said, he rose to present a Petition from the inhabitants of the city of Westminster, on a subject of vital importance to the prosperity and eventual power of this country. These petitioners alleged, that they found from statements made in that House by the ministers of the Crown, that there remained, after meeting the wasteful expenditure of 1823, a surplus revenue of nearly seven millions. Now, the great proportion of that surplus was appropriated to that most fallacious and ruinous project the sinking fund—if fund at all was not a most improper application of the term. In place of relieving or upholding the public resources, its immediate tendency was, to depress the spirits and property of the country at large. Let it not, however, be presumed, that it operated, in any manner, to increase the public strength. That money taken out in taxes from the capital of the nation would, if left in the pockets of this industrious and enterprising people, increase in a manifold degree. These petitioners feared and they feared justly, that this unnatural and unnecessary demand on the people, instead of enabling us, in the event of war, to meet the emergency, would exhaust and leave us less prepared to contend with the difficulties of such a situation. The petitioners felt, that although five millions of surplus taxation, beyond the wants of government, was, at best, a fraction, as compared with the whole debt, yet, being annually drawn in excess from the pockets of the people, it was most oppressive. They complained, also, of the increased expense which the misgovernment of Ireland cost the British people. They stated, that from the taxation of Great Britain, nearly four millions were drawn to uphold misrule, misery, and increasing wretchedness in Ireland. Such was the actual state of a country, blessed in the nature of its soil, and possessing a population characterised for spirit and talent. The House must be convinced that the evil could not continue much longer, and that a remedy must be applied to such a monstrous grievance. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, in his most able statement of last year, had fully established the fact, that giving to Ireland credit for its nett amount of revenue, which he stated at something more than 3,823,000l., there were still taken out of the pockets of the British people nearly four millions, to uphold wretchedness, misery, discontent, and suspicion, in that ill-governed country. Doubts might exist in the minds of some hon. members, as to the causes which led to such a lamentable state of things; but, he defied any Irishman to deny that, from whatever circumstances arising, the situation of Ireland was such as he had described. His own opinion was, that such a state of things was to be attributed to a long-continued system of misrule; for he held it to be impossible that if the affairs of a country were wisely administered, any such disastrous consequences should have so long continued unchecked and unreformed. Perpetual promises had been made that something should be done for Ireland; but those promises had been as perpetually broken. When earl Fitzwilliam was sent to Ireland, it was expected that much good would be effected; but, unfortunately, the recall of that nobleman took place at too early a period to allow of the Irish deriving any benefit from his government. The same ruinous system was again persevered in. Afterwards, a happy prospect presented itself in the appointment of earl Cornwallis to the lord lieutenancy; but again the expectations of the people were disappoint- ed, and the dreadful system of governing by separation was again resorted to. Coming down to our own days, did not his majesty's letter in 1821, recommending conciliation and union among all classes of the people in Ireland, afford joy and hope? Yet nothing was done, and, to the very moment at which he was speaking, nothing had been done; and it was by military force alone, by the sword alone, that the tranquillity of Ireland was maintained. The petitioners complained, that nearly four millions of the taxes of this country went to the support of misrule in Ireland. He trusted, that the necessity of reforming the administration of Ireland would be pressed on his majesty's government by every member connected both with that country and with this. No rational person could doubt for a moment, that if government would apply themselves fairly to the consideration of the state of Ireland something might be accomplished. Although any proposition for measures of improvement might in the first instance be opposed, in the end it would be acceded to. When, the first bill for diminishing the disabilities of the Irish Catholics was brought into parliament it had met with violent opposition. "That measure, however," to use the words of one of the most eloquent orators of that country, "which was almost unanimously opposed in the first instance, was almost as unanimously accepted in the last."

expressed his utter dissent from the opinions of the petitioners, and of the hon. gentleman, respecting the sinking fund. Under what more favourable circumstances could parliament expect to commence the reduction of the national debt than those at present existing? Were they to go on interminably without making any attempt at its diminution? The sinking fund, he was persuaded, was in the highest degree beneficial to the country and was the main cause of all the commercial activity from which such advantages might justly be anticipated. Were parliament to consent to the abolition of this fund, they would show themselves utterly unworthy of the confidence of the country.

said, he could not conceive that the hon. gentleman had correctly heard the object of the petition. Whatever the hon. gentleman might think of the sinking fund, he would assert, and when the time came, if the hon. gentle- man would lend him his attention, he pledged himself to prove it, that we had not one pound of a real sinking fund. It was all a delusion throughout. But, to another part of the petition he hoped the hon. gentleman had attended, and to that he trusted he would not object. If it was, as he said it was, his wish to reduce the national debt, he surely could not object to reducing the national expenditure by which that wish could be so readily accomplished [hear]. The hon. gentleman said, "hear." Well, then, the petitioners asserted, that above three millions were annually expended upon, not the government, but the misrule of Ireland; and they prayed that no more money should be laid out for so useless a purpose. There was no country in the world so ill governed as Ireland. The hon. gentleman was acquainted with the customs of other nations—of China and Japan—but he believed that in all his researches and travels he had never met with an instance of such misgovernment as had prevailed in Ireland for the last century. Even in the Philippine Isles, which the hon. gentleman had visited, there was a more just administration of law, if the difference in the moral condition of the people was taken into account. In what way was the money spent? Not for the benefit of the people of Ireland, but for keeping up insurrection acts, and other parts of a system of coercion. He could not help expressing his regret that his hon. friend had presented this petition in the absence of all his majesty's ministers, because it appeared to him to relate to matters of such importance as to demand the serious attention of government.

said, it was undoubtedly true, as stated in the petition, that this country paid above three millions in taxes to carry on the government of Ireland; and it was equally true, that the people of Ireland were incapable of paying that sum for themselves. It appeared to him, therefore, to be incumbent on parliament to inquire into the cause of so extraordinary a circumstance. So long as the present difference of opinion on matters of religion existed in that country, and the consequent disturbances were to be apprehended, people who had capital, which they might and which they would advantageously employ in Ireland, were deterred from making any such experiment. It was his sincere opinion, that until that House adopted measures cal- culated to settle that question, we should not only continue to pay above three millions towards the expenditure of Ireland, but should find that that important portion of the empire, instead of conducing to our strength, would materially contribute to our weakness. If they had means of employment, he was persuaded that no people living would be more disposed to industry, and from whom all the good consequences that invariably flowed from useful occupation, might more assuredly be expected, than the people of Ireland. He was persuaded, that if those circumstances could be removed, which at present prevented the transfer of commercial capital to Ireland, thousands of unfortunate wretches, who were now in a state nearly approaching to starvation, would be immediately relieved, and would soon be placed in a condition of comfort.

said, he should be extremely sorry if any one could for a moment suppose, that the circumstance of Ireland not paying the whole expense of her government arose from any other cause than her inability to pay it. Additional taxes had frequently been imposed on the people of that country, but they had as frequently failed. Indeed, it appeared that the greater the number and amount of the taxes the less was the produce of the revenue. From the year 1807, to the year 1816, different finance ministers had imposed new taxes, amounting nominally to four millions; yet, the fact was, that at the end of that period the produce of the revenue was actually half a million less than at the beginning. It was impossible, indeed, that any fiscal measure in Ireland could be immediately productive. The state in which Ireland was, had not grown out of the occurrences of the last thirty or forty years. It was the result of centuries of misgovernment. It was impossible, therefore, that evils of such long standing could be suddenly remedied. If the present were the last words he should ever speak, he would state, that there would be no peace for Ireland—no happiness for the empire—until religious opinions were put on an equality, by doing what he had again and again and again stated must be done; namely, rendering persons of every religious persuasion in that country eligible to share in all its civil rights. He did not mean to say that any particular class should be preferred, but that all classes should be rendered eligible, and that thus the existing line of demarcation should be entirely done away with. Until that should be done, the impediments to the transfer of commercial capital from this country to Ireland, of which the hon. member for Midhurst had so well spoken, must continue to exist.

, on moving that the petition be printed, observed, that he had had the petition three nights in his hand, but had not seen any of his majesty's ministers in the House before five o'clock, the hour by which petitions must be presented. He certainly agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, on the importance of the petition, relating, as it did, to the remission of taxation. Since he had made his motion, for the repeal of the window-tax, he had received numerous letters pressing the necessity of urging it. He was sorry that he had brought that motion forward at so early a period, but he had thought it his duty to do so, before the final estimates for the year were voted, and before the chancellor of the Exchequer's plan was settled. Notwithstanding the ill success of that motion, he hoped the number of petitions which were pouring in from all parts of the country, would draw the attention of the House to this subject, and have the effect of changing the determination of the right hon. gentleman. In what had been stated by the hon. member for Waterford, he entirely concurred. He would state one fact as a proof of the manner in which matters were managed in Ireland. In the Irish estimates there appeared the sum of 9,700l. for the education of the whole of the Catholic priesthood in that country, and another sum of 89,000l., or nearly ten times as much, for the maintenance of the military force. That so much greater importance should thus he attached to influencing the people of Ireland by the latter than by the former means, afforded sufficient testimony of the vicious character of the system that prevailed in that unhappy country.

hoped that the chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the expediency of delaying the repeal of the linen bounties until the month of July, 1825.

could assure the right hon. gentleman opposite, that owing to the circumstance of his not having duly considered the propriety and expediency of repealing the bounties upon the linen trade before he had come down to the House the other evening with his proposition upon that subject, he had occasioned, in some parts of the kingdom, very great inconvenience and distress. He had no hesitation in saying, that in consequence of the right hon. gentleman's exposition of his plan for rescinding the bounties allowed upon Irish linensr—which bounties upon the low-priced linens amounted to 20 per cent OH the value—upwards of 40,000 hands had been suddenly thrown out of employ. He mentioned this fact only to show the chancellor of the Exche- quer how improper it was, to promulgate any scheme of this nature, without having first well digested it, and availed himself of every information upon the subject that could be obtained. Never, surely, had any public measure been so little considered before its promulgation, as that of taking off the bounties upon low-priced linens. Its effect had been, to put almost a stop to the trade which furnished the support of so many of the poorer classes in Scotland and Ireland. It was to be hoped that the right hon. gentleman would allow himself more time in the preparation of extensive measures which were to affect such large interests. In the present instance, he seemed to have proceeded most unadvisedly. It was also to be observed, that by reason of the high duty upon hemp, the low-priced linen-manufacturers were compelled to use flax. The duty upon hemp was as high as 36s. per cwt. upon the value. Now, the right hon. gentleman should have known, that if he proposed, by withdrawing these bounties, to benefit the trade, he ought at the same time to have remitted the whole of the duty upon hemp. The House might rest assured, that, in point of fact, the bounties in question were no more than drawbacks, to which these manufacturers were as much entitled as any other description of manufacturers could be. At present he would say no more, because he should shortly have to present a petition to the House, connected with the important topic to which he had been adverting.

said, there could be no objection to grant the returns which had been moved for, but he had really no idea that any such motion was to be made, and had still less anticipated the discussion it had occasioned. If the right hon. gentleman wished him to give any answer to his observations upon the proposed alteration respecting the linen bounties, he would observe that that answer would most properly be given in the committee; in which those hon. gentlemen who were not satisfied with the intended arrangements would be enabled to state the grounds of their dissent. For himself, he would confess, that at present he was hardly prepared to go into the subject.

rose to present a petition, signed by several wealthy and respectable merchants and bankers of Belfast, praying for an alteration in the laws relating to bankers in Ireland. He begged the chancellor of the Exchequer's particular attention to the matter of this petition, which originated out of an act passed in the session of 1821, for effecting certain alterations in the charter of the Bank of Ireland. The evils of which this petition principally complained were certain disabling clauses, as affecting the power of bankers to alienate and dispose of their property, contained in an act passed in the 29th of George 2nd. Of that act he would only observe, that no system could be more ingeniously devised to prevent opulent and respectable persons from establishing themselves as bankers in Ireland.

certainly considered the subject to which the petition pointed, as well deserving that serious attention which he for one was disposed to give to it.

thought that the House might not be aware of the nature of that act; for it was an Irish one, passed before the statute known as the "Bankers' act." The consequence of this was, that two distinct codes prevailed in one kingdom, in respect of bankers. He need only mention one clause of the act of George 2nd. to show how necessary was the revision of the law upon this subject. It was enacted, that no person intending to trade as a banker should be enabled to make any settlement upon his son or his daughter, his grandson, or his grand daughter, even for a valuable consideration; but that all such settlements should be absolutely null and void.

thought that no subject could be taken into consideration the result of which would be more likely to prove beneficial to Ireland, than the propriety of making an alteration in the laws affecting bankers in that country.

said, that it might be convenient, if he brought forward his amendment, to alter the duty on Foreign Brandy and Spirits, in the first instance. It affected a large portion of the population, and he felt satisfied, that if the imposts were considerably lowered, the revenue arising from them would be so augmented by the increased consumption, that the chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself in a condition to repeal taxes pressing heavily upon the lower orders. The whole system of our fiscal regulations was abominable, since they afforded the strongest temptations to crimes of every kind, fraud, perjury, treachery, and even murder. To alter them at once might not be easy, but they ought, at least, to be changed by degrees, and he was bound to do ministers the justice to say, that he believed it was only necessary to point out the evils to produce a disposition, if possible, to remedy them. All that the chancellor of the Exchequer had said upon this part of the subject, when he so eloquently brought forward his plan of finance, was worthy of a wise minister of an enlightened country. The great mass of smuggling was not in the light articles from which the prohibition had been removed, but on wine and brandies. If the chancellor of the Exchequer would reduce the duties on wines and brandies, not only would more money be brought into the Exchequer by the increased consumption, but the expense of collection would be diminished, and a permanently beneficial influence would be produced upon the lower orders. The extravagantly high duties on foreign spirits and other articles of daily consumption, induced many persons to embark large capitals in the contraband trade. By the very high profits they made when they succeeded in securing a cargo, they were enabled to give high wages to all those who assisted them in landing it. The consequence was, that whenever a ship so laden appeared oft the coast, the whole of the peasantry were ready to assist in landing and secreting her cargo, confident that they were to be well paid for the risks they ran. The demoralizing effects of such a trade upon the manners and habits of a people were too well known and admitted to render it necessary for him to describe them. It had been truly said on this subject, on a former occasion, by the hon. member for Taunton, that one consequence of our high duties on foreign spirits and other articles, was to place nearly the whole of the southern coast in a state of civil war. The effect of a discovery on some of the individuals themselves was most ruinous. If a man were detected carrying a keg of contraband spirits, he was taken before a magistrate, fined 100l., and in default of payment was impressed on board one of his Majesty's tenders. Was it, he would ask, wise or politic thus on the one hand to punish with such severity crimes to which so many temptations were held out on the other? The revenue laws, he contended, were calculated in man respects to defeat their own object. Such exorbitant rewards were given for the discovery of, smuggled spirits, that persons engaged in the contraband trade were even known to cause information to be given against themselves, in order to come in for a share of the reward, which was sufficiently large to cover the expenses they had gone to, and leave a handsome profit on his adventure. This was not merely a supposed case; for it was not long ago that two officers were convicted of a collusive seizure, having planned with the smuggler that he should land his goods on a certain spot, in order that he might have them seized, and share in the reward on the seizure. Even in a financial point of view, these high taxes on foreign articles of daily consumption were most impolitic. He could show that since the duty on foreign brandies had been increased, the consumption had become less, and the revenue proportionably diminished. In 1806, when the duty was 12s. 6d, a gallon on foreign spirits, the produce of the duty was 1,463,000l. In 1810 it was increased to 15s. 1½d., and the quantity imported was greatly reduced, but the produce increased to about 1,500,000l. This increase, though small, encouraged the chancellor of the Exchequer, who thought a still further increase would be a ready way of increasing the revenue. In 1811, the duty was raised to 19s. 1½d. and the produce fell off to 177,000l. In 1815, it was reduced to 17s. 9d. and the produce increased; but it was only 815,000l. being even yet not much more than half the produce in 1810, when the duty was lower. The same result of an increase of duties was seen in wines. In 1806, the produce of the duties was 1,267,000l.; the rate of duty had since been increased 30l. a pipe on French, and 20l. on other wines, and the produce had decreased to 1,020,000l.—a loss of nearly 200,000l. to the revenue and a reduction of a third of the quantity consumed. Before the committee on Foreign trade, one of the most eminent merchants had stated, that he had been formerly in the habit of importing a great quantity of French wines to prepare for the colonial market; but he had found the Increased Excise and Custom duties on the foreign brandies necessary to prepare the wines for re-exportation so heavy, that he had transferred his establishment to Holland; so that all the employment thus given to industry in this country by the manufacture was lost, and there could be no doubt that the same motive was continually operating in a multitude of instances. What he proposed at present was, merely to bring back the duties now to the scale at which they stood in 1810, with a view subsequently speedily as was practicable, to bring them down to a still lower rate, probably to the rate of 1806. But the way in which this proposition was particularly worthy of attention in a financial point of view was, from the effect it would have on the expense of collection. For as the temptation to smuggling had increased with the increased duties, so had the expense of collection increased. In 1806, the rate of the expense of thee collection of the Custom duties, was 5l. 4s. 1d. per cent. In 1822, it was 8l. 7s. 8d. per cent. The expense of collection in the Excise was, in the former year, 3l. 0s. 1d. per cent; in the latter, 3l. 15s. 5d. percent. In Ireland the expense, percent, in 1806, on the collection of both duties, was 10l.; in the year 1822 it had risen to 17l. If the expense of collection could be reduced to the rate per cent, at which it stood in 1806, there would be a saving of no less than 986,000l. He admitted that in war, when the intercourse between this and the countries of the continent was more limited, and when the large naval force, in the Channel, acted as a guard against smugglers as well as against the enemy, there were less facilities for smuggling, and he therefore did not calculate that a reduction of duties would reduce the expense of collection by the whole sum of 986,000l.; but it no doubt would to a great extent. They might, for instance, reduce nearly the whole expense of the preventive service, which had not been thought of, and had not been necessary, at a former period. He would conclude by proposing, as an amendment, a reduction of 1s. 10½d. per gallon in the duty on foreign brandy, and he would do this with a view to progressive reduction. He felt satisfied, that so far from diminishing the revenue of the country, this reduction would be found to increase it; and if that should prove to be the case, the House might afterwards consider of a further reduction.

said, it seemed to him, that the hon. member did not clearly understand the nature of the bill before the House. It was a bill to renew an act which would expire on the 24th of March, which act was a continuation of another, granting certain duties for one year. The duties now in question were increased in 1807, as war duties. They had been modified in 1815, and since then had been continued from year to year. The present bill did not specific the amount of the duties; it only went to continue the original act, in which they were detailed. He did not see, therefore, how the hon. member's object could be answered, by moving for the reduction of a specific duty, when the amount of that duty was not mentioned in the body of the bill to which his motion was to be an amendment. The best way in which the hon. member could shape his motion would be, to call upon the House for the repeal of so much of the duty permanently. It was this feeling which, on a former evening had made him suggest that a similar mode should be pursued with respect to the duties on rum. It appeared to him, that it would be very difficult for the hon. member to accomplish his object in the way he proposed; and he did not see how he could assist hiin.—He would now say a word or two on the motion itself. He admitted that the duty on foreign spirits was very high; but he thought the present time was not the proper one for making any deduction in them, for such reduction must operate to the prejudice of the manufacturers of British spirit. It might, perhaps, be said, that it would be well to make a reduction in the duties on British spirits also. Perhaps it might be so; but that, it would not be denied, was a great question: and it would not be wise to go into it now, until we had seen the effect of the reductions which had been made in the duty on spirits in Ireland and Scotland. No man, he thought, would deny that it was desirable to have the duties on ardent spirits as high as they could be safely collected. In a moral point of view, there were questions connected with it, into which he would not then enter, but the discussion of which would show the dangerous effects of too free an access to the use of ardent spirits among the people. Besides, the loss to the revenue, from both reductions, would be more than could at present be spared. The hon. member had said, that the reduction would tend to check smuggling. He would admit, that if the duties were reduced to the standard, of 1806 or 1810, the reduction would very much diminish the temptation to smuggling; but then, the hon. member's motion would have no such effect. The reduction of 1s. 10½d. per gallon would be only putting so much money into the hands of the manufacturers, without any sensible advantage to the consumer, and certainly without any chance of checking the exertions of the smuggler. He therefore could not consent to the motion. It was not the proper time for the consideration of such a question. He would admit the principle, that it would be good to remove all high duties as far as practicable; but then they could not be reduced all at once. Besides, if the revenue could afford it, there were other articles which might be said to be the luxuries of the poor, of which he would prefer reducing the duties, rather than that to which the hon. member's amendment referred. The tax on Tobacco, for instance, was very heavy; so was that on tea; and if he thought he could go further than he had done in the way of reduction, he should be more ready to reduce the duties on them, than on the article which the hon. member had suggested.

said, that on the chancellor of the Exchequer's own principle, he ought to go further than he now professed himself willing to go. He had already made a reduction of three shillings per gallon on Scotch spirits, and a reduction also upon Irish spirits; and, as far as the result of that measure was already ascertained, it was found to be most favourable to the revenue. The amount of revenue derived from it was, in the last quarter, 50,000l. more than in the corresponding quarter, when the duty was three shillings higher. There was no branch of our internal industry, which was so mismanaged as the distillation of spirits. It was a complete monopoly, and the profits arising out of it had never perhaps been greater than they were at this moment. He understood that the reduction of the price in Scotland had so increased the demand, that the distillers in that country were unable to supply it; one half of the spirits distilled in Scotland came into this country. The system of smuggling had taken a new direction; it was now as active from Scotland to England, as it had ever been before from Holland to this country. He had taken occasion last session to deprecate the absurdity of preventing the importation of whiskey into England. He had stated at that time, that he had whiskey in his house: he avowed that he had smuggled whiskey in his house then, and he avowed it still; for if such foolish laws were made, they ought to be broken. He would continue to break such a law; and let them find him out if they could [a laugh]. He had refused last year to be a party to the absurdities which were sanctioned by the right hon. gentleman opposite. The hon. member went on to observe, that the partial repeal of the duties in Scotland, had done away with smuggling between that country and Holland, but had increased the smuggling between Scotland and England. Let the chancellor of the Exchequer lower the English duties, and he would put an end to English smuggling on that side. Let him not be afraid of the great distillers. They had always fastened themselves like a night-mare on chancellors of the Exchequer. He was credibly informed that there were several large distilleries about to be established within ten miles of the English border, from which, no doubt, Scotch whiskey was to be poured into this country by wholesale. Let the duties be equally-reduced in the two countries, and a stop would be put to the practice of smuggling, and the revenue would be considerably increased. They had already seen the effect of a reduction of duties in the increase of revenue; but this did not proceed from more whiskey being drunk than before, for the actual consumption would be found to be pretty nearly the same. The chancellor of the Exchequer, by his half measures, was the prime agent and mover of smugglers. He was not the principal smuggler, but it was his mode of proceeding which held out so many inducements to that class. He (Mr. Hume) could by no means consent to the proposition that ardent spirits should be taxed highly. He did not see why every poor man should not have whiskey within his reach, as well as the rich man was allowed to have wine, when he could pay for it. It was, he believed, the difficulty of coming at the spirits, by the high duties which were placed on them, which caused the temporary excesses of many persons when they got it within their reach. Let the duties be abolished, and the spirits placed within the reach of all, and he was satisfied there would be an end of the occasional excesses which we now witnessed. He thought his hon. friend had done right in bringing forward this subject; but he certainty had not gone half far enough. If the chancellor of the Exchequer would bring in a bill similar to that of last year, to reduce the duty on British and Foreign spirits, he was persuaded that it would put an end to smuggling, and that the quantity of spirits drunk would not be increased, but that all which was consumed would pay the duty. The more important this subject was, the more immediate was the necessity of bringing it under the consideration of parliament. It would, perhaps, be scarcely worth while for his hon. friend to press his motion, as the chancellor of the Exchequer had acknowledged that he was right in principle; he hoped, however, that the right hon. gentleman would shortly act upon that principle.

denied that the British distillers would be endangered by the moderate reduction which he had proposed on foreign spirits. The question, as it regarded the morals of the people, had been ably argued by his hon. friend. He did not believe that one gallon more of spirits would be drunk in consequence of the reduction of duties. As to the observation of the chancellor of the Exchequer, that his proposition did not go far enough, he should be perfectly ready to agree to any further reduction to which the right hon. gentleman might be disposed to consent. As his object in bringing forward this motion was to promote the discussion of the question, and that object had, to a certain extent, been attained, he should not press his amendment to a division.

trusted, that ere long the right hon. gentleman would remove the evils arising from the anomaly of one system of laws being acted upon in Scotland and Ireland, and another in this country. With respect to the moral effect of the measure, he was satisfied that taxation was a principal cause of the abuse of ardent spirits. In wine countries it was generally observed, that there was no abuse in the consumption of wine; but, in those countries where the governments, by a system of taxation, rendered wine or spirits difficult to be obtained by the consumer, abuses of these commodities universally arose. He denied, in toto, that the reduction of the duties was likely to have an injurious effect on the morals of the people.

bore testimony to the value of the measure which had been acceded to last session by the chancellor of the Exchequer, and expressed a hope that the right hon. gentleman would, as soon as possible, extend its benefits to the whole empire. He wished to say a few words with respect to the monopoly of distillation in Scotland. There were only five distilleries at work in Scotland for the whole English market. This was a monopoly of a most injurious kind. He would state a single fact to show the inordinate extent to which it was carried. One large set of works was now idle, and the owners of those works had received 15,000l. to abstain from working for the English market. The extension of a free trade in distillation could not fail to promote the agriculture of the whole empire. A large quantity of barley had been sent from England to Scotland in the last year for the purpose of distillation; and the agriculture of England would no doubt derive great benefit from the extension of the system.

said, he could not understand why She island of Dominica should not pay its own chief justice; for the 600l. was the salary of that officer. He thought that ministers might reduce some useless places in the island, and apply the salaries which would thus fall in, to the payment of the chief justice.

said, that if the hon. member would refer to the correspondence which had taken place between lord Bathurst and the principal civil colonial officers which had been printed and laid upon the table of the House in March, 1821, he would there find a statement of the reasons which had induced ministers to call upon the House for the present grant. Ministers did not possess the power of compelling the House of assembly of Dominica to pay the salary of the chief justice.

said, that if the colony did not choose to pay for their chief justice, they ought to go without one. He believed the ground taken by the colonists, in their correspondence with lord Bathurst, was, that while the government of the colonies was administered in so unjust and oppressive a manner, they would not pay for their civil establishments. Under these circumstances he thought the House ought not to be called upon to vote this sum of 600l.

said, that the government would have taken a very serious responsibility on themselves, if they had deprived this colony of the services of the chief justice. There were many considerations which rendered those services necessary in the highest degree. In many cases it became the duty of government to attempt to force a civil establishment on colonies, to which the colonists had no disposition. He trusted, however, that ere long, the colony in question would be able to pay this small sum.

objected to the general impolicy of our colonial system, and complained, that appointments in the colonies were made the objects of patronage.

said, that the importance of the duties which the chief justice had to perform was no reason why the people of England should be called upon to pay for his services. If they were important, they were worth paying for by the colonists; and if they were not worth paying for by the colonists, that was a reason why the people of England should not be called upon to pay for them. The charges for the colonies, to be just, ought to be equal. There was no chief justice at St. Lucie or Jamaica; no civil establishment was paid for in those islands. The principle of taxing the people of England for the civil establishment of the colonies was so unjustifiable, that he would take the sense of the committee on the subject.

said, that by far the greater portion of the West-India Islands did pay the whole expenses of their civil establishment, but the island of Dominica was, and always had been, one of the most distressed spots in the West Indies. It had suffered repeatedly from violent hurricanes, which had destroyed the whole annual produce of the island. Many parts of it were so sterile as scarcely to repay the labour of cultivation. Under these circumstances, though undoubtedly the propriety of the general rule, that the colonies should pay for their own civil establishments, could not be denied, yet, in the case of this small island, which had a difficulty in raising its own supplies, he thought we ought, in fairness and justice, to take upon ourselves the moderate portion of the expenses called for in this vote. The salary to the chief justice was not a matter which merely interested the planters of that island; the office was of essential importance to that unfortunate portion of the population, whose well-being mainly depended on the pure administration of justice. Under these circumstances he trusted the. House would not refuse its sanction to the vote.

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, he would not divide the committee on the question; but he would do so next year, if the vote should be then proposed.

next moved, "That 8,229l. be granted, to defray the charge of the Civil Establishment of Upper Canada, for the year 1824;" which, he said, was 4,000l. less than the sum voted last year.

said, that Upper Canada was only separated by an ideal line from the colonies of the United States, which not only paid the whole expenses of their civil, but their military establishments. It was extremely unfair and unjust, that the people of England should be called upon to pay the expenses of the civil as well as the military establishments of her colonies. Before the people of England were taxed, for the purpose of maintaining a civil establishment in Upper Canada, it was fitting that at least they should know of what that establishment consisted. It appeared to him a most improper appropriation of the public money. The people of Canada should provide for their own establishments. If all the officers who were kept there were useful, let their maintenance be provided for by the legislative assembly; but if, as he believed, they were considered unnecessary, why then let them at once be discharged. But, he believed, the people of Canada would throw upon the shoulders of the people of England, all these burthens (and naturally enough too), if the people of England were weak enough to submit to it. For instance, here we find two she riffs. Now what had we to do with these sheriffs? Why should we pay the sheriffs of Canada for duties performed there? He should be glad to know, whether they received no fees. If he were rightly informed, they had a very ample income. Again, we had a secretary and a registrar to provide for. He should be glad to know what duties they performed. Did they send home any accounts to this country? Next came a clerk of the council, an officer appointed for the assistance of the local government. Then we find a surveyor-general of the land. Why, what became of all the money which was received for the sale of land? The United States derived a revenue of some millions a year from the sale of land; and if the British government would begin to sell the lands near the presidencies and the large towns, those lands would become productive. He had expected, after all the information which the hon. secretary opposite had received—after what had been clearly stated by Mr. Gourlay, an eye-witness, as to the capability of those colonies to defray their own expenses—that the House would not now be called upon to pass such an heavy item. He found, too, 100l. for a naval officer. Did he reside in England? He believed that the people of England were called upon to pay him his salary for doing nothing. These naval officers were appointed when there were no collectors of customs, and they had been continued ever since. The people of England had no more to do with these officers than the inhabitants of Ceylon or Calcutta. Then there was an agent, with a salary of 200l. a year. He should be glad to know what he had to do, or where he resided? In fact, he looked upon all these items as objectionable; and if the committee would only agree to refuse this vote, they would find that a proposition would be submitted to the legislative assembly, to make provision for their chief justice, their attorney-general, and other officers, if they considered their maintenance necessary; and there could be no question that they would reply, "we have a necessity for these officers, but there are others with whom we can dispense, and we will keep those we most want." He should therefore feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon this item, on the ground, that we had no right to defray the expenses of a colony, which was as rich as the United States, and better able to bear their own burthens than the people of England.

said, that the hon. gentleman rested his opposition to this vote upon the ground, that the people of England were called upon to defray the expenses of useless offices. Now, this was a perfectly incorrect statement of the case. Up to the year 1816, all the expenses of that colony were borne by this country. Was it fair to compare with the United States a colony which had not an existence in the year 1790, and which was capable of conferring great benefits upon this country? The whole argument of the hon. gentleman might be resolved into this simple question—"Is there any office in the colony that ought to be abolished?" Now two-thirds of the expenses were raised by the colony itself. The aggregate expenditure amounted to 30,000l., of which sum 20.000l. were furnished by the colony; and he thought it would be unjust in their present condition to call upon them to supply more. Last year, when a proposition had been submitted to the House to unite the two Canadas, which measure, if carried into execution, would have completely done away with the separate expenditure, the hon. gentleman was one of the first to oppose it. If the hon. gentleman meant to lay down the principle, that the colonies were no advantage to the mother country, that would let into the consideration of the House a very extensive and important question; namely, the propriety of abandoning those colonies; but that was a subject quite foreign to the object now before the House, which was the consideration of the colonial estimates. The hon. gentleman had talked of the profits arising from the sale of lands; but, was he ignorant, that these lands produced no pecuniary value, but were granted to those who would undertake their cultivation? The question which the House had to look at, was the total expense of the civil establishment of Upper Canada, viewed in relation to her resources and the necessity of maintaining a local government. Now, was the general expense of the colony more than should be borne? Was it more than the mother country should contribute to a colony, as yet in an infant state? The hon. member had asked, what advantage we derived from this colony? This was not the question which the House had to discuss; but, if the hon. member would give notice of a motion, having for its object the abandonment of these colonies, he would soon see the kind of feeling it would produce throughout the country. It was difficult to estimate the value which the country derived from her colonies. The hon. member for Aberdeen seemed to think that there could be no advantages produced, unless they could be shewn to him arithmetically on a balance sheet. But, in speaking of our colonial system, he always felt that he was speaking of the wealth, the power, and the commercial resources of the empire; and he was persuaded that, enlightened as the country now was by sound and rational principles of political science, the nation would be able to appreciate her colonial advantages, even though their precise pecuniary value could not be demonstrated on a balance sheet. These were the real principles by which the extensive interests of a country like this ought to be estimated; and the hon. member would perhaps do better to consider the subject in that point of view, than in dealing in generalities, or pinning his faith on the information of Mr. Gourlay. However, agreeing with the hon. gentleman in the principle, that the first object of the government should be to diminish the expense of our colonies, but denying the wisdom of withdrawing our support from them whilst in a state of infancy, it would be sufficient for him to say, that it was the determination of the government to support every plan by which their improvement could be promoted. If the House should refuse the present vote, they would inflict incalculable evil. Every effort should be made to promote the prosperity of these colonies, and that could only be done by affording them present assistance.

said, it would be well for the House to examine the system that was acted upon in the settlements of the United States of America. They defrayed the expenses of their own establishments, and all that his hon. friend had proposed was, that the people of Canada should follow the example of their neighbours, and consent to pay for the protection of those laws which they enjoyed. They should at least pay, as their neighbours paid, for a government which was respected and beloved by the people. For a good and sound government, such as their neighbours had the happiness to enjoy, they would most cheerfully contribute. But when they saw the enormous church establishment, which they were called upon to support; when they saw the great anxiety which prevailed to introduce into the new world all the fol- lies and curses of the old; they were naturally disinclined to advance their money for such purposes. Instead of tithes, the clergy were allowed land; and he understood that in Canada all the lands attached to the church remained untouched, whilst all around were in a state of cultivation. Such a system called for immediate investigation. Whether his hon. friend was quite right in attempting to put down the system at once, was another question; but he was sure that it was the only way to make the government do any thing; for, year after year, the same system was going on. The precedent of this year would be of longer standing in the next; it would then become sanctioned as a custom to maintain establishments, of which our great grandchildren might not see the termination.

said, that the hon. member seemed to have forgotten one very essential circumstance; namely, the war in Canada, and the militia pensions which it necessarily created. Was it not fair and just that this country should continue to defray these expenses for some time longer? He was confident that in the course of a very few years, this country would be relieved from the necessity of defraying the expenses of Upper Canada, as the resources of that country were rapidly increasing.

said, he approved of the vote, and was of opinion, that the colony ought to be encouraged, since it might become, in our possession, a counterpoise to the power of the United States. With respect to the sale of lands he did not know that any revenue derived from such a source would go into the pockets of the people. He took it that the proceeds would go to the Crown, and not be disposable by parliament. But, without entering into that question at present, suffice it to say, that it was clearly the policy of this country to advance money at present to the support of this colony.

said, that if so great an improvement was going forward in this colony as had been stated, surely they would not require so large a sum to defray the expenses of their establishments. He was of opinion, that the best policy which this country could pursue with regard to the Canadas, would be, to render them independent at the end of ten years, by which we should be relieved from a large annual expense, and avoid the probability of being drawn into a war with the United States on their account, which might cost us millions. "But," said the hon. secretary—"you do not act fairly; I wish to give this colony good laws, and then leave them to themselves. You opposed the measure of the union." It was true he had done so, and he was proud to acknowledge it; because he conceived that nothing could have been more unjust than to have united Upper and Lower Canada without their consent. He considered it a disgraceful attempt to cheat these colonies [hear!]. Yes, he repeated, "cheat them." It was a disgraceful attempt to do that which he doubted very much whether the House had the power to do; namely, to establish a union between these two provinces without their sanction or knowledge. Was it not the duty of government to ascertain whether Lower Canada had paid to Upper the money which was due? If that had been done, no assistance could be required from us; but he clearly saw the more that was given, the more would be demanded. The people of this country were taxed to support the civil and military establishments of these colonies; but let the House refuse the money, and government would soon make a reduction, and the legislative assembly would resort to their own resources. If the government persisted in sending them out servants which they did not want, the extravagant expenditure would continue; and upon these grounds, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the vote. He regretted the necessity he was under of dividing the Committee to see how many would support him, but he should feel it necessary to do so, unless some hope were held out by the government, of a diminished estimate in the following year.

said, he could not support his hon. friend, and was therefore anxious to say a few words to explain the reasons which induced him to vote against those with whom he generally acted. You cannot lay down a principle by which you can regulate, whether colonies should be compelled to maintain themselves, or should receive assistance from the mother country. If this country had been too extravagant in her colonial expenditure—a proposition which he was disposed to admit—that was not the place to examine the subject. The expenses could only be examined by a committee up stairs; with any hope at least of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. It appeared to him rather hard, that the hon. secretary should be called upon, unprepared, to go through the details of the expenditure; and, even if he were prepared, he doubted whether the House would feel disposed to listen to them. With respect to Upper Canada, it happened accidentally to him, to have been made acquainted with the establishment in that country; and from the information he then bad obtained, he would say, that nothing could have been more deplorable than the state of the administration of justice at one period. This arose from various reasons; partly from the great extent of territory, the paucity of inhabitants compared with that extent, and the violent fends which arose, in consequence of the formation of the Hudson's Bay and Selkirk companies. Surely, then, it would be most unwise to diminish the civil establishments of that country. On the contrary, a clear case of necessity had, bethought, been made out for the government to step in and make up that deficiency, which, under the present state of things, it was impossible for Upper Canada to supply. A time, he hoped, would soon arrive, when that colony would be able to maintain her own establishments; but, until then, it would be most imprudent in us to withhold our assistance. Other topics had been touched upon not connected with the subject, and one in particular of great importance; namely, what place Upper Canada would hold in case of another dispute between this country and America. But, surely this was not a time to enter upon the discussion of one of the most important subjects which could come under the consideration of government, and respecting which ministers would incur a fearful responsibility, if they took a single step without maturely weighing all the consequences. For the reasons he had stated, if his hon. friend should persevere in his determination of taking the sense of the committee, he must be under the necessity of voting against him.

suggested to his hon. friend, the propriety of withdrawing for the present his opposition to the vote.

said, his hon. and learned friend seemed to suppose, that he wished to deprive the colony of Upper Canada of justice. Now, such was not his intention; but his object was, to make them shake off those officers whose services were not required, in order to enable them to main- tain those who were necessary. His friends around him seemed to entertain a hope that a reduction would be made in the establishment. He confessed he had no such expectation. However, he would not divide the committee on the present occasion.

rose, to ask if any certain information could be obtained respecting this colony. There were various reports in circulation as to its utility. He should like to know what benefit the country derived from the establishment? He had heard that the loss of lives in it was very considerable, and the expense, the House saw, was great.

thought the committee was not a proper place to discuss the question, as to the utility of the establishment at Sierra Leone. That was a question of wide import, and was to be considered not merely in a commercial point of view, but in its tendency, as an experiment to promote the civilization of Africa. The House was called on to vote this sum as a consequence of a certain system, and the hon. member might, if he pleased, bring that system under discussion; but this was not the proper time for so doing.

observed, that in the year 1817 a committee had examined into the state of these settlements, which at that time were under the management of the African Company. Now, as that company had been established for the better promotion of the slave trade, it became matter of consideration with the committee, whether these settlements ought not to be abandoned, seeing that the objects for which they were established had been declared illegal by the legislature. It was, however, determined that they should be kept up, for two reasons; first, because they were calculated to promote com- merce and civilization among the inhabitants of the countries in which they were situate; second, because they afforded the most tangible means of obtaining information regarding the interior of Africa. He wished to know whether these two objects were now attended to.

observed, that these objects still attracted the notice of government. He had no hesitation in saying, that, notwithstanding the Ashantee war, the natives in the neighbourhood of these settlements were in a state of slow but progressive improvement. He looked upon these settlements as experiments on a great scale, which ought to be judged of rather by their ultimate results than by their immediate progress from year to year.

observed, that he had expected never to have heard of this grant again. With regard to the salaries paid to the private secretaries of the governors of Barbadoes, and the other West-India islands, amounting altogether to 1,822l., he had no hesitation in saying, that the country ought to be relieved from them altogether, as they were in possession of a considerable income arising from their fees of office. If he did not receive some satisfactory assurance upon this subject, he should move as an amendment, that the amount of these salaries be deducted from this grant.

observed, that the hon. member seemed to be confounding the private secretaries of the governors with the public secretaries of the island. The latter functionaries did, it was true, receive fees; but the former received none, their emoluments being confined to the sum of 10s. per diem that was paid to them. He contended, that a private secretary was an indispensable adjunct to a West-India governor.

thought that the explanation of the hon. secretary was any thing but satisfactory.

said, it was absolutely necessary for every governor of a West-India island to have a private secretary. Their emoluments were barely sufficient to support the rank and station which they were called upon to fill; and, as that was the case, the public could not do less than pay the salaries of their private secretaries.

observed, that his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) and his private secretary had rendered more service to the public than all the public men with all their private secretaries under the pay of government. He hoped his hon. friend would take the sense of the House on the question.

said, what he complained of was, that the governors of the colonies did not call on the houses of assembly to pay their private secretaries if they wanted them. He did not see why Barbadoes, St. Kitt's, and other places, should call upon this country to support private secretaries for them, when New South Wales had hitherto done without one. He concluded with moving, "That the grant should be reduced to 620l."

rose to object to this money being placed in the hands of this society. Fie had on a former occasion stated two instances of its neglect and misconduct, and he could not but feel strong surprise at hearing it again proposed to intrust so large a sum to its control. In a published account of its expenditure, it was stated, that the managers of the society had given 50l. to build a school in Newfoundland. That was in 1818. In 1819, the report which they published contained an asser- tion, that the school was built, and that scholars were instructed in it. In 1820 that account reached Newfoundland, and then, for the first time, it appeared from letters received from that island, that there was neither school built, books purchased, nor scholars instructed. On this circumstance being mentioned to the directors of the society, they admitted it to be fact, but alleged that it was a mistake. Now, what credit ought the committee to attach to a society which could be guilty of a mistake like this? Another reason why this society ought not to have the control of this money was, that the inhabitants of the town of St. John's, had absolutely refused to lend their churches to the missionaries, on account of their impropriety of conduct. He had likewise heard that it had misapplied the public money in the province of Canada. There was another point which he thought the committee ought to take into their consideration, and that was that the zeal of the prelates who managed this society did not lead them to contribute more than 635l., and that the whole of this sum was consumed in what were called the necessary expenses of the office. Was this, then, a society to which parliament ought to concede the control over 15,000l. of the public money? Such a grant, as it would put money into hands unworthy to receive it, was perfectly unwarrantable. Indeed, if they consented to it, they would be substantially throwing the money away. If religious instruction were wanted by the inhabitants of these colonies, let their respective governments furnish it to them. Why were we to give so much to the people of Canada and Nova Scotia, when we did not give any thing like it to the Catholic population of Ireland? Thinking this vote to be perfectly unnecessary, and hoping that many members would be of the same opinion, he should move as an amendment, that the whole vote be withdrawn.

said, that looking to the series of years during which this society had performed the duty which was contemplated by this grant, he thought they might safely be intrusted with its performance at present. But, admitting, for argument's sake, that the society were not proper persons to dispose of the bounty of parliament, would they, therefore, withhold this sum altogether? Did they not know that it was absolutely necessary for those provinces? It was true the grant had been usually placed in the hands of the society for the propagation of the gospel; but surely the hon. gentleman must know, that that society was in constant communication with the ecclesiastical and civil authorities in those colonies. He thought the hon. member had not made out any case of the misapplication of the fund, or of misconduct on the part of the society: and therefore he hoped the committee would not be induced to refuse it. The growing population required this assistance. It was, he conceived, a very proper appropriation of the public money. It was usefully bestowed, and ought to be supported.

said, the country, it appeared, was, in addition to the civil and military establishment of those colonies, to support the ecclesiastical establishment. He wondered they were not called on to pay every medical gentleman who proceeded there. Doubtless, their skill would be as beneficial to the bodies of the inhabitants, as the exertions of the clergy were to their souls. Why should not those individuals pay for an establishment, from which themselves alone derived benefit? And they would do so, if these improvident grants were not made. He observed, that a rev. Dr. Inglis, who officiated at Halifax, a large flourishing town, received 400l. a year from this parliamentary grant. Other clergymen received severally from the same source 300l., 200l., 100l., and smaller sums for their services. The system was bad in principle; and it became still more objectionable, when they considered the medium through which the bounty of parliament was conveyed.

supported the motion. The grant had heretofore done much good, and it would have a mischievous effect if it were now withheld. With respect to the society for the propagation of the gospel, its labours had been beneficial. It was true that it had been exposed to some atrocious impostures, which ought to be inquired into; but, of its general utility, no doubt could be entertained. The grant, in his opinion, ought, if altered at all, to be increased.

said, it no doubt was very proper that those individuals should receive religious instruction; but the question was, who were to pay for it, the people of England, whose advantage must be contingent, or the inhabitants of the colonies, who received the immediate benefit of religious instructions? Another ques- tion was, through whose hands should this grant be distributed? He contended, that it should go through the hands of the responsible authorities of the colonies, and ought not to be intrusted to this nondescript society. It might or it might not be respectable for any thing that had come to his knowledge. But they now knew this from the hon. member who spoke last, a leading authority on these matters, that the society were the most consummate dupes that had ever been heard of. The hon. member had spoken of accounts that would astonish them, and of "atrocious impostures." He would then ask the House whether, without any evidence as to the good done by the society, and with their eyes open to the mischief that had been effected, they would consent to vote this large sum of money? He would not oppose the proposition altogether; but he would vote against placing the money in the hands of the society. It ought to be intrusted to responsible directors of the colony, who might distribute it as they thought proper.

said, that his observation as to irregularities was not meant to be general. Many of the most honourable characters were connected with that most useful body.

said, that if the hon. member supposed that the whole of the religious establishment of those colonies was supported out of this grant, he was much mistaken. In Canada, tracts of barren land were set apart for the support of the clergy [a laugh]. The country, it should be observed, improved by cultivation, and as fast as those lands became available, they afforded moderate incomes to the clergy, in addition to what they obtained from parliament. But even if the colony made no effort itself, still he contended it was the duty of the mother country to appropriate funds for the purpose of promoting the happiness of the people; which could only be done through the medium of religious instruction. The hon. member for Aberdeen had remarked on the small sum subscribed for this purpose by the great dignitaries of the church; but he should recollect, that those who contributed to this society contributed also to many other most useful institutions. It might as well be said, when the hon. member gave sixpence to a beggar in the street, that his charity extended no further, as that the charity of those reverend persons was confined alone to this society. The hon. member ought to know that government found it necessary to request the assistance of the society, in preference to the employment of their own agents in the apportionment of this grant.

supported the resolution.

looked upon this grant as a great waste of public money. The great majority of the people of Canada, he had always understood, were Roman catholics; and here they were called upon to give a large sum of money to a sect greatly inferior in numbers. The catholics maintained their clergy, and he could see no reason why the protestants should not do the same.

inquired whether this money was appropriated under the superintendence of the colonial government to the support of the protestant religion, or whether it was distributed amongst those fanatics whose wild doctrines were calculated to do so much mischief.

said, that the money was appropriated to the support of the protestant religion only.

said, that that was the most objectionable part of the grant. Why were the catholics of Ireland and the dissenters to be taxed for the benefit of another sect?

defended the society. It had, he said, been a chartered society ever since 1711, and certainly was not established in times which were least favourable to religious feeling. If the committee refused this vote, they would be guilty of two kinds of injustice. They would do injustice to a respectable society long existing in the country, not only without reproach, but which parliament had sanctioned from year to year, and the abuses of which, if any existed, ought to be made the subject of investigation in another manner, and not in the way recommended by the hon. members for Aberdeen and Dover, whom he advised to exercise their united efforts in behalf of the religion of their country, by preferring a regular and distinct motion, embracing the charges to which they fancied the society liable. They would be also guilty of another injustice: an injustice to those meritorious individuals who were doing the work of religion and the church on the other side of the Atlantic, in the full confidence, that the support which they had hitherto received from parlia- merit would be continued. Nothing, certainly, could be more unjust than to withhold from those persons the reward which they had so hardly earned.

also defended the grant.

said, that although he should certainly prefer seeing the grant in the hands of responsible persons, he should be very unwilling to refuse his assent to the vote altogether. If he must, therefore, come to the question, aye or no, he would certainly say that it was better the money should be in the hands of the society, than that it should be refused entirely.

said, he had only alluded to some irregularities into which he wished inquiry to be made. With respect to the missionaries, he did not believe that they would be found, when the matter was investigated, to have been inculcating those fanatical and dangerous doctrines to which the hon. baronet seemed to allude. He held in his hand a copy of the resolutions of the hon. baronet's constituents at Newcastle, which showed what they thought on the subject [Cries of "read, read"]. He would not read them in that irregular way, but he would hand them to the hon. baronet.

said, that the observation he had made, had been entirely misunderstood by the hon. gentleman. He had seen those resolutions; but as they proceeded from a very small portion of his constituents, and were couched in such language as could reflect little credit on any body, he did not think it necessary to read them. He trusted he had too much taste to touch the question of the missionaries as connected with the West Indies. He would not say a word on this latter subject at present; but, whenever it should come under the consideration of the House, he should be prepared to express his honest opinion upon it.

defended the propriety of the grant, and approved of its being placed under the control of the Society.

then moved an amendment, which went to place the grant at the disposal of the governors of the colonies.