presented a petition from the parishioners of Templemore, of which parish the cathedral of Derry was also the parish church. This petition, he said, had been adopted at a vestry lately held, the dean of Derry presiding. The object and prayer of it were, to induce the House to institute an inquiry, whether any economy fund existed applicable to the repair of the cathedral. The petition stated that the parishioners had been for a length of time deprived of the use of the cathedral. This had produced a feeling of soreness and anxiety amongst as numerous and respectable a protestant congregation as belonged to any cathedral in the united kingdom. It had been repeatedly urged by the dignitaries of the diocess of Derry, that the cathedra], with respect to any claim of repair, was no more than any parish church in the diocess; the parishioners had accordingly assessed themselves, in the year before last, to an amount, sufficient to put an entire new roof on the cathedral, but further repairs were necessary, beyond the convenience of the parish to levy all at once. They, therefore, under the authority of an act of last session, proposed to the Board of First Fruits in November last, to rate themselves to the extent of 60l. a year, as a security to the Board, under the provisions of the 13th section of the said act, for an advance to the parish of a capital sum, at 4 per cent, which would have afforded 1,500l. The reply returned by the Board of First Fruits was, that they had not sufficient funds in their hands. In order to provide for the immediate repair of the cathedral and the rebuilding of the spire, the Corporation voted 80l. a year in perpetuity, on which to raise a fund for this purpose. The parishioners likewise voted 60l. a year, with instructions to the member for the city of Derry to bring a bill into parliament to legalise these respective votes, and to provide powers for raising money thereon. Individual subscriptions were subsequently solicited; the bishop subscribed 850l., and the dean 100l. To vest the money which might be thus raised in trustees, and to secure its due application, was the first object of a bill introduced this session. The bill had another object, which was, to create a permanent fund for the future support of the cathedral; by charging, after present incumbency, 500l. a-year upon the deanery of Derry, grounded upon the precedent of the 37th Geo. 3rd, to increase the fabric fund of the cathedral of Lichfield, and upon the precedent of an Irish public act passed in 1790, charging 300l. a-year for ever on the deanery of Down, as a fund to support the cathedral of Down. Petitioners felt themselves aggrieved by the rejection of this bill on the second reading, unless other parties besides the parishioners were liable to the repairs of cathedrals. Amidst the doubts, however, upon this subject, and the difficulty of rendering available various funds which had been recently alleged to have been diverted from their proper purposes, this most respectable congregation had remained without the use of this sacred edifice, to which they were peculiarly attached. Even since the rejection of the bill, it had been alleged by the bishop of Derry, in a return made to this House, that there was not any economy fund applicable to the repairs of this cathedral. The dean and chapter of Derry had lately made a similar return; yet documents moved for, and now before the House, stated the particulars of funds which were at one period at least in existence, and applicable to this purpose. This petition also refers to the Irish Society, who are supposed to have built this cathedral originally, and with some obligation to assist in its permanent support. Under all these circumstances, petitioners felt justified in considering themselves neglected and ill-used, if immediate provision should not be made to relieve them from the difficulties under which they laboured. He was happy to state that, he had the assurance of his right hon. friend, the secretary for Ireland, that a strict investigation should be made into the existence and past application of the funds referred to in this petition. He might be asked, then, why had he brought it forward? His answer should be, that he was urged so to do by these petitioners, his constituents, who were anxious thus to prove to the world, that the bill which they had solicited had been sought for, on their part, with the purest anxiety for the credit of the Church.

charged the petitioners and the lessees of the estates near Londonderry, held under the Irish Society, with great ingratitude. The corporation had been uniformly good landlords. They built schools, and provided, years ago, the money for erecting a stone bridge; but, up to that hour, the foundation of the said bridge was not laid. He took a retrospect of the first connexion of the corporation with these estates. The very first year, the then bishop of Derry embezzled the whole of the money due at the period out of the rents. There were funds amounting to nearly 6,000l. per annum, accruing out of the fisheries, that might be made available to the repairs of the cathedral. These funds were misapplied; and, not satisfied with that, the parties turned round and abused the Irish Society in newspapers, and in a petition which the right hon. baronet had had the courtesy to suppress.

said, he held in his hand a petition from Mr. John Lawless, the proprietor of a newspaper published in Belfast, and who in that capacity might be considered more than a single item in casting up the account of public opinion. The prayer of the petitioner was, that the legislature would put a stop to all religious processions in Ireland. That such a measure was desirable, he believed every member would willingly agree, though there would undoubtedly be differences of opinion as to the mode of carrying it into execution. That these processions widened the breach between the members of different religions, no man in his senses would now dispute. The petitioner stated, that all attempts to put an end to them, except by law, would be utterly useless; and he (sir J. M.) begged leave to add, that if it were thought of consequence to the country that parliament should avow its disapprobation of them, as it recently had done, there could be no harm done in promulgating that disapprobation in the shape of a law, prohibiting their future celebration. He had observed in a newspaper, that the Orange society of Dublin had recently published a notice to the different provincial societies, recommending them to discontinue the procession on the 12th of July next. He applauded the Orange society for what they had done upon this occasion; though, if the same degree of justice were meted out to them which they were in the habit of meting out to the Catholics, it might be said, that the notice which they had given was very much in the shape of an order, and their recommendation very like the exercise of an act of sovereignty. He could have wished that they had gone still further, and recommended those with whom their recommendation had weight, never again to commemorate the victories of civil war—those victories, which, though they conferred laurels stained with kindred blood, produced little emulation and no triumph—"nullos habitura triumphos" which the generous or the wise would wish to commemorate.

said, he rose to present a petition from an individual who complained of a succession of the most unexampled wrongs, connected with those scenes which the tragic drama enacted in Ireland had exhibited for the last twenty-five years. It appeared from the petition, that Mr. Bernard Coile, about thirty years ago, introduced into the north of Ireland, a branch of the cotton manufacture from Scotland, where he was educated. It was the branch of the muslin manufacture. In giving to Ireland, above all other nations, any such boon as the introduction of a new manufacture, he was a benefactor to his country. About the years 1795 or 1796—when first the Orange system was introduced into the north of Ireland; and when the county of Armagh was in that state of anarchy and violence which had called forth the memorable declaration of lord Gosford—the petitioner was arrested under a warrant, certainly without a parallel in the judicial records of this country. In that warrant, Mr. Coile was described as a reputed Papist, and with having also given ball-cartridge to a soldier with the view of overturning the government of the country. On that serious accusation he was never brought to trial, and was subsequently enlarged. The malice of his enemies was not satisfied. Though enlarged, he continued to be annoyed by a series of petty vexations. The result was, that he was compelled to leave that very county in which he had introduced a new branch of manufacture, and went to reside at Dublin. Soon after broke out the rebellion of 1798. Yet, such was the conduct of Mr. Coile at that time, that he was not for a single hour deprived of his liberty. In 1803, he was arrested as a state prisoner, and sent to the gaol of Kilmainham. Here began a tissue of outrages, perpetrated, in a great degree, by a Dr. Trevor, such as were unprecedented in the history of any civilized country. These outrages were of so cruel a nature—they abounded with expedients So calculated to degrade our nature, and to revolt public feeling—they formed such a combination of meanness and malice— they were so miserable, and yet, for the base object of vexation and cruelty, so nefariously operative, that he would not disgust the ears of that House, by reading them. It was sufficient to say, that the prisons of France, even under the rule of the sanguinary Robespierre, never exemplified greater atrocities. It happened, at length, through the intervention of a nobleman, who, through his whole life, had been anxious to step between the oppressor and his victim—he meant the marquis of Hastings—that Mr. Coile was liberated. In 1808, the late Mr. Sheridan brought the subject before the House of Commons, and succeeded in obtaining a royal commission to inquire into the state of the prisoners confined in Kilmainham. The persons whose sufferings were the subject matter of inquiry, demanded that the investigation should be public. Those whose deeds were the object of proof, demanded that the inquiry should be secret; and with these the commissioners acquiesced. The consequence was, that only one of the state prisoners was examined, and he was suspected to have been an informer. The only other witnesses were the turnkeys and servants of the gaol, accomplices in the alleged cruelties. The absence of lord Hastings from England, and the death of Mr. Sheridan, disheartened the petitioner from proceeding in his attempts to obtain redress. He had, however, been encouraged to renew them, by the liberal feeling which the House exhibited towards Ireland last session. He therefore wrote to him (sir J. M.) at the close of it, requesting him to undertake the presentation of it. He wrote back to the petitioner, that he considered the period of the session to be too far advanced, and advised him to defer the presentation of it till the present session. The petitioner concurred in the propriety of the advice, and had, in consequence, come over to England, at the latter end of May, judging, from the experience of recent sessions, that the present would not terminate before the middle of July. He trusted that inquiry would be made into the subject of it, in order that blame might fall upon the petitioner if he had calumniated the government, or upon the government if they had injured the petitioner in the manner which he had stated.

observed, that as he had been in his present office only two years, it could not be expected that he should be able, at a moment's notice, to give an immediate answer to the allegations contained in the petition. He trusted, however, that the House would not argue, from his silence on the subject, against the character of any person whom the petition might be intended to implicate.

observed, that the petitioner had applied to him to present the petition, but really, without having the strongest reasons for believing the allegations of the petition, he did not feel himself justified in presenting it. There were parts of the allegations so revolting to human nature, that he would not enter into them; but he agreed, that it was indispensable to the character of the House and of the country, that they should investigate the disgusting tale; for never in the worst of times had there been any thing more monstrous. If the petitioner made out his case, it would certainly be the duty of the House to take care that he should be fully compensated.

was not prepared to affirm or deny, at the instant, any of the allegations in the petition. He had had some experience of the conduct of Dr. Trevor, and from that knowledge he could be brought but very slowly to believe any thing to his disadvantage. It would be unjust to the accused person, that the charge against him should be generally dispersed, without any opportunity being offered for answering it. He trusted, therefore, that the learned gentleman would be content with laying the petition on the table. Early in the next session the subject might be properly investigated.

hoped his majesty's government would pledge themselves to take the case of the petitioner into consideration. The prayer of the petitioner for remuneration for his great loss of property was wholly unconnected with the merits or demerits of Dr. Trevor. Having unfortunately resided in Ireland at the period to which the petition alluded, he begged leave to state, that the outrages in Ireland, from 1794, to the time of the rebellion, which rebellion, in his conscience, he believed those outrages created, were such as had never been perpetrated in any other civilized country. He asserted, that the Catholics of Ireland were, during that period, treated with the greatest barbarity, both in Dublin, under the eye of the government, and in other parts of Ireland, on account of their religion. From his knowledge of what was committed at that time, he thought it extremely likely, that the outrages described in the petition had really occurred.

consented to withdraw the petition for the present session, with the view of bringing it forward as soon as the House should meet in the next, but not with any view of invalidating any allegation in the petition.

said, he rose to present a petition, which differed from the last in most of the particulars. It contained no painful references to those sad scenes of anguish and woe which went before, which accompanied, and which followed, the rebellion in, Ireland. It was couched in terms so appropriate; it stated views so accurate; it contained sentiments so correct and. just; that he had no hesitation in saying that the duty of offering it to the consideration of the House was as highly gratifying to him, as the putting it forward was creditable to the petitioners. The petition was signed by a number of gentlemen forming themselves into a Catholic association in Dublin; and they met for the just and laudable purpose, of instituting measures for recovering, by fair, legal, and constitutional means, rights which had, in. his opinion, been only too long and unjustly withheld from the people of that, country. The petitioners complained, that they had been most grossly misrepresented—if not in the speeches of some gentlemen in parliament, at least in those channels which were known generally to convey accurate information to the country of what passed within the walls. And though the petitioners would not pretend to any knowledge of what actually passed in the House, they complained that the representations of it tended in this instance, to injure their characters and feelings, and, what was of more importance to them, those interests of Ireland which it was their chief object to promote. The petitioners greatly desired to partici- pate in those advantages which the constitution undoubtedly held out to all who were within its protection; and they alleged, that no portion of the community had ever displayed a more firm, unfeigned, disinterested, and persevering loyalty, than had the Catholics of Ireland to the Crown of England. Nothing, on the other hand, could be more unjust, as nothing could be more undeserved, than to charge the Irish Catholics with any deficiency of loyalty; and this charge ought to be received with the more jealousy from parties whose loyalty was interested, and who wished to monopolize to their own advantage all the powers of the state, and to have at their command all the emoluments of government. It was a species of loyalty, which, to say the least, came before their view in a very questionable shape. The party to which the petitioners alluded, and to which, as the Dublin Catholic Association, they were opposed, was that which collected its forces under the name of Orange Societies; and the members of which societies had the confidence to complain to parliament of the Catholic Association; those members who assembled by secret means—whose ties of anion were not revealed to the world'—who used secrecy and hidden symbols—who had refused to make known their signs when called upon by the House—who had, in the person of their champion, baffled and defeated the power and functions of the House, and set it at defiance, and in a measure carried a victory over some part of its privileges—whose institution and purposes were declared by high authority to be illegal—who confessed themselves bound by secret, and therefore illegal, oaths—the members of such an institution—so the petitioners allege—had the confidence to complain to that House of the Catholic Association, which met in the eye of day, every thing being publicly proclaimed—their proceedings not connived at merely, but clearly warranted by law—the object most constitutional—the means resorted to no less constitutional; their end and aim being to recover their civil rights, and to prevent the evils which were likely to ensue from a continued denial of those rights to a brave and generous people. He would not term such conduct bigotry; it did not deserve the name, unworthy as it was; but still more worthy than the real motives which, in his opinion, actuated the parties against whom the petition complained, and who thus sought to colour over and varnish their purposes with this contemptible pretence, only exceeded in degradation by that which really influenced them, but which they dared not to acknowledge. These gentlemen had met together in Dublin, and formed themselves into an association, for the laudable purpose of directing the attention of their countrymen to constitutional and peaceable modes of obtaining redress—to keep their minds under a course of unmerited suffering and privation from absolute despair, and by fixing their hopes firm on; the constitution and the laws, to preserve themselves from wandering into what had been eloquently termed "the wilderness of natural rights." This was the unhappy condition of Ireland—a condition, which, in the present enlightened state of this country, could not much longer remain as it was; and, whenever the parliament should take the subject in hand, they would have to regret that they had not made just concessions at an earlier period, when fewer of them would have satisfied the Catholics, and when they might have been granted with far less embarrassment to the government.

, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, said, that in wishing that the bill should not proceed any further this session, he was not actuated by any hostility to the measure. He approved of the principle on which it proceeded, and had a high respect for the commissioners, on whose unanimous report it was founded. But as be understood that there was an anxious desire on the part of the Scottish members, to consult their constituents on the subject, as numbers of the Scotch people wished to present petitions to the House respecting it, and as many Scotch members had left town, he thought the House should not carry the measure beyond its present stage. He was the more anxious for this course, as the appendix to the report, containing the evidence on which it was founded, was not yet in print. He would, therefore, move that it be read a second time, that day two months.

confessed that he was much disheartened by the speech of the right hon. gentleman, as after the delivery of it, it would be a mere mockery to hold out to the people of Scotland the slightest hope that the bill would ever be passed into a law, at least during the administration of the right hon. gentleman. Experience of the recent course pursued with regard to the Scotch-Jury Bill, convinced him that the same expedients would be resorted to to defeat the present bill. The right hon. gentleman seemed singularly anxious to obtain the opinions of the constituents of Scotch members. Now, who were the constituents to be so consulted? Not the great mass of the people interested deeply in the administration of justice, but the obedient freeholders of the lord advocate [hear, hear]. The learned lord, and his friends might cheer, but there were thousands and thousands who were not represented. To put the fate of the measure upon such an issue must, of course, be its destruction. The right hon. gentleman might call himself a supporter of the measure, but, at the utmost, his zeal was lukewarm. Public opinion might, in time, prevail, to remedy the evils admitted in the report, but the House was always far behind public opinion. Had this measure been a Tax bill, or an Insurrection act, no such delay would have been attempted. He wished to put two questions to the learned lord: first, whether the report of the commissioners was unanimous; and, secondly, whether there had been among them any understanding, that the bill should not be passed until next year.

contended, that as it was not proposed that the bill should take effect till after the 11th of May, 1825, there would be ample time in the next session to pass it before that date. The report was unanimous, allowing for certain slight shades of opinion, which it was not held necessary to mark, and there had been no understanding, that its recommendations should not be carried into effect this year by the passing of the bill upon the table. He was persuaded that delay would not defeat it.

said, that if the House had been reduced to the necessity of postponing this bill, the conduct of government had placed it in that predicament. He was afraid that by the clamour which was raised, and the ignorant opinions which were expressed, the measure would ultimately be sacrificed.

regretted that the bill had not been brought forward earlier, but circumstanced as they now were, he was prepared to postpone the measure to another session. There certainly had been the fullest communication between the commissioners. His learned friend was therefore fighting the air, in supposing there was any concealed hostility to the measure. He believed that the more the suggestions in the report were canvassed, the less opposition would be made to the measure.

thought the House ought to avoid the appearance of thrusting down the throats of the people of Scotland, a measure which they conceived to be second to none in importance since the act of Union. The proposed delay was essentially necessary to ensure the success of the measure.

said, he consented to the postponement of the measure out of a feeling of respect for the people of Scotland, who were at present greatly opposed to the bill. The conduct of government had been censured in this question; but let the House remember that, up to a very late period, there was no idea of the kind of feeling which existed on the subject. He would, however, venture to predict, in opposition to the predictions of gentlemen opposite, that in the course of the next session this bill would substantially pass into a law. In proposing delay, he had no other object in view than to soothe the present hostile feeling, and by soothing to overcome it. The bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed this day two months.

said, that according to promise, in moving that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the bill, he proposed to state shortly the nature of the negotiations out of which it proceeded. He took the liberty of doing this, because, although the bill was more immediately in the hands of his right hon. friend the president of the Board of Control, the treaties from which it-emanated originated when he (Mr. C.) had the honour to fill the office which his right hon. friend now held. In order to form a correct judgment with respect to the transactions which he was about to detail to the House, the situation in which the Dutch were placed with regard to East-India possessions at the last general peace should be called to mind. At that period all the possessions which had been taken from the Dutch during the war were, by- treaty, restored to them. He was not now called upon to discuss the policy or expediency of that measure; but if it were necessary, he was prepared to show, that, under the circumstances of the times, it was the interest of this country not to press too hard upon the Dutch government. But, for his present purpose, it was sufficient that what he had stated was the fact, and that the treaties by which the Indian possessions were restored to Holland received the unanimous approbation of parliament. In this state matters stood when he entered upon the office of president of the Board of Control, some time in 1816. At that time many stipulations of the treaties were only in the course of being carried into effect, and many others had been not very distinctly or definitively explained; so that many points were open for discussion between this country and the Netherlands. It had happened, unfortunately, that out of the natural eagerness of one party to get possession of settlements from which they had been driven by force, and the no less natural slowness of the other party to give them up, delays interposed, difficulties were raised, and a degree of ill-humour had grown up amongst the agents on both sides, which required great management and forbearance to appease. Much of this embarrassment was occasioned by the conduct of the subordinate agents of the East-India Company, who went further than they had any right to go. They took upon themselves to question the policy of the treaties by which the possessions had been surrendered to the Dutch, and looked rather to remedy what they conceived to be the error of the stipulations than to carry them into effect. He was willing to give the servants of the company credit for the patriotism, pride, or generous feelings by which they might have been actuated; but when agents, at a distance from their government, forgot, or departed from, the purposes for which they had been appointed, they imposed upon government the necessity of supporting at all extremities, and at whatever inconvenience, or of at once disavowing, their proceedings. He spoke within compass, when he stated, that in the course of 1816 and 1817, not less than half a dozen treaties were negociated by the individuals to whom he had alluded, without the shadow of an instruction for that purpose. He had felt it his duty to inform the East-India Company, that the Crown would withhold its sanction from all those treaties. About this period, repeated representations were made to him of the grasping disposition which the Netherland authorities showed, to drive the English out of the trade, and to retain the exclusive possession of it themselves. As was his duty, he constantly desired that a specific act of that nature should be pointed out to him, in order that he might bring it before the Netherlands government for its disavowal. His request, however, was never complied with. He could only obtain general assurance of the covetous disposition of the Dutch, and of their determination that we should never have a sail in those seas again. In vain did he call for facts, he was only met by an obscure kind of reference to the "massacre of Amboyna" [a laugh]. On the other hand, he received complaints from the Netherlands government of the tardiness of the British agents, and of a desire on their part to indemnify their country for the restorations of territory which their government had made. It happened, too, most unfortunately, that, at the time to which he was referring, an individual, in one sense most distinguished, who had exhibited great zeal and ability whilst filling the office of governor of Java (governor Raffles), was sent as resident to Bencoolen. Some how or other, however, the humble name of resident, which implied nothing more than a superintendant of pepper, was changed into the high-sounding title of lieutenant-governor of Bencoolen. The Netherlands government took the alarm at this circumstance, and imagined that the British intended to make Sumatra the seat of a government among the islands, equal in power to that which they possessed on the continent of India. Thus did ill-humour and angry feelings arise between two nations whose best policy it was, to remain on friendly terms with each other. The chief complaint against the Netherlands government was, that it acted on the principle of exclusive trade. The first step, therefore, which he had taken in the negotiations, from which the bill before the House proceeded, was, to obtain a disavowal of that principle on the part of the Nether-lands government. It was not, to be sure, usual in diplomacy to frame treaties for the purpose of recording principles, but as in the present case it was the only point at issue, it was done. By the same treaty Great Britain became possessed of Sincapore, and of about twelve islands which the Dutch possessed off the continent of India. Those islands were of no great importance in themselves; but there were many inconvenient questions of rights and revenue connected with them. For example, the Dutch asserted a claim to participate in the trade in opium, which we never allowed. When the English complained of the desire which she evinced to maintain an exclusive trade to those islands, they were apt to excuse themselves by a reference to the example of the English on the continent of India; by getting possession of the islands, therefore, we ceased to have any cause of complaint, and at the same time got rid of the tu quoque of the Dutch. The objects, then, which it was proposed to attain by the treaty were; first, the recognition of the principles of free trade; secondly the acquisition of Sincapore, and the ridding the Dutch of their possessions on the continent of India, and consequently of removing those grounds of irritation which would have existed, so long as the Dutch possessions had remained intermixed with ours. Every one of those objects had been attained by the treaty. In return for all these advantages, we had given up Bencoolen, and had agreed upon a line of demarcation between the British and the Dutch settlements. He thought he could convince the House that the cession of Bencoolen could not be considered a very serious loss by Great Britain. In so little estimation was Bencoolen held by the East-India Company, that they had actually mooted the question of its total abandonment; and they had resolved to retain it, not on its own account, but because it was not known into what hands it might fall. So far was Bencoolen from being of any advantage, that it was actually maintained at an annual charge of 85,000l. The only return which it was pretended the island could make for this expense was the production of spices. But it should be known that the Indian government had given the ground, furnished the plants, and paid for the cultivation of those very spices. Could it be wished that we should retain possession of Bencoolen on those terms? When it had been proposed, and most wisely in his opinion, to abandon Bencoolen altogether, without any return, it was a little hard that people should quarrel with government for getting something for it. He was aware it had been said, that in giving up Bencoolen we had furnished the Dutch with the means of carrying on a most valuable trade in spice. With that he had nothing to do, the Indian government having made the spice plantations after the treaty had originated. He believed, however, that the anxiety which seemed to be felt on that score would be abated, when it was known, that the East-India Company had now in their stores from five to six years consumption of every kind of spice. Under these circumstances it was not probable that the country would be exposed to the want of cinnamon—he meant to say of nutmegs and pepper. The mention of cinnamon reminded him that we had a monoply of that article. When it was made a matter of complaint against the government, it that they had not wrested more from the Dutch he really could not have the face to say that we had a right to expect more than we had obtained. How could we complain of the Dutch having a monopoly of spice, when we possessed a monopoly of cinnamon, opium, salt, &c? It might afford some consolation to those who had a particular regard for those savoury ingredients, to know that Sincapore was found to be particularly well adapted for the production of spices, and although it would take some time to bring the plantations there to maturity, yet, as the East-India Company had six years' consumption in their possession, the probability was, that unless some new appetite for spices should be created, we should have some of our own production before the stock on hand could be exhausted. He did not, however, suppose the Dutch would be mad enough to maintain the monopoly which had been found perfectly unprofitable up to the present period. He did not pretend to be a judge of the value of Sincapore which we had gained by the treaty. He only knew that, from the time when he first became connected with Indian affairs, Sincapore, had been pointed out to him as the unum necessarium for making the British Empire in India complete. It completely commanded the Straits of Malacca, which were a most important channel of navigation. In addition to this advantage, we had obtained from the Dutch a pledge to the maintenance of free trade, to a greater degree than had ever before been practised by any power in Asia, and had put a final extinction to the Dutch title on the continent of India. In return for these advantages, we had given the Dutch the barren settlement of Bencoolen which cost 85,000l. annually, and which it had been in contemplation to abandon. Surely such a price could not be considered too dear. He trusted that the House would be of opinion that nothing was done by the treaty which was inconsistent with the interest of the British possessions in India, or of those larger national interests to which the former were subordinate. The new possessions would be placed under the administration of the East-India Company, who would govern them under the same responsibility which attached to them in the administration of the other British Indian possessions. He would move, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair."

was of opinion it would ultimately turn out that the concessions which this country had made were of greater importance than the right hon. gentleman would have them appear. He condemned the policy which the right hon. secretary's predecessor in the foreign office had pursued, with regard to our Indian possessions. The noble lord, by giving up the island of Java, had not only, broken faith with the natives, whom he turned over, bound hand and foot, to the Dutch, but had inflicted a deep wound on our commercial interests. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was thought right, at the conclusion of the war, to favour the Netherlands government. But, if that were to be the excuse for surrendering Java, why had not all the Dutch possessions been abandoned on the same principle? Why did England retain the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara and Essequibo. The cession of Java, he maintained, took place in utter ignorance of the interests of England, and to the great surprise and joy of the Dutch. Notwithstanding the ridicule which the right hon. gentleman attempted to cast upon governor Raffles, if government had acted upon the plans of that officer, they would have avoided those blunders which they had committed. Every act of our government in the East Indies went upon the very same principle which the right hon. gentleman had that evening turned into ridicule. He could never agree to the present bill, because the treaty which it ratified violated almost every other treaty which we had made for years past with the native powers. It was idle to suppose that this treaty would put an end to the heart-burnings and jealousies which we had had for years past with the Dutch. It might allay them during a period of peace; but they would revive in full vigour whenever hostilities should take place? It was said that we were getting rid of a monopoly. This he denied. The restoration of these islands to the Dutch would create as great a monopoly at the end of six years as existed before we had them, and would, besides, completely ruin many of our own planters. A spice plantation took about twenty year in coming to perfection. Now, several of our plantations had just arrived at that period of their growth in which they were most likely to remunerate the exertions of their owners. Would it not be a heart-breaking circumstance to those individuals, to find that all their efforts were rendered abortive? After abandoning the natives to the Dutch, it was not, perhaps, inconsistent to consent to the ruin of our own planters, for the sake of advantages which, in his opinion, were inconsiderable. Indeed, he would ask what were those advantages? Was it one of them that we had lost every port in the Straits of Sunda, and had thereby given up the command which we once possessed over the whole East-Indian Archipelago? It was true, we had obtained all the ports in the Straits of Malacca, and also the island of Sincapore; but as to the former, he would merely observe that a pig-stye was as good; and as to the latter we were in the possession of it before. If there was any meaning in this act, we had excluded ourselves from the whole trade of the Eastern Archipelago, and, by so doing, had deprived the nation of incalculable advantages. He then quoted several passages from Mr. Crawford's book on the Eastern Sea, for the purpose of showing the great extent to which our commerce in that direction might be extended, and proceeded to condemn the ministers for having sacrificed, by a stroke of the pen, all the advantages which might have been derived from that quarter. If the House wished to net with good faith, and to preserve the interests of the country, it could not accede to the bill. To pass it would be virtually to acknowledge the treaty to which it referred, and to give the House a chance, of escaping from such disgrace, he should move as an amendment "That the bill be committed on this day six months."

condemned the treaty, and contrasted the negligence of the English negociators, with the precaution of the Dutch. By giving up Bencoolen we should greatly injure our China trade, which at present produced a revenue of three millions annually. The occupation of the Straits of Sunda by an enemy's fleet, would compel our China vessels to go by the way of New Holland, and would thus add to the usual voyage a distance equal to that from England to the West Indies.

stated, that the passing of this bill would make no difference as to the execution of the treaty to which it referred, inasmuch as it had been already ratified, and guaranteed by the good faith of the country. The speech of the hon. member for Aberdeen referred rather to the treaty of 1814 than to the present treaty, as he did not seem acquainted with the places to which allusion was made in the latter treaty. He denied that, in case of war, our trade to China would be at the mercy of the Dutch. Bencoolen was not a fortification of any strength. When we were at peace with the Dutch, we were entitled by this treaty to friendly offices at Bencoolen; and when we went to war with them, he had no doubt we should be able to take it. He contended that we had not been guilty of any breach of faith to the native powers in ceding these islands to the Dutch, and further argued that the price of spices had not been increased, but, on the contrary, had been diminished by their cession.

opposed the bill, because he believed the treaty which it ratified to be a breach of good faith to the native powers and was only made by the Dutch for the purpose of being violated. He contended, that the islands ceded, were part and parcel of the property of the Crown of England, and that being such, they could not be ceded without the consent of parliament.

contended, that the treaty was calculated to put an end to all the differences which existed between the English and Dutch governments. He denied that it gave the command of the Straits of Sunda to the Dutch. As we had Prince of Wales's island at one end of them, Sincapore at the other, and Malacca in their centre, we had full command of those Straits, and therefore could not receive any material annoyance in our trade with China.

observed, that the arrangement which the treaty had sanctioned, had received the approbation of the commercial houses interested in the trade of the Indian Archipelago. The cession of the Dutch settlements on the continent of India was of great importance in relation to policy as well as revenue, and it would be highly desirable, by treaties with the French, Danes, and Portuguese, to obtain from them the cession of the other European settlements on that continent, which were much more injurious to us, than beneficial to them.

, in allusion to what had been said of the grasping spirit of the Dutch government in India, said, that in this respect there was not much difference between the Dutch and the English powers in that quarter. There were six of one, and half a dozen of the other. The ruling principle of both was rapine. In looking over this treaty he could consider it in no other light than as a division of spoil between the English and Dutch governments, in which no attention whatever was paid to the claims of the native powers. The arrangement had several advantages upon the face of it: but experience of the Dutch character had taught him to fear, that those advantages would not remain long in our possession. Indeed, he had that very day received information from Sincapore, containing an account of the success of the Dutch expedition against Borneo, which induced him to suspect that their designs upon that island would be quickly followed by similar designs upon Sumatra, and the other islands of the Archipelago which we had ceded to their tender mercies. Now he would ask the right hon. secretary whether, when he signed this treaty, he had any knowledge that the Dutch had sent an expedition against Borneo; and whether he would have signed it if he had known that fact? He regretted the precipitation with which our negociators had acted. If they had waited for the arrival of sir S. Raffles, which was daily expected, they might have escaped many of the errors into which they had fallen. He allowed that the intentions of our negociators were good, but contended that many of the provisions to which they had assented were not the most wise and prudent.

highly approved of the treaty. In Borneo the Dutch had only a few military settlements at the mouths of rivers, and we were left at full liberty to trade with all that great island, abounding in the richest productions of the earth. The native trade to Sincapore, from the Eastern Archipelago, was very considerable. The; Dutch settlements on the Indian continent ceded by the treaty, had been represented as insignificant. Territorially they were so: but these settlements, fifteen in all, might be most mischievous as affording a refuge to disaffected subjects, and the means of clandestine trade. The settlement of Sincapore was becoming more and more important every day, and the country was highly indebted to sir S. Raffles for the fostering care with which he had superintended the planting of it.

reminded the House that the superannuation act had arisen out of a recommendation of his majesty to make a reduction in the salaries of the public officers proportioned to the change which had then taken place in the currency. The House accordingly did so, and he now called upon it not to be led away by erroneous principles of compassion. The noble marquis who brought that measure into parliament told them, that if a reduction of 15 per cent were made in the salaries of the clerks above 200l. which had been increased during the war, the clerks would be in a better situation, even when so reduced, than they ever had been whilst they were receiving their highest amount of salary. Considering this bill to be a great dereliction from the principle on which the former bill was founded, considering also that there had been a great diminution of taxes since the passing of [the former bill, and that the income of every man, save these clerks, had decreased in consequence of the change which had taken place in the public securities, he should move "That the bill be read a third time that day six months."

seconded the amendment. This bill had not been sufficiently considered; and though it was very extensive of itself, the hon. member for Weymouth had wished to mix up with it another question totally independent of it. The reduction of salary to the higher officers of state was a voluntary measure, and was limited to a duration of five years. The reduction of salary to the inferior clerks was made perpetual. This bill would entail an annual expense of at least 20,000l. upon the public.

observed, that before the superannuation bill was brought in, a committee, consisting of the heads of departments, had sat daily at the chancellor of the Exchequer's and had revised and reduced all the offices. In his own office every clerk had lost 50l. a-year, or in that proportion. Even clerks with 150l. a-year had had the odd 50l. lopped off.

approved of the bill, and thought that the chief officers of state were under-paid.

complained that the secretary to the Board of Control was the only public officer for whose services, however long, no provision was made by law. He recommended some proceeding to remedy that hardship.

was of opinion, that the secretary of the Board of Control ought to be included in the same scale of provision as other public officers; because, independently of the labour which that functionary performed, it was desirable that a person who had gained the information necessary to the performance of the duties of that office—information which was not, perhaps, of so inviting a nature as that connected with European politics—should be tempted to continue in it. He thought it necessary to say thus much on this occasion, as it was, perhaps, owing to some feelings of his own, when President of the Board of Control, which prevented him from interfering in the pension bill, that his hon. friend, the present secretary was left without any remuneration.