties are to continue twenty years. No power is given to the united parliament to continue them, though in other cases, where alleviation or revision was intended, specific words are used to declare the united parliament competent to alter or revise duties. The Irish parliament, when they passed the Act of Union, understood these duties were to cease in twenty years, and prepared their plans accordingly. The Act of Union was a solemn compact, and ought not to be lightly meddled with. It was of the greatest consequence to Ireland, that all its enactments should be held sacred; for, being the weaker party, if once alterations were begun, in the end every advantage which Ireland enjoyed, inconsistent with some supposed English interest, would be taken away. If the question were fully understood in Ireland, there would exist no wish to have these duties continued. They took out of the pockets of the Irish consumer of English goods 200,000l. a year, and this was a positive evil. The price of every article was one shilling in four more than it ought to be; but this was not understood, and those who were paying four shillings when they ought to pay three only, were among the foremost to cry out for the continuance of these duties. The Irish manufacturer who desired to have these duties, always seemed to forget that they applied to his own goods on going to England. They shut him out of the rich English market, and confined bun to the limited demand of his own poor country. It was utterly impossible that much capital could be invested under these circumstances in Ireland in manufactures.—There could be no profits equal to a due reward for its investment. The true policy to promote Irish industry and Irish riches was to give to Ireland the benefit of the English market. Were it not for this market, what would be bur trade in linen, butter, and corn? Gould Ireland sell calicos, coarse woollens, or poplins, in England, free from duty, the cheap labour of Ireland would secure a good demand for them. Corn and agricultural produce would be sent from Ireland to pay England for the increased qualities of English manufactures, which would be imported in consequence of their price being reduced one-half. It was the greatest misfortune that ever befel Ireland to have ever introduced the system of pro- tecting duties, and with it the exclusion from the English market. The experience of thirty years had proved its impolicy. The history of attempts to establish manufactures in Ireland was a history of successive failures. Capital, to an immense amount, had been lost, which would have been attended with certain profit if it had been applied to the improvement of agriculture. But the motion which would be submitted to the House did not go to say, that no protecting duties should be continued; all it sought for was inquiry. The bill of the chancellor of the exchequer proposed ah indiscriminate renewal of ten per cent on seventeen great branches of manufacture, and to allow twenty years more for the gradual extinction of the duties; but, if an inquiry were instituted, it would appear that some of these branches might be allowed to be free, because, in Ireland, no protection could be required for them, as they had no existence there. It was also very desirable to inquire into, and revise, the system of countervailing duties. Now that there was but one exchequer, there was no common sense in maintaining the system of drawing back the whole duty on ah article in one country to pay it in another. What could be more absurd than the process of drawing back three pence a pound on paper and books in England to pay three pence a pound on importing them into Ireland, the chancellor of the exchequer had certainly an object to carry of no small consequence to the revenue by renewing these ten per cent duties, the levying of 200,000l. a year upon Ireland, but this was a paltry object in comparison with the putting of the trade of the two countries on a footing to promote the employment bf the poor, and the extension of the wealth of Ireland. If the committee were appointed, they would be able to advise in what cases any protecting duties were still advisable. They would consider the interests of each class of Irish manufacturers, and recommend nothing which would lead to their injury, in consequence of their having confided in the assurance of the chancellor of the exchequer, that these duties should be renewed. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That a select committee be appointed to consider the provisions of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland which relate to the trade between Great Britain and Ireland, and to report their observations and opinions upon the duties payable upon articles the produce or manufacture of either country, when imported from one country into the other."

seconded the motion. He thought it was of the utmost importance that this subject should be investigated by a committee of that House. There were many branches of trade, which were exclusively confined to this country; for instance, the wrought iron, the Hardware and the potteries. Now, it would be of infinite advantage to the starving manufacturers, if the duties on those branches of our trade were removed in our intercourse with Ireland.

rose to oppose the motion. There was no one proposition, he said, which would produce a feeling half so fatal in Ireland as that of the hon. baronet. The state of Ireland at the pre sent moment was so deplorable, that any attempt to agitate this question would produce a feeling of a most distressing nature throughout the whole country; and he had not heard in the arguments of either of the hon. members any thing to induce him to agree to the motion. The hon. baronet said, that there, were many articles in schedule 2, which were not ma nufactured in Ireland; and he asked for a committee to inquire into that subject, forgetting, that the discussion on that point will come on in. the committee on the bill itself. The hon. baronet seemed to suppose, that the whole of the commodity of wrought iron was produced from England alone. There were, however, manufactories for that article in Ireland, and, although they might not perhaps appear considerable to the hon. member for Staffordshire, they were of great importance to the Irish people. He protested against the hon. baronet's construction of the union act. He contended that it was not intended by that act that these duties should cease at the end of twenty years; but at that time it should be competent for parliament to re-consider the subject. It was to prevent their going into an inquiry from which no good could be de rived, and to prevent the mischief which such a step would produce in Ireland in its present distressed state, that he objected to the motion.

supported the motion. He thought it a sure proof that the chancellor of the exchequer had introduced this measure in a careless manner, when it ap- peared that there were some manufactures for which he proposed to give a protecting duty, which did not exist in Ireland. It was, therefore, clearly the duty of the House to institute an inquiry into the subject before they gave their assent to a measure attended with such important consequences.

thought it was right to continue the protecting duties, when it appeared that manufactories were founded on the faith of them as existing laws; but he did not think it just that Ireland should pay a duty of 10 per cent for necessary commodities.

begged leave to bring to the recollection of the House the nature of the proceedings which had already taken place on this subject. In the session before last it had been stated in the House, that a petition was coming over from Ireland, praying for a continuance of these protecting duties. On this occasion, he had been asked what were the intentions of government respecting them? when he replied, that government was clearly of opinion that they must cease some time or other, but that they had not then fixed the period for their abolition. Upon farther consideration of the subject, he had plainly foreseen that they could not cease without adequate notice being given, without causing great injury, and he had therefore brought in, his bill with respect to them, which had beep alluded to. He declared that he could not consent now to go an inquiry, which could do no good, and. would only serve to create alarm. If the House had thought it necessary, they might have allowed these duties to continue in their present state for one or two years longer, and then take them again into consideration, with a view to appoint a time for their final extinction. But even that course could not be adopted without great disadvantage; for so long as the manufacturer saw no specific mode pointed, out for the extinction of these duties, he would be inclined to think that they would continue for ever. He could not agree in the opinion of the hon. baronet that the plan was not an intelligible one. It had been approved by three gentlemen of considerable experience in the affairs of Ireland, who had filled the office of chancellor of the exchequer for that country. The measure was intended to benefit the nation at large. With respect to the articles referred to by the hon. baronet, it was sufficient to know that at the time of the union it was thought necessary that they should be guarded by protecting duties. But even if he were disposed to enter into the extensive inquiry proposed, there was not time for it in the present session.

was for going into the inquiry, not for the purpose of repealing the existing duties, but with a view to ascertain the period to which it would be necessary to continue them.

hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would not accede to the motion. He knew it would be productive of considerable alarm and discontent in that part of the country with which he was connected. At a period like the present, when the public distresses of Ireland were so great from recent failures, it was of the utmost importance to avoid all subject of discontent or alarm.

said, that by the act of Union, the question of continuing or discontinuing these duties, was left entirely open. Now that parliament had evinced a disposition to act upon more enlarged principles of commerce, perhaps, if he had to consider whether he would for the first time propose such duties, he should not be willing to advise the adoption of them. But here they had to deal with duties already in existence; and even so, he would have no objection to go into an inquiry upon them, if it could be got through in the present session. But that was impossible. The argument of the hon. baronet, besides, applied only to two or three articles, whereas, the alarm which would be excited applied to the whole: and there never was a moment when it was more necessary to guard that country from all unnecessary alarm than the present, when commercial credit was so deeply shaken. No course could more directly tend to excite alarm than the course now proposed. With other injurious consequences it would produce a great deal of commercial jealousy.

said, that there were at least thirty or forty articles on which the duties might be modified. The intercourse between Ireland and England, would only be of real benefit to the latter country, when that intercourse should be free. It was from this freedom of intercourse established between England and Scotland that the latter had benefitted so materially since the union. As to the failures of the banks in Ireland, they really had nothing to do with the present question, and were only taken advantage of for she purpose of opposing this motion. He should vote for the committee.

supported the motion.

thought the hon. baronet had mistaken the opinions of the manufacturers in Ireland, at least sin Dublin, if he supposed that they did not feel great anxiety that the protecting duties should be continued. At the same time, he admitted that there were some articles on which the duties ought to be discontinued; but he was of opinion that they should be discontinued only according to the scale of gradual reduction which had' been proposed by his right hon. friend.

opposed the committee, on the ground of there not being time for the inquiry in the present session.

briefly replied. He said, that as a great difference of opinion existed, he should feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the House. He felt persuaded that the right hon. gentleman himself was disposed to make some alteration. He was convinced, that if a committee was appointed, they would, in eight or ten days, be enabled to make a' report, which might lead to a beneficial measure.

moved the third reading of the Mutiny bill.

wished to preface the observations he had to make in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice, and which had for its object a diminution in the proposed amount of our military force, by inquiring of the noble lord whether the army maintained in India formed any portion of the establishment pointed at in the first resolution.

thought this question would be best answered by the resolution itself, which he therefore moved should be then read.

assured the House that it was far from his intention to detain them long in setting forth the grounds upon which he thought it his duty to submit his present proposition. He feared, indeed, that the motives by which he was actuated, and the principles to which he must of necessity refer, would make but a slight impression on the House. His proposition would certainly apply itself at once to the principle of the army estimates, and have no connexion with any of their details. The time and patience of the House would be wasted, if he were to indulge in declamation at the cool unhesitating manner in which so great a military establishment had been proposed at a moment of profound peace. He trusted that the jealousy manifested on former occasions by parliament, with reference to a standing army, had not gone entirely out of fashion. It would be melancholy, indeed, if such a change had taken place in the feelings and dispositions of the country. A. much better defence, he felt assured, might be relied on for our domestic peace than an immense regular army. Such a force, viewed with regard to the avowed purposes of its application, seemed, to his mind, worse than useless. Were they to be told by the ministers of the Crown that after five years of peace, and after all the provisions made with regard to the militia, and the additions made to the yeomanry, that any cause of dismay or alarm could justify the maintenance of so enormous an establishment? Such a measure was, in appearance at least, a large stride towards a military government. He looked in vain to any thing which had fallen from the noble secretary at war for an argument to justify this proceeding. All that the noble lord had urged was the notoriety of its necessity. For his own part, he meant not to impute any motives of a personal kind; but he must observe, that a plea of this nature was easily set forth, and was, unaccompanied by any reasoning, entitled to very little weight. He would not, therefore, admit the postulate of the noble lord; and was the more induced to bring this subject under consideration from a remembrance, that when, some years ago, very large estimates were laid before the House, the refusal of the House to continue the income tax caused those estimates to be withdrawn, and others of a reduced amount to be substituted [Hear, hear!]. He was not without hope, under such circumstances, that, taking into view the state of our militia and yeomanry force, some part of the proposed regular army of 92,224 men might be dispensed with. In a report of the finance committee, in the year 1817, would be found a strong recommendation that the numerical amount of our regular force should be gradually reduced, till it formed some approximation to the standard of our establishment in 1792. It was alleged at that time, that the year 1817 was a period of discontent, and of danger attendant on that feeling. His majesty's ministers must have viewed it in that light, for then it was that they proposed a suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. If no reduction was deemed advisable at such a period, was it to be inferred that such a reduction would be impolitic at this moment? He admitted that much discontent and disaffection still prevailed, but they had their origin in distress, and in a distress which must be aggravated tenfold by the course of policy now adopted. The true means of subduing discontent were not to be found in armed or expensive establishments. Discontent was in itself not the evil to be cured, but the symptom of it. Would a large standing army give bread to starving labourers, create enterprise in disappointed merchants, or give fresh impulse and encouragement to their agriculture? Were not bankruptcy and hunger the real disorders for which they ought to provide a remedy if they could? If he searched his own heart whilst he content plated this subject, he certainly must confess that he felt reason to be an alarmist. He feared that if things were to continue in their present state, and the same counsels were to be adopted, they must terminate in some violent effort, which every friend of peace and true lover of his country must deprecate and deplore. Nothing but the unsparing hand of retrenchment could secure is from this calamity. It was incumbent on the House to prove that it was ready to interpose its shield in defence of a suffering people, against a system of cold hearted and needless profusion [Hear, hear!]. He should be ashamed, be should think meanly of himself for ever after, if he were capable of exaggerating the statement of his feelings on this subject. Had not many circumstances occurred within the last two or three years, which, independent of the amount of our military establishment, afforded reason to dread lest it might be made instrumental in bringing about a military government? Had not soldiers been called out on every occasion of accident, riot, or disturbance? Had we not even known them to be called out at a popular election—a step which in his opinion, ought long since to have been brought under the consideration of that House? But, what was still more important, the present advisers of his majesty had, without the consent of parliament, and during its recess, added 11,000 men to the standing army. This by the express words of the Bill of Rights, it was unlawful for them to do in a time of peace. Such, however, was the spirit by which parliament was animated, that, at its meeting, no animadversion on this proceeding had taken place. Yet he believed no precedent could be found for the measure, since the period of the Revolution. The last case which bore any resemblance to it was under the reign of the second James, when the duke of Argyle was in arms, and in open rebellion. The Crown then took upon itself to raise a military force, and the first step which even the slavish and submissive parliament of 1685 took on their assembling was, before they voted a supply, to pass an abstract resolution declaratory of the principle to which he alluded. It appeared to him wrong to consider this as a question chiefly of economy, far as he was from undervaluing such a consideration at the present moment. Having stated these facts, and adverted to these principles, he should conclude by moving, that, instead of 92,224 men 77,224 should be inserted, making, on the whole military force, a reduction of 15,000 men. By acceding to his proposition an amount of force, not proved to be necessary by any argument used on the other side of the House, would be dispensed with, which would lessen the ex- peuditure of the country, with reference to the army estimates, more than half a million of money. He knew with how little of the spirit in which he had moved for this reduction his proposition was likely to be met by gentlemen opposite; but if the House hoped to support public liberty—if they wished to maintain, within their walls, that constitutional control over the army which it was their duty to uphold and to practise—they ought, by their votes on the occasion, to manifest the jealous feelings which they entertained of military power [Hear, hear!]. The noble lord was proceeding to move his amendment, but was interrupted by the Speaker, who stated that the bill must be first read the third time—after which proceeding alone could any proposition be received for altering any part of its contents. The bill was then read the third time. After which, lord Nugent moved to leave out "92,224," for the purpose of inserting "77,224." The question being put, That 92,224, stand part of the question,"

said, he could not, without considerable alarm, view the efforts that were making to increase the military force of the country, and he deeply regretted the diminution of that bulwark of their strength—the naval force—which had been so often and so successfully employed in asserting the rights of Great-Britain. It was his most anxious desire to place the military force within the smallest possible compass. The establishment of 1792 had been referred to by former committees of that House as sufficiently large for the service of the country in times of perfect peace; and, for his own part, he could not see anything in the situation of the country at present that called on them to extend the military force beyond what it was in 1792. It was true that discontent existed in the country—it was true that alarming scenes had been exhibited—ie was most true, that meetings had been assembled, whether legally or illegally he would not determine, but which, in the minds of the people, were undoubtedly considered legal. It was equally true that those who were thus assembled had been forcibly dispersed; but he demanded of the House whether these combined circumstances rendered this extraordinary establishment necessary? He believed, notwithstanding all that was re- ported, that the principles of the people were sound—he believed they were strongly attached to the King, Lords, and Commons, as they now existed by law, but he knew they felt, and, he believed, justly, that they suffered under some evils which might be removed—that they paid for some things that could be done without,—and amongst these was this enormous military establishment. There might be cause for alarm—there might be discontent in the country—but how did it originate? In his opinion the people were irritated, because they thought that his majesty's ministers did not sympathize with their feelings, or compassionate their wants. If such sympathy were manifested, it would satisfy their minds, and relieve them, in a considerable degree, from the distress which they now encountered in consequence of the unpromising situation of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures. If he wanted an argument to prove that ministers did not feel for the distresses of the people, it was to be found in the conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer in the course of the evening. That right hon. gentleman had treated in the most cool and harsh manner the application of an hon. member for Ireland, who had called on the government to afford some relief to the distresses which now. Prevailed there. When it was stated to him, that eleven out of fourteen banks. had failed in. the south of Ireland, and that universal ruin was likely to be the consequence, they were calmly told that it was contrary to all the principles of political economy to relieve the distress thus created, and which occurred in a country where nothing but paper was circulated. In acting thus, he contended that the chancellor of the exchequer did not do that which, as a minister of the country, who was bound to watch over the prosperity of every part of it, he ought to do. Let the House look to the extraordinary levy which was made in the last yean He denied that that proceeding could be justified. Their ancestors would have felt the utmost alarm if they believed that there were 11,000 men in the heart of the country, shut up in its hospitals, or retired into private life, ready: to be called forth at the discretion government. This circumstance call-editor the minute observation of parliament. It was not an ordinary matter. If there was any^ thing in the principles of the constitution which, more than another, they ought to revere, it was that which directed them to look with jealousy to the increase, of military power. They ought, therefore, to watch with the utmost vigilance this new mode of calling an increased military force into action. They ought not to leave in the power of the minister—whenever he thought, with or without cause, that discontent and disaffection were to be found in the country—the means of calling out a force to put them down at his own will and pleasure, and, perhaps, to put down with them the good feeling and the good sense of the country [Hear, hear!]. He did not mean to say that the good feeling or the good sense of the country were displayed at Manchester and other places; but he would contend that nothing which had occurred called for 11,000 additional men. With respect to that 11,000 men, he felt that the motion of the noble lord was perfectly correct; but, with regard, to the other 4,000, he was not quite so well informed. If his majesty's ministers would agree to reduce these 11,000 men, he would be content not to support the motion of the noble lord; but, in the event of their refusal, he would vote for the proposition now before them.

said, the noble lord, in the course of his speech, had stated, that the motion he was about to propose, and some of the sentiments he was about to profess, would not, he feared, coincide with the feelings of many individuals in that House. After having heard the motion of the noble lord, and the accusations he had advanced against gentlemen on the ministerial side of the House, he believed it would be found that there were indeed very few individuals within those walls who would be disposed to concur with the noble lord in the view he had taken of the subject. The noble lord's argument might be divided into two parts; the one relating to the military establishment, setting aside the 11,000 veterans; the other respecting the measure adopted in calling them out. The noble lord said, that ministers had adduced no reason to prove why, in the present instance, an establishment founded on that of 1792 would not be sufficient; and he further observed, that a committee, in the year 1817, which certainly was one of commotion, had pointed out the establishment of 1792 as that which ought to be adhered to. If the noble lord would allow government all the force which was at their disposal in 1817, he would then admit that his argument was applicable to the present question; but otherwise he must deny its validity. He had stated, on many occasions, that the increase of their colonies, and the extent and importance of some of them, formed a broad line of distinction between the force that was deemed sufficient in 1792,: and that which was at present considered necessary. The circumstances of the two periods were entirely different. This country now possessed Malta, the Ionian islands, the Cape, Ceylon, the Mauritius, and various other settlements which had been ceded to her since the period to which the noble lord alluded, and for the protection of which it was necessary to provide. With respect to calling out the veterans, the noble lord considered it to be a violation of the constitution. If, however, he looked back to the constitution of this country, he would find many instances in which an augmentation had been made in time of peace, under the apprehension of approaching war, or of internal commotion [Hear, hear!]. He hoped those gentlemen who cheered him would not object to this distinction. Surely they would not say that the same course ought not to be taken by government to guard against internal that was adopted to meet external danger. The latter, he conceived, ought to be more particularly provided against. Many instances had occurred, in time of peace, where an augmentation of the military force had been effected, without any bill of indemnity, or any measure of the kind mentioned by the noble lord, being deemed necessary. He admitted the argument of the noble lord, that no force could be constitutionally embodied without the consent of parliament; but that consent, he contended, had been obtained. In the speech from the throne, the intention of calling out this additional force was mentioned; and both Houses of Parliament, in their answer to that speech, plainly adverted to the circumstance. If, therefore, gentlemen conceived this proceeding to be unconstitutional, they would find it difficult to answer their country satisfactorily for having suffered so many months to elapse without having agitated the question. But, not only was the circumstance mentioned in the speech from the throne, and the address in answer to it, but a spe- cific vote of money was agreed to for the subsistence of those troops. He therefore was at a loss to know in what point the measure objected to by the noble lord had not received the full sanction of parliament. The circumstances which called for this accession of force were so notorious, that it was not necessary to prolong the discussion by enumerating them. Let the House look to the state of the country at the time. Were there not collected in various quarters multitudes of armed men? If the noble lord would but call to mind the feelings that were prevalent throughout the country at that period, he would find, that consistently with a due regard to the safety of the country, it was necessary to augment the military force. The noble lord would ask, "Is it necessary now to keep up this additional force? "In answer to that, he would only ask gentlemen to turn their attention to the events that had passed since the period to which he had referred. He would forbear from adverting to the conspiracy that was discovered in London. A conspiracy to destroy some hundreds of individuals—to burn different parts of the metropolis—and to create a provisional government—was, it appeared, a; matter of no importance to the gentlemen opposite. Did not the noble lord; know that special commissions were issued for the north of England, and for: Scotland, to bring persons to trial, for the highest crime the law of this country: contemplated—the crime of high treason did he not know that the scenes which gave rise to these commissions took place in the months of February and March last? Did not the noble lord know that meetings of armed men had taken place in Scotland? Was he not aware that, in one instance, a body of those armed men had acted in hostility to the regular troops? Had he not seen the proclamation that was posted up in the town of Glasgow, purporting to be issued by a provisional government—the object of those signing it being, as they stated, "to obtain their rights by force of arms? "That proclamation was issued about the time he had already mentioned. Seeing those things going on in the months of February and March last, could any man suppose that the country was in such a state of security as would justify ministers in throwing aside those measures of precaution which they had formerly adopted? But it was observed, "the country is now tranquil." This he admitted, and that very circumstance only proved the soundness of the measures taken by government. But he must contend, that the success of those measures formed but a weak reason for setting them altogether aside at the present moment. The noble lord had in the course of his speech brought very grave and serious charges against his majesty's government. He had accused them with an intention of establishing a military despotism in this country. That stale, and for the one thousand and first time worn-out charge, was more fit for the audiences that assembled in Covent-garden, in Smithfield, and Palace-yard, than for those that were to be found in that House. If there were any man who could really bring himself to think that ministers were so senseless, so utterly lost to thought, as to endeavour to establish a military government in the country—if any man could suppose that they meditated the overthrow of that constitution by which, and under which, they governed—if any man could be found to entertain such an opinion of his political opponents—he, from his heart, felt nothing but pity for the political bigotry which must influence that individual. No man could mix much in public life in this country—no man who had the slightest opportunity of witnessing daily and hourly, in private life, the blessings derived from the constitution under which they lived, could entertain any other feeling but a determination, if necessary, to sacrifice his life in its defence. If a man possessing those opportunities could bring himself to believe that his political opponents harboured a base intention to overturn the constitution, he could perceive very little difference between such an individual and those men who could really entertain such a determination. The noble lord said, he had watched with jealousy the strides towards a military despotism that had been made of late years. He would say, that if there were any set of men who could drive them to a military despotism, it was those self-called, but misled reformers, who demanded that sort of reform in the country, which, according to every just principle of government, must end, if it were acceded to, in a military despotism. It was said, that government met with the sword the complaints of the people. This was not the fact; they only met with the sword those who endeavoured to stir up, and to take advantage of, those irritated feelings which were the offspring of distress. The use of that military force was to keep down those outrages which had the worst effect on the prosperity of the country. Perhaps the noble lord thought it was immaterial to the industry and welfare of the country to be on the verge of a civil war? Those who knew the extent of those outrages would agree with him, whatever the noble lord might think, that any measure which tended to preserve the peace of the country tended also to maintain its prosperity. The veterans had not been called out unconstitutionally, but to defend from the machinations of traitors those liberties which they had derived from their forefathers, and which, he hoped, they would transmit, unimpaired, to their children.

said, that he had been long of opinion that the country suffered under a military force, which it did not require, and that in the different departments of the army there was a shameful waste of expenditure. The hon. colonel next adverted to the public meetings held through the country, which were not, in the opinion of those who attended them, of an illegal description, and did not, at all events, require an increase of the army; for if the peace of the country were seriously threatened, he would much sooner depend upon the exertions of the gentry and the loyal and well-disposed part of the people, by far the most numerous body, than he would upon the dangerous and unconstitutional interference of military power. The actual force in 1819 was equal to all purposes of protection against foreign or domestic enemies. The only pretext for the increase of that force was, the extraordinary apathy of the people who had property to defend in the disturbed districts of England. In Scotland there were 7 or 8,000 volunteers and yeomanry. In Lancashire there were but 500 yeomanry, and not a single volunteer. If the great body of the people were really tainted with revolutionary principles, the addition even of 50,000 men to the military force would not subdue them, but would add fuel to the flame. The history of France and of Spain, and of every other country that had undergone a revolution, proved this. If, on the other hand, the mass of the people were well affected, they should be called on to defend themselves. He should suggest that, as the noble lord (Nugent) wished not only to record his opinion against the ministry, but to relieve an impoverished country, he would alter the form of his motion. He hoped (if he might use the expression) that he would put it into intelligible shape [A laugh]. He explained—that if the noble lord proceeded upon certain data, by bringing back the army to the state in which it stood before the last increase, he might afterwards, if that force were found too great, propose a further reduction. In order to put the motion in a shape as little exceptionable as possible, he should propose an amendment on the amendment, to move that the number should be 80,479, instead of 77,224, as proposed by the noble lord.

said, he was as great an enemy to a military despotism as the noble lord, but he thought it was the duty of government to protect the well-affected. When he considered the state of the public mind during the last autumn, and recollected the blasphemous and seditious publications that were disseminated, he could not but congratulate the country on the escape it had had. The hon. member then proceeded to describe the disaffected state of the population in the west of Scotland, where he had been employed on the staff. It was, he observed, almost impossible to describe the disaffection which existed in Glasgow and its vicinity, where the population amounted to 300,000 souls. They had forgotten their duty to their magistrates, to their ministers, and even to their God. In that part of the country there were not fewer than 25,000 men prepared in every respect, but that they wanted arms, to resist the constitutional authorities of the country; while there had been but two infantry regiments and one regiment of cavalry to oppose them. If the object which so many mischievous men had in view had been carried into effect, who could contemplate without horror the events that would have taken place? The yeomanry had undoubtedly come forward, and in the handsomest manner; but he could not help deprecating the employment of yeomanry corps to put down popular commotions. The unfortunate events at Greenock, he believed, would not have taken place if regular forces had been employed. In conjunction with regular forces yeomanry corps were good and useful; but when employed against popular combinations, they occasioned great animosities. At Manchester, he firmly believed that the yeomanry had only been employed as military constables, and not for the purpose of attack, and that the mob had taken advantage of their being yeomanry to attack them. Commotion and insurrection were more likely to be attempted against a small force than against a formidable force, and for the saving of a few pounds they ought not to run the risk of occasioning bloodshed in the country. It had been said that all disturbance had been subdued; but how could it be maintained that the spirit of the proclamation issued on the 1st of April—not an unappropriate day—had been entirely suppressed? It could not be doubted that the disaffected would have come forward and acted more violently, but for the force opposed to them. No one who read the papers of this morning, and who recollected the circumstances and scenes of the French revolution, could contend that there was not a manifest necessity for keeping up a formidable force—a force that could successfully be opposed to the foes of the country either at home or abroad. He begged not to be understood, in these remarks, to be advocating by any means the interests of the army.

spoke as follows:—

—In better times than the present this great national question would not be left to the feeble defence which I can pretend to afford to it. In the absence, however, of abler advocates, and representing, as I have the honour to do, a large portion of this enlightened metropolis, I shall offer a few arguments in behalf of that which I presume to consider the rights and liberties of my country, now menaced by the proposition of the noble secretary at war. The noble lord has told us, that the speech by which the noble mover of the reduction of the estimate introduced his amendment, was fit only for the hustings of Covent-garden or of Palace-yard. The noble lord, although living not far from these scenes, seems not to he aware that—thanks to the exertions of his colleague's,—the people are shut out from one of those arenas for discussion, and that the same salutary interference has left the other open only at stated times and seasons. The noble secretary has also told us, that the speech of the noble mover was calculated only for reformers—to this I will say, that whomever that speech may be calculated For, I am sure that the noble secretary's is calculated only for those who are predetermined to vote for any proposition tendered to them by a secretary at war [Hear, hear!]. I cannot boast of any familiarity with debates in this House; but I have not failed to acquaint myself with the arguments adduced by former ministers in defence of a large standing army in time of peace; but I must say, that any thing so totally nerveless—any thing so devoid of all attempt at rational excuse for a monstrous project never was before offered to this House. And what is it that the noble lord passes over with such trifling efforts? What is it that he scarcely deigns to attempt to render palatable?—It is no less than a standing army in time of peace—in the sixth year of peace—an army of which there is no example or any thing approaching to an example, in the whole course of English history. Even were we inclined to believe that such an enormous force were necessary, still I contend that nothing which the noble lord has said can at all warrant the raising of 11,000 men or of raising one man, during the prorogation of parliament. The noble lord has asserted, that this is not contrary to the constitution as declared in the Bill of Rights. "What, then, is the meaning of the words "by consent of parliament?" Surely the raising a body of troops while parliament is not sitting, and trusting to the compliance of some House of Commons that perhaps may be prorogued some months longer, or may sit after the troops have done their work and are disbanded, this interpretation, I say, of the Bill of Rights is altogether new and untenable—indeed, it is so new, that in former debates upon raising forces, we find no such pretext that I am aware of, for infringing the letter and the spirit of the statute—quite the contrary—for in 1751, when the Militia act was under discussion, the principal speaker for that act recommended it because, said he, "if an enemy should land, or any emergency should arise during a prorogation of parliament or absence of the king, we could not raise a body of regular troops, the consent of parlialiament being necessary" [Hear, hear!]. It is fair to call the attention of the House to former periods of our history. What has been done then, may certainly be referred to in opposition to what is attempted now. I knew very well that the noble secretary at war asserted in 1818, whilst debating the same subject, that we might as well go back to the days of the heptarchy as to the year 1792, for a precedent as to the forces requisite to be kept up during peace. This day he has been less extravagant; but he has still said, that the circumstances of the two periods are so different that the peace establishment of 1792, cannot in reason be followed in framing the peace establishment of 1820. The noble lord may say this—but that he can prove it I am inclined to doubt. In 1792, it is true, this country was at peace—but what sort of peace was it that we then enjoyed? It was a peace that the ruling politicians of the day proclaimed could not last. Some parts of Europe were in actual war—the alarm was sounded here—and, the supposed dangerous principles of the French republicans were said to be arrayed against us, and to require the immediate opposition of all the lovers of peace and order. But In 1792 the nominal standing army for England was only 15,000 men, and it is likely that the effective army was much less. The next year, however, affords a still more striking parallel. The interval of twelve months had presented a variety of momentous events—all Europe was engaged in a severe contest—Great Britain herself was on the eve, if she had not actually declared, that war which was doomed to swallow so many hundred millions, and to desolate the fairest regions of our hemisphere. Yet, let us ask how many fresh troops were embodied in that year—a year of alarm almost unparalleled—only 2,000! And now, in a year of profound peace—when there is not a single sword unsheathed throughout Europe, his majesty's ministers, without assent of parliament, raise eleven thousand troops, and thus increase the peace establishment to the unheard of number of 35,569 for Great Britain, and 24,179 for Ireland! What are the excuses—what is the pretext for so monstrous a measure? The noble lord gravely tells us that, in the first place, we have had some thirteen or twenty men plotting in a hay-loft to upset the state—and this machination requires an additional eleven thousand soldiers to resist. But no; this is not quite all—we have some other cause for this great levy—there have been and still continue to be state trials in several parts of the coun- try. This is more strange even than the other pretext. What do we want eleven thousand additional troops to protect the tribunals of the land? Do our judges administer the law amidst the din of arms? Are we not repeatedly told that our juries ate doing their duty and our laws working their due effect in correcting the evil portion of the community? If so, why raise more soldiery? Why, ask the noble lord, and he will tell us that the more active the civil power proves itself to be, the more vigorous and determined his colleagues should be to augment the miitary force [Hear, hear!]. Certainly, Sir, I would grant much, as the noble mover of the amendment has said, to the urbanity of the secretary at war. Indeed I would grant any thing to that urbanity—any thing but a measure which must destroy the liberties of my country. I shall think it my duty to vote for the amendment of the noble lord rather than for that of the gallant colonel; and for this reason, because the reduction proposed by the first is greater and goes farther than that proposed by the second. Indeed, for my own part, had the noble lord proposed the disbanding of the whole army at home, I should vote for it [loud cries of Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. Sir I perfectly understand those cheers—but I trust that the gentlemen opposite will not think that I shall be intimidated by them. They are, it is true, backed by a majority within, and by the military without the doors of parliament. I am supported only by a consciousness that I am doing my duty, and with that consciousness, I am content to have any interpretation put upon my words. I do not look at this question in detail—I consider only the principle—I think that this country should not be governed by a standing army—and I would rather disband the whole army than suffer it to remain at its present enormous amount. The gentlemen opposite think it somewhat hard that they should be suspected of entertaining any design of governing the country by the sword—if they do not mean this, what do they mean by this ninety-two thousand men in time of peace? These numbers are not mere figures—they have their existence elsewhere than in this paper—they are not the soldier shadows of a magic lantern—they are substantial men in arms—they are now living and moving amongst us— they infest our streets—they elbow us in every walk, and give to this peaceful metropolis the air of a barrack. The gentlemen opposite think it hard that they should be thought to harbour the same designs as those who have before raised; standing armies in other countries. They try the same means but with purer ends—whatever their ends may be I know not—but I will say with the celebrated Fletcher of Saltoun, "whether our enemies shall conquer us is uncertain, but whether a standing army shall enslave us, neither reason nor experience will allow? us to doubt." I am really afraid of tiring the House by referring to authorities in the earlier periods of our history—it has become the fashion lately to regard all such references as the resort of shool boy rhetoricians. The mere practical means of keeping down the people seems all that we are bound to consider; and I protest that since I have had a seat in this House, I have often thought myself amongst an assembly of armed colonists in a conquered country, debating how, and in what proportion, they should spare or extirpate the unfortunate natives. If, however, I may be permitted to say a word of happier times [Hear, hear!], I would ask the House to recollect that this nation has always been extremely jealous of any standing army. We all know that the raising of some fifty yeomen to guard the palace of Henry 7th was regarded as a monstrous innovation upon national manners. The defenceless condition of the great Elizabeth, defenceless as far as soldiery were concerned, forms one of the most touching traits of our history. The Stuarts were stopped the moment they began to raise an army for general purposes. The remonstrance of the Commons, in 16218, complained of the continuance of a small army, and of the appointment of the duke of Buckingham as commander-in-chief. The first body of standing troops ever raised and continued in England was that of Charles 2nd: in 1677, that king had an army of 5,890 men—this was reckoned intolerable; but our foot guards alone now amount to 5,760 troops. The parliament made many remonstrances with the king, and even gave him a sum of money to disband them; they voted a member to the Tower for saying that the king had a right to a guard for his person, and they came to this resolution, "that it was necessary for the safety of his majesty's person, and for the peace of the government, that all forces raised, since 1677 should be disbanded." Now, Sir, this parliament was reckoned the most base and compliant that ever sat—this was the infamous pension parliament, and pensioned as it was, it would not bear a standing army. The king dismissed the parliament; but the next that was called had equal jealousies; it voted the army a nuisance, and declared that "the continuance of standing forces in this nation, other than the militia, is illegal." Charles did not ask his parliament to pay these troops, and yet I now find that there are some persons who think that the Mutiny bill only provides payment, and that the sovereign may retain as many troops as he chooses to pay from his own purse. I King James 2nd augmented the 5,800 of Charles 2nd to 30,000—we all know how that experiment ended. Yet we have now a standing army of 35,000 men in Great Britain alone. It is true that they are not all encamped at Hounslow Heath; but if this House should ever do its duty by the people of England, they may be encamped there, and it is impossible to foretell the issue. What did our ancestors in the time of William 3rd? This prince, if any, might; have been allowed a small army at least—his eminent services, his noble character might have raised him almost above the suspicion of his subjects, but after the peace of Ryswick in 1699, the parliament would allow him only 7,000 men for the service of Great Britain and her colonies, then scarcely pacified—and only 12,000 for Ireland, of which he had only military possession. He struggled hard to retain his Dutch guards; but this House did its duty by the public; the Lords did; their duty; the ministers did their duty, and the king was obliged to dismiss those very troops from England with whom and by whom he had in part fought for and conquered the liberties of England. After the peace of Utrecht, the standing army amounted only to 7,000. Even during the disputed succession, and in 1715, no more than that number were in arms in the kingdom, and they were enough to put down a rebellion; for the rebellion in 1715 was suppressed before the 10,000 troops came from Flanders. Sir, it is from these times that we must date the origin of the present system: then it was that it was discovered that there was no other way to rule this coun- try than "by a standing army and a standing parliament," those twin-sisters, as a gentleman who represented the city for which. I have the honour to sit, called them, which were born together, have flourished together, and must die together. We know when and how they were produced; we have witnessed their increase; and as they have flourished we have declined. Let us hope that a restoration to our pristine health and vigour may cause the death and destruction of both. Let us hope that we may return to our ancient salutary practices, and by choosing such parliaments as shall fairly and fully represent the people, secure their affection and obedience without the restraint of an overgrown military establishment. I pray the House not to regard this as the intemperate raving of a mere innovator; these doctrines are but the doctrines of the political ancestors of every party that is now to be found in this House—the Tories and the Whigs and the ancient reformers, all have held this language, which is, indeed, only the language of the constitution: this was the language of Shippen, and of Bromley, and of Walpole himself, in 1718. It is true that Walpole, by becoming a minister became a convert to standing armies, but his early conviction resisted the fatal infringement upon the free usages of Englishmen. This was the language of Pulteney, and of Wyndham, and of Chesterfield. The Journals of both Houses record the struggles made against the increase of the peace standing armies. Disaffection always was made, as it is now made, the pretext for the measure; but the opposition lords in 1721 protested that the augmentation of the standing army was more likely to increase than to diminish the disaffection. Similar sentiments are to be found in the debates of 1732, of 1738, and of 1749. In the great struggles of the year 1718, it was roundly declared—what indeed there is no denying—that this Mutiny bill, by which martial law is extended to life and limb during a time of peace, was contrary to Magna Charta, and inconsistent with the rights and liberties of a free people." Such was the language of the peers who protested in 1718, and those who read Blackstone may see his opinion on the dangerous, the cruel, the unconstitutional condition to which this Mutiny bill reduces a portion of our fellow subjects. But what was the number of troops against which the great men whom I have mentioned raised their voices and recorded their protests? From 1716 to 1749, I find no greater rise in the standing peace army than from 16 to 18,000 men. The wit of Chesterfield—the eloquence of Windham—the sober declamation of Wal-pole—were arrayed against no more than 18,000 men, and this comparatively insignificant number, seemed so terrific in those days, that lord Chesterfield, combatting the pretext that "the consent of parliament" saved the infringement of the Bill of Rights, loudly proclaimed that "if the keeping up a standing army in time of peace, as it must be, if it be inconsistent with our constitution, the sanction of parliament cannot make it right [Hear!]. I am at a loss to discover at what time Englishmen became familiar with these vast establishments; I believe that the duke of Newcastle made greater inroads on the constitution in this respect than any former ministers. In 1774, we had 40,000 troops altogether; but after that period the peace establishment bore no proportion to the present vast body of forces arrayed under pretext of enforcing the laws. In 1786, the whole army amounted only to 29,000 men. In 1792, the effective force for Great Britain was only 15,000—and in 1793 only 17,000. Even in 1818, if I may trust the parliamentary debates, the noble secretary at war said, that though the apparent force for Great Britain stood at 26,000 men, yet the actual force which could be brought to act upon the people was only 18,000 men." But we have now 35,000 for Great Britain alone—and for what? The gallant general who spoke last has told us, that in the North a body of 25,000 men have been seen in a state of discipline which has surprised his informant—25,000 men performing military evolutions together and wanting nothing but arms. Sir, to want arms is to want every thing—all we complain of in the 35,000 men is that they have arms; if they had not, we should be perfectly indifferent to them—or we should love them as our fellow subjects. But does the gallant general really think that these 25,000 men would not have been seen by some other person than his informant? would these 25,000 have not been paraded by all the ministerial journals? and where did this happen? The gallant general knows better than I do how much ground it requires to allow 25,000 men to perform any military evolu- tions, or even to stand at all: this scarcely seems a serious statement. The gallant general adds, that a general disinclination prevails amongst the people of those districts against their ministers—against the king's ministers I can easily believe. But it appears to me that the gallant general has given up his point when he tells us how very few regular soldiers are able to quell a disturbance. If few can perform this duty why ask for many—Oh! says the gallant general, a few are good, but more are better—a few can disperse—but more can intimidate; at this rate there is no use to dispute against raising a standing army to any given number—for if the doctrine is that we are to have more than enough—if assurance is to be made doubly sure—then there is no line to be drawn and the present policy must end in a complete military government [Hear, hear!]. Depend upon it, Sir, that the disaffection of which we have heard this night, arises solely from systematic misgovernment. The people of this country are not impatient, by nature, of all rule—the dislike to government with which they are charged, does not belong to them; they are naturally roused to complain of the evils brought upon them by the present system—but if I might presume to advise, I would answer these complaints not by the sword but by removing the grounds by taking away the materials of disaffection. But even if the sword is the only remedy there can be no reason for so enormous a force. In 1715, the disaffected—a good half of the population—were kept down by 7,000 men. In 1745 a second rebellion was quelled by 17 or 18,000 men. In 1792 and 1793 when the constitution was to be upset positively for the last time of upsetting [a laugh] 17,000 men were thought enough for the service of England. Look to our own times—when in 1817 there was an insurrection, or at least something so called, in the capital; Mr. Alderman Wood dispersed it with 4-0 men and his own constables; the rebellion at Derby was put down by one officer, one magistrate, and eighteen dragoons; at Manchester 100,000 men were put to the rout by 40 flushed, not to say drunken, yeomen. What then do we want 35,000 soldiers for? The gallant general has said something about blasphemy and blasphemous publications. In his view of the question I presume that the worst blasphemy is sedition, or animadversions on the earthly powers that be; but even allowing this I do not see how the eleven thousand men just raised are to prevent the people from reading—to extinguish their curiosity—to put out their eyes [a laugh]. No, Sir, this scheme will fail. This remedy will be found altogether inapplicable. All the publications in the world would not be worth the paper on which they were written, if they had no real grievances of which to complain—remove the grievances and laugh at the complaints—retain the grievances and no force whatever will be able to smother the voice of anger and regret and indignation which will arise from all parts of the country. Indeed if the cause for complaint remains I trust that there is still spirit enough left in this country to prevent a total suppression of our complaints by any military force however large. In such a case I trust that 92,000 or (to speak at large) 92 hundred thousand would still be too weak for the whole of the remaining population. With this hope I shall conclude, thanking the House for their attention and the noble lord for his motion [Hear, hear!].

said, that though he was aware that a sense of duty actuated the hon. member who had just sat down in delivering his sentiments to the House; yet he could not help noticing some of the opinions of that hon. gentleman. He should not attempt to follow him through all his arguments, but he would beg leave to call the attention of the House to one sentence in which he had said, that he would vote for the disbanding of the army altogether. He would not quarrel with the conclusion arrived at by the hon. member because he was confident that the House would not be induced to ground a vote on it. He would call the attention of the House to the state of the country with which he was connected, and declare it to be his conviction, that unless some precaution was taken before the next session the force now in Ireland would be insufficient. He spoke of the western districts. He had been present at public meetings where unanimous applications had been made for additional troops. The majority of the people was not disaffected. The middling classes of the country and the proprietors were loyal, and opposed to every treasonable practice. Within the last two months peace was preserved in one county only by the introduction of one quarter of the troops which the hon. member had said, would be sufficient for Ireland. He called upon the hon. member for the county to which he had alluded, to say, if the inhabitants did not, contrary to the wish of the government, call for some additional force. He should be the last man to oppose a reduction at a proper time; but he thought a sudden reduction would be attended with danger, and in the peculiar situation of the country, ha would not lend himself to such a proposition.

said, that the reduction of the army, like the question of reform, was one of those points, the advantage of which was always admitted, though the time for adopting it never arrived. He did not like to hear the interests of the army spoken of in that House; for in that House they could not be said to have any interests as separated from the country at large. With respect to Ireland, it struck him, that no greater censure could be pronounced upon the system of government than what was implied in the necessity of a large military force to prevent insurrection and rebellion. Ireland had none of the marks of a well governed country, whose characteristics were a happy and a contented people. Unless different measures were adopted, they could govern that country only by the musket and the bayonet, and would find it a source of weakness instead of strength. He would not go the length of his hon. friend and vote for the abolition of the whole army. Our garrisons abroad must be maintained.

explained that he had said "at home."

continued. He would not say that the army was maintained for the express purpose of subjugating the liberties of the country, but he would say what was perhaps as offensive that it had been kept up partly from habit. We had gradually been accustomed to 7 000, 18,000, 35,000, and 70,000 men. We had become accustomed to millions in finance, and thousands of men in the army. The taxes ground down every class in this country, and the greatest discontent arose from that cause. The interest of the national debt was the great enemy that caused distress and disaffection; that increased sedition, if not blasphemy in the country. The influence it gave to ministers was one reason for so large a standing army.

of Galway, said, he would tell the hon. gentleman opposite the rea- son why he thought a large standing army necessary. They themselves, were in a great degree, the cause of its being kept up, by perpetually saying that the government of the country had no feeling for the sufferings of the myriads that were starving, whilst it was in their power to administer relief. He would gravely ask those gentlemen whether, by putting such arguments in the mouths of the radicals, they did not afford them a pretence to meet in arms to depose a government so destructive to the country? He entreated those gentlemen, if they wished to do away with the standing army, to have done with such arguments. He entreated them, if they wished for peace, to tell the people that the government were doing all they could to procure them relief. He regretted that questions should have been put to the chancellor of the exchequer respecting the propriety of making advances of money to relieve the distress experienced in the south of Ireland. As he thought that the motion which he had made, in the last session of the late parliament, had served to recommend the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hob-house) to his seat, he should make no apology to him for what he had then said. At the same time he must say, that that hon. gentleman had given an example how far a man could be improved by the company which he kept. He congratulated him on the temper and moderation with which he had spoken. He had never heard a more constitutional speech from the gentlemen by whom the hon. member was surrounded. But let him not hope that he should be able to reform them, as far as he had been reformed himself. He had never seen a speech more radically reformed, compared with that which he had expected the hon. member would have entertained the House. If the mob had been told that the House were not their legitimate representatives—if they had been told to come and take the members by the ears and drag them out—[Cries of "Order, order, order! Chair, chair"].

was satisfied that he needed only appeal to the hon. gentleman whether his observations in the first place had any thing to do with the subject before the House, and whether, in the second, they were consistent with order?

was ready to bow to the authority of the Chair, but if those expressions were offensive to the House, he did not think there was great delicacy in sitting in the same House with the man who had used them.

was sure the hon. member would thank him for giving him an opportunity of explaining that which he was convinced was not offensively meant, though it was most offensive to the House, and might be deemed so by one of its members.

stated, that noting was farther from his intention than to say any thing offensive to the House, or to any of its members. He was most penitent, and asked ten thousand pardons.

rose to reply; when the Speaker observed, that the question before the House was, whether the numbers should stand as in the original clause, to which the noble lord had moved an amendment, which had been since followed by another. The noble lord could therefore only be heard in explanation. The question being put, "That 92,224 stand part of the question," the House divided: Ayes 101. Noes 46. The bill was then passed.