repeated the objections which he had made last year to the expenses of the colonial agents. It had at that time been asserted, that those expenses were paid by the, colonies, and not by the British treasury. Such, however, was not the fact. There was in the present resolution an item of 600l. to the agent for the Cape of Good Hope. Surely, the revenue of the colony was adequate to such an allowance and ought to be charged with it. The agent for Ceylon received 1,200l. a year. What were the duties of that office, that the people of England should be charged with so large an additional sum? Then there was 600l. for the agent for Malta, and 500l. for the agent for the Mauritius. All these sums the House were now called upon to pass. But why were the people of Great Britain to be thus loaded for the benefit of the people of the colonies? The treasurer of the, navy was the present agent for Ceylon. How could the duties of that agency be compatible with the duties of that right hon. gentleman's high official situation? The agent for the Cape of Good Hope ought to be paid by the colonies; and so should the others. By a statement which he held hi his hand it appeared, that the balance of the bills drawn in the colonies, and accepted in Great Britain, amounted to 1,627,000l. exclusive of other sums paid in Great Britain. Adverting to the item of prize money to the late lord Keith, to the amount of 2,400l. he wished to know how it happened, that all the prize money due during the late war had not been paid long ago? Was the present item the only one remaining? Another item of the estimates consisted of 9,244l., to baron Langsdorff, on account of the subsidy of 1793. Why had such an account been allowed to remain thirty years in arrear? Another extraordinary item was that of 1,025l. paid to sir A. Hope, for coals and candles, as lieutenant-governor of Edinburgh castle. Why permit it to run seven years into arrear? To him it appeared a large sure to pay to an officer, merely for coals and candles. He should, however, content himself at present, with moving, "That the sum of 2,800l., for the support of colonial agents, be deducted from the vote."

said, he considered the agents of the greatest importance to the colonies and knew that the same opinion was entertained: in the colonies. The colony of New South Wales had even me morialized the government for an agent. He would take thin opportunity of saying, a few words with respect to the accusations which the hon. member had on a former evening brought against the governor of Upper Canada. After having mad inquires upon the subject, he was prepared to say, that a more unfounded statement was never advanced in that House or elsewhere. One of the charges made against the governor was, that he improperly received fees. Now, he could assure the House, that the governor received no fees at all; having accepted a consideration in lieu of them. He regretted that the hon. member should bring forward charges against public officers which were not capable of being maintained.

directed the attention of the House to the fact, that three of the colonial agents were members of parliament. By the act 6th of Anne, any person accepting a new office was disqualified from holding a seat in, that House. He supposed he should be told, that the act only referred to offices given by the crown. There could not, be a more Jesuitical argument. According to such reasoning, lord Bathurst might fill the house with members holding offices, although the king could not. It was his intention, after the holidays, to, bring forward a proposition upon the subject to obtain a declaration of the meaning of the act of Anne; and if it should appear, that it did not comprehend the case to which he alluded, he would propose to amend it, in order to bring those cases within its reach [Hear!].

said, he would support the amendment, on the ground of public economy.

said, that the act of Anne referred only to such appointments as were held directly under, the crown. The colonial agents were paid out of the local revenue, and not out of the crown funds.

rose to ask, whether the contracts for supplying the convicts with clothes, &c. were made by public advertisement? While he was on his legs, he would take the liberty of saying, in consequence of what had fallen from the secretary for the colonies, that he never would shrink, from any charge he had once brought forward. With regard to the case of Mr. Gourlay, he intreated the House to wait until the papers were before them, and then he was confident that the statements of that gentleman would be found correct. He complained that the hon. secretary had said, that he made sweeping allegations against individuals which he could not afterwards support by evidence. With regard to the government of the Ionian Islands, he had said, that sir T. Maitland had been guilty of many unjust and arbitrary acts. What were the proofs which he had adduced? The repeated rebellions which had taken place in those islands, and the increased number of British troops which had been sent there to quell them. He was ready to prove to-morrow, all the allegations he had ever made against sir T. Maitland. If the hon. gentleman thought that he extended those allegations to sir T. Maitland's present conduct, he laboured under a mistake; for he had distinctly said, that within the last four months, there had been a considerable change in the conduct and policy of that officer. He regretted exceedingly, that sir T. Maitland had been permitted to continue so long in the government of those islands; for his conduct had caused the name of an Englishman to be hated by the inhabitants. Instead of being the protector, he had been the scourge and tyrant of the islands; and had committed acts of injustice and of oppression without a parallel in the administration of our colonies.

said, that the contracts for clothing the convicts were made openly and publicly.

said, he understood, that during his absence, the hon. member for Aberdeen had revived the subject of the charges against the governor of Upper Canada. The hon. member had been specifically told, that if he would present a petition from Mr. Gourlay, and bring forward a direct measure upon it, be would be met in the fullest and most distinct manner. What the hon. member desired more he could not understand. With regard to those reiterated, vague; and general attacks upon the character and conduct of sir T. Maitland, he proms Nested against them, and he hoped the House would support him in so doing.—The hon. member said, that there had been a change of policy in sir T. Maitland's administration within the last four months. In reply to that, he challenged the hon. member to show any act of sir Thomas's government, during those four months, which differed from the acts of the previous eight months. According tee the hon. member, the people of the islands were only kept down by the sword. He would state a few simple circumstances to the House; and would then ask, whether it was possible that this could be the fact? In the island of Corfu there were, at present, only 1,900 British troops. When the French occupied it there were 12,000. In that island there were 25,000 men capable of bearing arms. Was it likely that these 1,900 men could' keep down a hostile population to such an amount? In Cephalonia the British troops did not exceed 500 men, whilst the population capable of bearing arms amounted to 35,000. In Santa Maura the British troops did not exceed 350 men, whilst the population capable of bearing arms amounted to 15,000. In the other islands there were not above 60 British soldiers. He would, therefore, ask the hon. member, whether he meant to say that the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands were kept down by such a mere handful of troops? If he did, was he not, by representing them as tamely submitting to this thraldom, degrading the parties in whose favour he pretended to come forward? The hon. member had also objected to the occupation of these islands, on the ground of the expense they occasioned. Now, the, hon. member could not help knowing, that the military occupation of these islands by this country was defensible even on the ground of economy; for if we had them not, we should be obliged to keep a much larger garrison at Gibraltar. The hon. gentleman was perpetually referring to the establishments of 1792. Now, in 1792, the garrison of Gibraltar consisted of 4,421 men; while, at present it consisted only of 2,304 men. That the islanders were not discontented with the English government, another proof might be found in the result of the late elections. The hon. member had formerly stated, that these elections were a mere mockery; but he trusted he should never hear that assertion made again, after the documents which he was now about to read to the House. In Corfu, the qualification for voting was, the possession of property to the amount of about 70l. or 80l. a year. Now, it was clear that this was a qualification which could not entirely depend ea the will and pleasure of the governor. In Corfu there were 520 electors; of these 462 actually voted, not by ballot as formerly, but vivâ voce, and with all the spirit of popular elections. In Cephalonia, Where there were 430 electors, 370 voted. In Santa Maura, where there were 341 electors, 278 had voted. In Cerigo, where there were 170 electors, every man voted. The same was the case in Ithaca. Now, he, would ask the hon. member, whether he meant to contend, that all these electors, representing, as they did, the bulk of the property of the islands, did not represent the feelings which actuated their inhabitants? He challenged the hon. member to produce a single proof of that dissatisfaction which he had stated to exist, so generally in the islands. He would insist, that they were, at present, in a state of unexampled prosperity; that their revenue had increased a full seventh in amount, without any augmentation of taxes; and that the certainty of those taxes being applied to the civil purposes of the islands, had spread general content and satisfaction throughout them. He would also say, that justice was better administered, and the civil government better conducted, than it had ever been at any former period of their history; and that no act of tyranny had ever been committed by the gallant officer who had been so grossly vilified. He might, further add, that certain individu- als, who, had been banished, had been recalled, and that, no individual was now in banishment on account of any political offence he had committed. If the hon. member should not be satisfied with this statement, he should be ready to meet the hon. member, on this subject, when, ever he should think proper to renew the attack.

was convinced, that the beneficial changes which had recently been effected in the Ionian Islands, would never have been brought about, if his hon. friend had not directed the attentions of parliament to the subject. It was true the House had negatived the accusations brought against sir T. Maitland; but every body who had been in the Ionian Islands admitted, that he had contrived to make the British name absolutely odious and detested. This fact had never been denied but by a succession of under, secretaries, who seemed to have a refining fee to defend in that House the conduct of every governor.

observed, that no part of the speech of the hon. member for Aberdeen had surprised him more than his protest against sweeping and general accusations. When the member brought forward charges against absent individuals, he must be prepared to hear those charges repelled with warmth. He could not conceive a situation more delicate than that of an officer, in the discharge of arduous and painful duties, liable to such attacks and charges as the hon. member had thought proper to make. He considered his hon. friend to be quite justified in the warmth he had expressed, at the charges vaguely brought forward against sir T. Maitland. For what were those charges? Why, such as, if true, must cause the dismissal of that gallant officer. He had been called scourge and a tyrant, and a disgrace to the British name. Was it fair that such attacks should be made upon question like that now before the House, an without even giving the accused or his friends the advantage of a notice? On such an occasion, his hon. friend had been imperiously called upon to vindicate sir T. Maitland. Having for two years filled the office now so worthily occupied by his hon. friend, he begged to bear his testimony to the character of sir T. Maitland, Never had there lived a man actuated by a more sincere desire to promote the honour of the British name.

contended, that a public man was liable to have his conduct Canvassed, and that the charges against sir T. Maitland were made against his public acts, and against his government. When he first heard the statements of his hon. friend, the impression upon his mind was, either that they were not true, or that sir T. Maitland must be removed from his government. There was one case, the infamy of which must rest either upon sir T. Maitland or the government. He meant the case of Martinengo, who was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He would defy the whole talent of the Treasury-bench to tell what the charge against him was. If the government had not disclaimed that act, why had they thought proper to remit the sentence? The right hon. secretary of state had no right to say, that personal and vague charges were made against sir T. Maitland.

thought the manner which these charges had been brought forward against sir T. Maitland was most extraordinary, most unjust, and most illiberal. The noble lord and the hon. member objected to the charges being described as personal, and yet sir T. Maitland was called a "scourge" and a "tyrant." The hon. member had thrown out his vague accusations, upon an occasion when no decision could be come to by the House upon them. Let him bring forward a distinct motion and specific charges, and then would be the time for meeting him with evidence to disprove his statements.

expressed his doubt that abuses might be practised under the provisions of the bill. A brewer making the new description of beer might keep a house in which persons could drink it; and thus, in fact, maintain a public house without holding a licence.

said, that no man keeping a public-house would be allowed to brew the new beer on his premise. There was a clause, providing that a bublican who wished to brew within a certain distance of the house which he used as a public-house.

said, that the bill professed to give the poor man a cheap beverage, while it subjected him to a charge from which the rich man, brewed his own beer, was exempt. He thought it hardship, that the publican, who paid high rent, was obliged to take out a licence, and was subjected to other burthens, should be prevented from selling the new sort of beer.

approved of the measure, as he thought it would enable the poorer classes to get malt liquor cheaper than they could at present. This reconciled him to the bill; though he did not deny, that it might slightly affect the public brewers and publicans.

thought it was desirable to get the public houses out of the hands of the brewers.

of Wilts, though he approved of the principle of the bill, thought it would be difficult to carry its details into effect. He preferred a malt to a beer tax; though his own personal interest would be affected by the former. He should be glad to find that the sale of beer was legalized, like that of all other commodities. This would promote the comfort of the labouring classes; who would thus be enconraged to send for their beer, and consume it with their families, instead of wasting their time, their money, and their health, in public-houses.

said, he did not bring forward this measure as one free from objections; but, as the principle of the bill seemed to be gene rally admitted, he hoped a fair trial would be given to it.

wished the plan to be extended to Ireland, where a good beer, sold at a reasonable price, might, in some measure, supersede the use of spirits.

observed, that there was no beer duty in Ireland.

said, he looked to the effect of having beer sold, without the necessity of a public-house licence.

thought the sale of beer, without a licence, in Ireland, was a matter worthy of consideration.

thought the provisions of the bill could be better carried into effect by an ad valorem duty on beer, than by the mode now proposed.

thought it would be perfectly practicable to impose a duty, ad valorem, on beer. The late chancellor of the exchequer had had in contempla- tion such a tax. He himself (Mr. F. L.) was convinced, that such a tax could be very accurately adjusted. The monopoly of beer had arisen, in a great measure, out of the uniformity in the quality of beer, necessitated by the present inartificial system of duties, which was as old as the time of Charles 2nd. By means of the saccharometer, the quality of, beer could he accurately ascertained, and the duties apportioned accordingly.

objected to the measure, on the ground, that it imposed an unfair duty on the brewers, whose capitals were already embarked in the trade, while a lower rate of duty was imposed on the new race of brewers, which the bill was calculated to encourage.

said, he objected altogether to the principle of the bill. He thought it was a maxim, that no person ought to be controlled in his own arrangements, unless such control, was rendered necessary by paramount political circumstances. Now, no such necessity could be shown in support of this bill. In his opinion, it would not be more unjust to enact a law, that every surgeon should take a certain number of apprentices, to encourage the progress of surgical science, than it would be to pass this bill, rendering it imperative on the masters of merchant vessels to take a given number of apprentices, in order to encourage the increase of efficient seamen. He denied this bill would cause an addition of one seaman to the number now in the service. So long as there was employment for seamen, there would be encouragement enough for them; and when there was not, those who were now here, would resort to foreign countries for employ. The only effect of the bill would be, to reduce the wages of seamen; and that alone would render it objectionable. He would move, to leave out from the word "repealed," to remove the compulsory condition for taking a certain number of apprentices from the bill.

agreed, that whenever any measure, interfering between employers and the individuals employed, was proposed, some strong necessity or political expediency ought to be shown for it. It had been the uniform policy of parliament, to maintain the maritime greatness, and strength of this country, by measures which necessarily operated as restrictions upon individual convenience. On this principle the Navigation laws and Register acts were founded. The hon. member was not, perhaps, aware, that there were two-descriptions of apprentices. There was one class in the nature of parish apprentices, whose service was compulsory; and another class who went to sea voluntarily, to acquire the science necessary to enable them to follow the profession of seamanship. As the law now stood, apprentices were liable to be impressed at the age of 18; but the present measure would protect both these classes of apprentices up to the age of 21. The bill would not only afford this protection to masters of merchant vessels, but would be highly beneficial to the naval interests of the country, by affording the best means of education to a race of skilful pilots and seamen.

complained of the great haste with which the bill was proceeded in, to the utter prevention of his constituents from informing themselves as to its nature and extent. He had hoped, that all new restraints upon commerce were at an end.

said, that the principal merchants and ship-owners had been consulted as to the expediency of this measure, and that all had considered it as a boon extended to the interest with which they were connected. By the protection afforded under this bill, apprentices in merchant vessels might now, for the first time, become second and first mates, without being liable to impressment.

said, he had been for forty years extensively engaged in the shipping trade, and the experience hell had derived from this circumstance, induced him to give his hearty support to the bill. It was, with him, a rule never to advance any seaman, unless he had served regularly by apprenticeship. Much had been urged respecting a free trade, and the advantage of removing all restriction; but if the opinions of the advocates for non-restriction were pushed to their full extent, horses would not be broken in, nor children be made to go to school, for these were restrictions. Buonaparté had once said, that if he had a throne of adamant, he believed the politi- cal economists would grind it to powder. In like manner, the political economists in this country were ready to grind the navy and shipping interests to powder, rather than abandon their favourite theories.

was unfavourable to the principle of the bill; but, as the amendment, if carried, would take away the benefit given by the bill, of extending the exemption from impressments, he trusted his hon. friend would not press it.

supported the bill, and concurred in the statement, that it had received the unqualified approbation of the ship-owners.

approved of the bill, not only because it afforded additional protection to the merchant service, but because it was calculated to maintain the naval strength of the country.

expressed his approbation of the bill, which was, however, rather a modification of the existing law, than a new measure; for, by the 2nd and 3rd of Anne, which had never been repealed, masters of all vessels, of above 30 tons, were bound to take one or more apprentices, according to the rate of tonnage.

recommended his hon. friend to persevere in his opposition to a measure which was about as useful and politic as a statute of one of the Edwards for the better stuffing of feather-beds. There was as little reason for the regulations imposed by this bill on the masters of merchant vessels, as there was in that instance for an interference with the craft of the upholsterers. If the bill were to pass into a law, the effect would be to man the whole of the merchant ships with apprentices. It had been alleged, that seamen were scare and wages high, and that this bill would tend to increase the numbers and diminish the rate of wages. But, if it were true, that the supply of seamen was not at present equal to the demand, the well-known principle would draw more men to the employment. The chief objection to the bill, however, was the principle of compulsion, by which it was supposed that seamen would be taught their duty. Now, it was well known, that we had had the very best of seamen without the operation of any such principle; and if so, coercion could do nothing but harm. This coercive system would, in fact, create a supply beyond the demand, and could not fail of being mischievous. His hon. friend did not object to the whole of the bill, but to the compulsory clause. If that were withdrawn, he would allow the rest of the bill to pass.

objected to that part of the bill which allowed of the warehousing of foreign linens, without the paying of a transit duty, as most injurious to the staple trade of Ireland.

did not wish to prejudge any part of the question. He did not consider himself as pledged to any one side; but he thought that those who objected to the bill were bound to ant out the injury that it would do.

complained that, after what had been done with respect to Ireland last year, sufficient notice had not been given to enable the persons interested in the subject to offer their opposition to the measure. Notwithstanding this, it was now proposed to legislate in their absence, and he could not help thinking it was unfair. He complained particularly of the hardship which the enforcement of transit duty would be upon the Irish manufacturers.

deprecated the imputation of unfairness. He had stated last year, that if Ireland was to be exempted the it must not be considered as a permanent exemption. The only ground upon which the exemption had then been made was, the distressed situation of the country, and the inconvenience of bringing the matter under discussion. He was willing to give every reasonable time, and he thought that the 21st of April would afford time enough to convey hither the grounds of the opposition which the manufacturers of Ireland proposed to make to the bill.

thought the course pursued by his right hon. friend was the just one. He contended that the general principle was in his favour, and he left it to those who opposed him to make out the special case on which they relied.

stated, that what his right hon. friend had done, was given rather as a notice than as a final decision. The question of the linen-trade of Ireland appeared to him to proceed on a distinct and peculiar principle, and could not be considered with reference to the general principle by which the commerce of this country was regulated. The point to be looked to was, how the linen-trade could best be extended and supported, so as to render the greatest portion of benefit to the people of Ireland. He viewed that trade with much interest, not only because it was intimately connected with the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, but because it was associated with certain historical recollections. The linen-trade was given to Ireland by a great monarch. Every thing was done to discourage the woollen-trade of Ireland, and to encourage that of England; but at the same time a solemn promise was given that the linen-trade of Ireland should be fostered and encouraged. When the subject came to be discussed, he should approach it with these feelings.

then moved several amendments to the bill; which were agreed to.

said, he rose to move for the production of certain papers relative to the subject matter of a discussion which was to take place on the 15th of next month. He was induced to do so, because he thought it of great importance, that all documents tending to throw light on that question, should be previously before the House. The paper he would first move for was, a Copy of the information on which was grounded the committal of some persons to the Gaol of Newgate, in Dublin, on a charge of a Conspiracy to murder the Lord Lieutenant. He would state the particulars of the transaction as they took place. On the 14th of December, the transaction to which he alluded originated. On the day after, some persons were taken up, and brought before the police magistrates; two were charged with a conspiracy to riot, and committed to Newgate, on a committal specifying only the simple crime of riot or conspiracy to riot. Those two persons, named Hanbridge and Graham, were committed to Newgate on the 23rd of December. After a little time, warrants of detainer were lodged, charging them with a conspiracy "to kill and murder" the lord- lieutenant. Thus it was evident, that the charge of conspiracy to murder was not hastily made. On the same day a person named James Forbes, was taken, and committed on the same charge. Now, when the right hon. gentleman came before the sessions to prosecute, he stated that he did not think it advisable to proceed on the capital charge; for it was better that government should be accused of leaning to the side of lenity, rather than that of severity. Bills of indictment for a conspiracy to riot were eventually preferred, which were thrown out by the grand jury, and the right hon. gentleman filed informations ex-officio, the result of which was well known. He (colonel B.) did not bring the subject forward before; for, until his majesty's attorney-general entered a nolle prosequi, good reasons might exist, why the information of the crown should not be, produced. But, as that had been entered, he conceived there was no longer ground to refuse the information. It might, indeed, be made an objection, that the magistrates who committed would be inconvenienced, and be liable to private actions for the committal. But, if those committals stood on the grounds of justice, the magistrates had nothing to fear, He believed, that unless malice could be brought home to magistrates, or a corrupt motive, they were not liable to pay in damages the consequences of their official acts. The charge of a capital offence, had naturally excited the public abhorrence against the prisoners; and, while particular injury was done to them, by the refusal of bail, an unjust stigma, cast upon a large body of persons in Ireland, by its being supposed that they were all capable of forming to, murder the king's representative. He did not believe there was a man in Ireland, who, after the development of the facts upon the trial of the ex-officio informations, believed there was any ground for the capital charge. It was of great moment, that this question should be understood. If the motion were resisted, it would be the means of preventing the light from being thrown upon it, which was necessary to a clear understanding of the case. He would move, for "Copies of the Informations charging James Forbes, George Graham, and Henry Hanbridge, with a Conspiracy to kill and murder his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, upon with the Commit- tals of the said persons to his Majesty's Gaol of Newgate, in the City of Dublin, On the 23rd of December, last, were founded."

said, that so far as he was personally concerned in this question, he was desirous that every document should be brought before the House and the public; but whatever individual feelings he might entertain, he could not submit to the establishment of a precedent subversive of the ends of justice. He acknowledged the temper of propriety with which the right hon. member had brought forward his motion: he must suppose that he was actuated by a zeal for justice: he must suppose, that no individual object mixed itself with the subject, and that it was not brought forward from any union of views with the class of persons who were the objects of prosecution: he must, in courtesy, suppose, that it was brought forward, not with any view to embarrass the Irish government, or the humble individual now before the House. But, though he was not at liberty to find fault with the motives of the right hon. member, he must complain of the effects. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the hon. member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlow) had moved for the production of papers relative to the committal of the same persons. That hon. member had moved for copies of the bills of indictment which had been ignored by the grand jury, as well as for copies of the ex-officio informations. He must believe, that the object of such motions was to bring the conduct of the Irish government and its law advisers under the review of the House. Now, if the right hon. gentleman considered it unconstitutional to put men on their trial a second time, as it were, by ex-officio information after the decision of a grand jury, the conduct of the right hon. gentleman in the present instance afforded a strange illustration of his own doctrine; for he was not content that he (Mr. Plunkett) should be once put on his trial by the motion of the hon. member for Armagh but he would oblige him to go into another vindication of the part which he had taken in the same transaction. He believed the House would very willingly excuse him for following the right hon. gentleman into the particulars which accompanied the committal; but, in justice to the Irish government, he could not omit stating the circumstances attending that transaction. He would therefore, state them; and he would do so, without having had the slightest expectation of being thus called on. On the 14th of December, the lord-lieutenant went to the theatre. Before he went, it was publicly announced, that there would be a riot at the theatre. Information was given to his excellency that his, person would be endangered. Measures were taken in consequence, which, as afterwards appeared, were ineffectual. The night of the visit arrived, and there was a considerable tumult. Immediately on the lord-lieutenant coming in, the tumult commenced. A general sentiment of approbation of his excellency was expressed by the unbought and unpacked portion of the audience; but it was attempted to be drowned in the violent hisses and groans of the rioters in different parts. But they did not confine themselves to such extemporaneous expressions of feeling as hisses and groans; they dropped down printed hand-bills, containing vulgar and illiberal attacks on the lord-lieutenant, and mottoes of "No Popery," as well as personal insults. It was observed, that between the persons in the pit and gallery, there were signals which afforded evidence of previous concert. In particular, there was a party on the left-hand side of the gallery, who made a violent uproar, by hissing and uttering expressions the most insulting and offensive; and it was remarked, that their expressions were not merely directed against the marquis Wellesley, either in his private capacity, or as lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but were directed also against the Roman Catholic population in general, The cries of "No Popery!" "Down with the Popish government!" were reiterated, and that sort of disturbance continued, until the play was over, and the tune of "God save the King" called for Now, it was of importance to know, that in the box in which his excellency sat, he was by a projection so secured against any mischief from the gallery while he sat back, that it was almost impossible to reach him by a missile from that part of the House. When the tune was called for, his excellency stood up, and advanced to the front of the box, where he became a distinct object to several parts of the house to which he was not visible before. Just then a bottle was thrown from the upper gallery, which passed over the pit, and hit the drop- scene or curtain half way between the centre and the place where his excellency stood. This he could not look on as any light or trivial matter; though some persons seemed to think it a good joke. Three witnesses distinctly stated that it was thrown at the lord-lieutenant, though, when the fact was alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, he (Mr. P.) thought he heard something like merriment, some "peals of devilish laughter." But he would stand on the judgment of the House and the public, whether it was a jeu d'esprit to throw a bottle at the king's representative in the public theatre [Hear, hear!]. He hoped the forms of the House would be preserved, and that he should not be interrupted; but that hon. gentlemen would restrain themselves till he had finished, when they might reply to him. When the bottle had been thrown at the head of the lord-lieutenant, a person who had been very active with a watchman's rattle, was observed to break it in two, and to fling one of the pieces, which hit the box of the lord-lieutenant with such force as to cut the cushion, and leave a deep impression, whence it rebounded, and fell on the stage. These facts were beyond all controversy proved in evidence. It was also proved, that while this was going on, a number of persons were using whistles to create confusion, and that several persons were in the upper gallery armed with bludgeons, and a number of the audience were severely beaten by them. It was clearly proved, that a person named Hand bridge had thrown the bottle, that the rattle was flung by a man named Graham, and that a person named Forbes had been one of the a principal planners and contrivers of the whole attack. He was observed in the corner of the lattices at the left-hand side of the gallery, communicating with those persons who had discharged the missiles on the left. As to Hand bridge, his conduct was taken notice of by a person who never took his eye off him, until he saw him safely lodged in the police-office. These facts occurred on the Saturday night; and some persons were then taken up, who underwent investigation. When he (Mr. P.) was consulted, he was now free to say, that his impression on the first view, was, that the disturbance involved nothing more than a misdemeanor. The investigation continued about seven days. It appeared that Forbes, on being released, had gone to a tavern in Essex-street, where he was met by others; and there he talked of the throwing of the missiles and other particulars of the riot. He spoke of himself as having been involved in the riot, and to that extent which might affect his life. He said he knew he might be transported to Botany Bay; but he had no objection to go there, provided he could raise an Orange Lodge in his place of banishment; that he had only one life, and would freely sacrifice it for the cause. He stated, that the bottle and the other instruments were badly aimed; he regretted they had not hit their object; and, what was more material, he stated his hope that the same efforts would be renewed another time, and be more effectual. Now, all this had been proved by two witnesses on oath, on whose testimony not the slightest imputation had been cast. One of them was a Mr. Farrell, an attorney, the other was a Mr. Troy, a respectable silk-mercer, and he believed their evidence was beyond all imputation. When he (Mr. P.) had heard the testimony of those persons, the whole transaction assumed a different character. Instead of an aggravated riot, in which the danger to the life of the lord-lieutenant was only consequential, it appeared a direct attack on the person and life of his excellency. He gave his advice accordingly; and, under the same circumstances, he would do so again. He had thereby discharged his duty to the crown and the public, in the most conscientious manner, and to the best of his ability. The right hon. gentleman was wrong, however, if he thought that the committal bound him as prosecutor to a particular mode of trial. He seemed to think it criminal to commit on a capital charge, and not to follow it up by a capital indictment. But, nothing was more familiar in practice, and, indeed, it would be highly injurious to the prisoner if, on further investigation, something was discovered which did not bear out the capital charge, and he was to be put on trial for his life.—He would now state what had determined him to forego the capital accusation. He was as anxious as any one that the public mind should be disabused; and if he were now asked it he thought there was a conspiracy to murder, he would say he did not think there was; and, if he were on his oath, in the jury-box, he would, on such a charge, have acquitted the prisoners. But the circumstance which induced him alter his opinion was, that although convinced in his conscience that the party accused entered into a conspiracy to commit crime of as deep a malignity as that with which they were Charged, yet it was not what the law exactly recognized as capital. These men were guilty of a deliberate conspiracy, not to murder, but to compels the lord-lieutenant to change the measures of his government—measures for governing all the people of Ireland by the aid of equal law, without distinction of party or opinion. Yes, against that unprecedented anomaly of equal law in Ireland, was that conspiracy formed.—He would now tell the House of what nature it was. After the king had declared his intention, in his parting letter, of discountenancing party animosities—after he had declared his wish that sentiments of irritation should no longer be encouraged, and had recommended that party toasts should no longer be given—the lord-lieutenant directed, that an anniversary which revived remembrances of their having been a conquered people should be discontinued. Some persons in the city of Dublin who had been in the habit of celebrating those days, were highly exasperated; and four or five persons, members of Orange lodges, consulted together, and it was declared, that the lord-lieutenant's visit to the theatre would be a good opportunity to insult him, and make him unpopular, and would make it also be believed by the government in England, that he was so: he was to be insulted, for the purpose of forcing him to quit the theatre, and ultimately the country. Subscriptions were raised for the purpose of packing the theatre, and filling it with persons from the Orange lodges. The money was raised in an Orange lodge of a higher description, by persons who could find money for themselves, and furnish it for the admission of others. They accordingly met, having deliberately formed this plan. Parties from a particular lodge were to go to the pit door, and seize that part of the theatre near which the lord-lieutenant was to sit. Three persons, members of this lodge, went to the theater on Saturday morning, and purchased a sufficiency of pit tickets to admit sixty or seventy persons to the one-shilling gallery; three going in on one pit ticket. Those persons went to the lodge in Ship-street, where an inferior lodge met. Forbes was one of the persons, but he had not been present at the first meeting. From that place men were sent to the theatre armed with bludgeons, and infuriated with whiskey. Forbes accompanied them; and besides assisting them to the bludgeons, furnished them with instructions to compel the lord-lieutenant to leave the theatre. Could this malicious intention possibly be effected without danger to the life of the lord-lieutenant? Was in probable that the citizens of Dublin would be passive, when such and outrage was offered to their feelings, and such disgraceful violence attempted in their presence? But the rioters seemed to be perfectly in different to consequences, o long as they had a prospect of being able to counter act the king's commands. The principal object being to compel the lord-lieutenant to change his measures, or to leave the government, the danger to his life was but consequential, not direct; and that was not the case which sustained the capital charge. Bills of indictment were sent up to the grand jury, not on the capital charge, but for a conspiracy to riot. He would now ask, whether it was a violation of duty that, in the progress of the inquiry, he had given his advice conscientiously, according to what appeared on the face of the evidence, whether a capital charge, or bills of indictment for the minor offence should be preferred? It seemed, however, he was liable to be arraigned in parliament for that advice; and whether any improper motive could be attributed to the right hon. gentleman for arraigning his official conduct or not, he certainly could not blame his love of freedom, his constitutional zeal, and his anxiety lest the exercise of the prerogative should be overstrained. If the case had been opposite to what it was—if the dressing of king William's statue had been protected by the lord-lieutenant, and a popish mob had gone to the theatre and assailed his excellency, for such conduct, he (Mr. P.) was bound to believe, that the right hon. gentleman, and those who supported him, would have acted as they did on the present occasion. For his part, he could conscientiously say, that if he under such circumstances, had the honour of holding the situation he now did, he should have thought it his duty to pursue the same course. It was not, with respect to one part of the subject, quite so great a novelty to commit for the capital offence, and afterwards to prosecute for the minor, as the right hon. gentleman scented to suppose. He might recollect a case of that sort which occurred at no distant period. Did the right hon gentleman forget that, within less than twelve months, a number of Ribbonmen were arrested in Ireland, and committed on a charge of high treason, but were never since prosecuted at all? He (Mr. P.) did not remember that this circumstance had wrung the conscience of the right hon. gentleman, or he was bound to suppose it would have been brought before parliament, as well as the subject of the present motion. If the House asked why he rose to oppose the production of the documents demanded? he would answer, because it would be a violation of the constitution to grant them—because it would be a proceeding without precedent, to supply the informations upon which persons had been committed under such circumstances. He would say further, that it would be unjust to the magistrates who acted in the case, and who were liable to be prosecuted by the accused parties for having committed them, to put into the hands of the latter beforehand the grounds upon which the magistrates had proceeded. He had never heard of an instance where such a step had been taken. It would be a dangerous precedent to adopt at any time, for no man would come forward and give information against others, if the seal of secrecy, under which he gave it, were to be broken before the whole case underwent the investigation in a court of justice. He could not therefore but regret that the right hon. gentleman, in his zeal to support the laws and constitution, had not chosen a better occasion for the experiment. Some excuse, of course, must be made for a first attempt to preserve the constitution and limit the prerogative; nor did he despair, that in future the right hon. gentleman's efforts might be better directed. For himself, he thought it would be neither fair, nor honourable, nor constitutional, to consent to the motion before the House; but while he resisted it, he was desirous to show, that the power which the Irish government possessed had not been influenced by malice or party spirit.

denied the correctness of the opinion which had been just expressed by the attorney-general for Ire- land, that informations before a magistrate were given under the seal of secrecy. So far was this from being the case, that he considered secrecy of that sort incompatible with justice to the public. If the principle were adopted, it would give rise to a system of espionage, under which the freedom of the people might be annihilated. The lives of British subjects might be assailed by those who dared not avow the evidence on which they acted; and despotism might be thus established. Much as he reverenced the character of the right hon. and learned gentleman, he must say, that his doctrine struck at the root of the administration of justice. He did not say but cases might arise, in which it would be proper to withhold informations. But they must be peculiar cases, and at peculiar periods; such as those in which the Habeas Corpus act would be suspended. In short, he thought the attorney-general for Ireland had totally failed in answering the right hon. member for Cavan, and he should therefore support the motion. He was unwilling, however, that any misconception of his opinions should go abroad. He sincerely wished, that a fair and full opportunity should be given to the Irish government to justify its conduct during the late prosecutions. God knew all his feelings were in favour of the right hon. and learned gentleman, and against the right hon. member for Cavan. But, if the House were deprived of a knowledge of the grounds on which the Irish administration had proceeded, and the informations on which the commitments had taken place, how was parliament to decide the question at issue? Taking the statement which had been made that night as true, it was easy for the attorney-general for Ireland to come to a decision; but it was hardly fair in hint to refuse the other party the same evidence upon which his own judgment was founded. No magistrate should commit to prison, unless he was satisfied that the informations would fully justify the committal. Was a man to be put in gaol at the will of a magistrate? Was no security to be left for the lives and happiness of individuals? Having now heard the statement of the attorney-general for Ireland, he had strong doubts of the justice of the late proceedings in that country. It was said, the lord-lieutenant was attacked with missiles; but it, was added, that his excellency was at the-time in a situation of perfect safety. It was rather strange, if the intention was to murder the lord-lieutenant, that such were the circumstances under which it was attempted. What, too, were the weapons employed? Was it possible, that, in the whole city of Dublin, a pistol could not be found, which would at once have effected the purpose of the conspirators? A bottle, indeed, was thrown, and half a rattle was sent after it; but no injury was done. The first and best opinion of the right hon. and learned gentleman was, that the conspiracy was only one to commit a riot; and he certainly had not informed the House of any thin, which could warrant the change of sentiment that had afterwards taken place. There was nothing in the previous meetings of the Orangemen, which showed an intention to murder. That there was a conspiracy to riot, appeared evident; and those concerned in it, deserved the severest penalty which the law could inflict on them. What, after nine days deliberation, led the attorney-general to change his opinion, he did not know; nor what afterwards caused him to change that opinion back again. First, he considered the crime a conspiracy to riot; then, a conspiracy to murder; and lastly, a conspiracy to riot. Was it not, then, a little too much, when the evidence was such as to excite so many doubts in the mind of the learned gentleman, as to the right judgment which he ought to form of the case, to ask that House to come to a decision, without opening to it every source of knowledge within the power of parliament, and the law of the land? It was essential to the welfare of the country, that the present motion should be carried. The question was, whether the critical circumstances in which Ireland was placed, justified the exercise of a right which had not been used since the Revolution; and which, in his opinion, nothing less than the strongest case, the dearest evidence, and the utmost necessity could justify.

said, that the question was, whether certain informations, upon which the magistrates had committed some persons, accused, in those informations, of a conspiracy to murder the king's representative, should be placed before the House? He must say, that he did consider a great part of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech had been completely beside this question. These were ex-officio informations, the House would observe; and, surely, it was most extraordinary, that the hon. member for Armagh, who had given notice of a similar motion to the present, had not included in his notice these informations. It was not less extraordinary in his right hon. friend, the member for Cavan, to have moved for these papers immediately after the hon. member for Armagh had gone out of town, and the hon. secretary for Ireland had returned to his discharge of his official duties in that country. The question was, whether the magistrates in this case had, or had not, exercised a proper discretion in committing the parties? If so, it was contended, these informations might be produced. But he answered, that they were not necessary for the purposes of the present motion. If they were not, was it desirable, on any other grounds, that this information should be laid before the House? It was admitted, that if the parties had been improperly committed, they might have their actions against the magistrates. Now, was it consonant to practice, that in such a case the House should interfere, the remedy being admitted to reside in a court of law? And if this remedy was so to be administered in a court of law, such a court would be the proper place for the production of these papers. To produce them now, would be extremely unjust towards the parties who might be thus put on their trial. It was impossible that these informations, were they even furnished, could give as much information upon the matter as the evidence adduced by the parties when put upon their trial. On these sound and parliamentary principles, he could not concur in the present motion.

agreed with the right hon. secretary, that the real question was confined in a narrow compass, but differed from him in the opinion, that the present motion was not connected with that of the hon. member for Armagh. They both referred to the same subject. The motion of the hon. member for Armagh did not turn upon the legality of the act, which the attorney-general for Ireland had done, but upon the constitutional exercise of the power which he possessed. This being the case, the whole of the proceedings connected with the exercise of that power in filing of the ex-officio information, ought to be laid before parliament. At present, but a portion of them was in the possession of the House; and this arose from the error which had been fallen into when the sub ct was first introduced. By granting the papers demanded by the hon. member for Armagh, parliament had admitted, that a case existed for investigation, and could only do justice, by granting all the documents relative to that case.

was of opinion, that the papers ought not to be produced, because their production might tend to obstruct the course of justice. He did not think them necessary to enable the House to come to a just decision upon the question. The reasoning of his learned friend who had just sat down, amounted to nothing more than this—that the House having already embarked in error, ought to proceed in that course. The motion was liable to a strong objection, which did not apply to the former motion; namely, that by the production of the papers, third parties would be liable to have actions brought against them, and to the infliction of penalties. He should vote against it.

could not see why the production of the documents should be opposed by the friends of the magistrates, unless it was because those individuals had acted improperly.

said, that the question involved in the present motion was, whether Ireland should continue to be governed by law, or be thrown hack again into the arms of that detestable faction from which it had been recently delivered. If the House wished to rescue that country from the unfortunate state of division in which it had been placed, it ought not, directly or indirectly, to countenance that party in Ireland which considered itself aggrieved, not by the particular transaction to which the motion referred, but by the whole conduct of the existing Irish government, and by the principle of conciliation on which it proceeded. He was sorry to hear the manner in which the intentions of the rioters in the Dublin theatre had been spoken of. Much ridicule had been attempted to be thrown on their proceedings, by a recurrence to the words "rattle" and "bottle." He hoped that the object of the parties would not he lost sight of, in consequence of the attempt which was made to attach ridicule to the instruments which they had employed.

professed himself such a lover of publicity, in all cases where the liberty of the subject was concerned, that he would vote for the present motion. There seemed to have been a good deal of confusion as to the commitments, but every one knew the nature of the Irish government. The lord-lieutenant held one opinion and the chief secretary another; the attorney-general held one opinion and the solicitor-general another; so that the only wonder was, how any person happened to be committed at all. But, while he felt himself bound to support the present motion from principle he was anxious to express his approbation of the conduct of the attorney-general for Ireland, who had done an act more calculated to benefit Ireland than any that, had taken place during the last fifty years. The attempt by ex-officio informations to put down the spirit of party, was one that, under the circumstances, called for his warmest applause.

complained, that his right hon. friend had been unfairly dealt with by the clandestine manner in which this serious charge had been brought forward. The real question before the House was, whether the king's benevolent intention to promote peace and conciliation was to be carried into effect, bonâ fide, or not. The production of the papers could not possible promote that object.

said, that if he could persuade himself that only object of the present motion was to afford a triumph to a faction in Ireland, he would give a different vote to that which he intended to give. But he could not understand how that could in any way be construed to be the object and end of the motion. Was the House to be told; that because faction existed to a lamentable extent in Ireland, they were not to inquire into a particular case of abuse in the administration of justice in that country, when it was brought under their notice? If that doctrine were recognized, there would be and end to all law—there would be an end to the confidence which the people placed in the House of Commons as the ultimate tribunal of justice. In his opinion, a primà facie case of injustice and unconstitutional conduct had been made out against the attorney-general for Ireland. He trusted that that learned gentleman would be able to clear his conduct for the honour of the laws and of those principles of justice which he had once so eloquently sup- ported; but he also trusted, that the learned gentleman would excuse him for saying, that he did not anticipate, from what he had heard that night, that he would be able to do so. Without meaning to excite ideas of ridicule, he must be allowed to express his opinion, that if it had been the intention of the rioters to murder the lord-lieutenant, they would have employed more efficient weapons than a bottle or a rattle. He had been given to understand, that some persons had taken the trouble to ascertain whether it was possible to throw a bottle in the direction in which it had been stated that the bottle was thrown at the lord-lieutenant. In the prosecution of that inquiry, no bottle which had been cast had failed to be broken to pieces; but it appeared that the bottle which was thrown at the lord-lieutenant with a murderous intention was still unbroken. He mentioned that circumstance to show the improbability of the whole story. He regretted the existence of faction in Ireland as much as any man could. He disapproved as strongly of the Orange party, which the right hon. mover was supposed to favour; but still he thought he had a right to call for the papers which referred to an act of greater constitutional injustice than had ever taken place since the time of the Revolution.

said, he would vote for the motion, as it did not appear that any inconvenience would arise from the production of the papers.

declared himself in favour of the motion, but not as an Orangeman. Those societies he considered destructive of the public tranquillity.

in reply, defended himself from the charge of having taken the attorney-general by surprise, as he had submitted the motion to hint on Wednesday, as well as to the secretary for Ireland, before his departure. He disclaimed all wish of governing Ireland, by dividing its inhabitants into factions. He was as sincere a friend to conciliation as any man; but he was, nevertheless, of opinion, that Ireland could not be conciliated without justice being administered equally to all parties. He could wish that there were neither Orangemen nor United Irishmen Ireland; but, as those associations had been mentioned, be must beg leave to say, that the Orange societies were founded upon principles which partook much more of the na- ture of defensive, than offensive associations.

said, that, as the act of the last session had only given the trustees of naval and military pensions the power of making agreements for the sale of them from year to year, and as, by some inexplicable omission, it had not given them the power of making au agreement for the sale of them for a term of years, he now canoe forward, to ask for leave to bring in a bill to remedy that omission. He did not know whether, under such circumstances, it would be necessary for him to trouble the House with an account of the bargain which the trustees had recently made, for sale of part of those annuities; as, however, the hour was a late one, he would confine himself to merely moving for leave to bring in a bill "to confirm an Agreement entered into by the Trustees, under an act of the last session, for apportioning the burthen occasioned by the Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations, with the Governor and Company of the Bank of England."

said, that, as no agreement with the Bank of such a nature as that to which allusion had just been made, could be concluded without the sanction of parliament, and, as the first vote of the House in favour of it, was generally considered to give such sanction, leave to bring in the bill should not be given as a mere matter of course. He, therefore, suggested the propriety of introducing this bill in a committee of the whole House.

said, that, as this transaction went to raise money by way of loan, it ought to be introduced in a committee of the whole House. As to the bargain which had been made with the Bank, he should certainly object to it; not that he considered it at all unfair for the Bank to accept it; but he thought it would be more advantageous to the public, for the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt to take the management of those annuities into their own hands.

said, he thought there was no occasion for going into a committee of the whole House, for the purpose of introducing this bill. The present act of parliament enabled the trustees to make the bargain from year to year it was dear, therefore, that they had the power of making it for the present year. The bill which the chancellor of the exchequer now wished to introduce, was to enable government to make the bargain for five years; and was, therefore, only a bill to amend the existing act. The reason why the House went into a committee upon a loan, was, that the loan was generally raised for the service of the current year. Now, the trustees had received power to sell annuities for the present year; and, therefore, he was of opinion, that the bill might be introduced without going into a Committee.

said, he had a petition to present from Mr. Joseph Wilfrid Parkins. The petition stated, that the petitioner had that day attended at the House, to enter into the requisite recognizances to prosecute his petition against the election of Mr. Kemp, for the borough of Arundel, accompanied by one of his sureties, Joseph Stevenson, and his agent, Henry Taylor; but that his other surety did not attend The petition went on to declare, that, in consequence of the representations made by the petitioner and his agent, the consideration of the validity of his recognizances was postponed till eight o'clock that evening; that at that hour he again attended, with one of the sureties; but that the other, whose name was Wm. Harris, did not even then appear, and, as the petitioner verily believed, voluntarily refused to attend. The petitioner, therefore, prayed the House to extend the time for his entering into recognizances. The act was impera- tive, that the recognizances in question, should be entered into before 12 that night (it was then 1 o'clock); but, perhaps, under the circumstances which had been stated, the House would feel inclined to extend the time to a further day.

was of opinion, that no grounds had been laid for the indulgence requested. He understood that a letter had been received from Mr. Harris, who was an auctioneer, stating, that he was that day attending the appraisement of goods, and that it was therefore quite impossible that he could spare time to attend the House.

contended, that it was quite impossible for the House to accede to the prayer of the petition. The petition did not contain any allegation that Mr. Harris had promised to attend. If petitions so loosely worded were once admitted as just grounds for extending the time of entering into recongnizances, the 14 days allowed might always be enlarged to 28; as it would be easy to state that a surety had refused to attend at the time and place which the act specified.

said, he had asked Mr. Parkins whether he had any written document, from which it could be shown, that Mr. Harris had undertaken to become his surety. Mr. Parkins replied in the negative; but added, that both his sureties had voluntarily offered to become so. The hon. member concluded by moving, that the time for entering into recognizances be extended till that day week.