presented a petition from Nottingham, signed by upwards of one thousand individuals, against any further concessions to Roman Catholics.

took that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. and learned gentleman, the Attorney-general for Ireland. Two or three years ago, an act had been passed for putting down the Catholic Association. Now, it was notorious that that body had, in defiance of that act, continued their meetings, and assumed, in all their proceedings, the stamp and character of a legislative body. He took it for granted, that if the act to which he had referred were carried into effect, this ground of complaint would be at an end. Now, he wished to know from the right hon. gentleman, why the act in question was not carried into effect? Seeing that it had not been, he wished to know from the right hon. gentleman, whether it was his intention, in the present session, to propose any other measure of a similar tendency.

said, that if the noble lord put that question to him, in his individual capacity, as a member of parliament, he would answer it by saying, that the act spoken of was not introduced by him, though it had his full concurrence and support, as well as that of the noble lord himself. When the noble lord inquired of whether or not it was his intention to propose to parliament any additional regulations, or to introduce any new act of the kind, he had only to reply that he had no such intention. If the latter question were put to him as an humble individual, belonging to the Irish government, instead of answering it, he would refer the noble lord to his right hon. friends near him, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Secretary to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, who would give to him such answers as they thought proper. The noble lord had been kind enough to apprise him of his intention of putting these questions; and he begged to offer his thanks for that courtesy, but, at the same time, he must say, that the question which called on him to state why he did not carry into effect the act referred to, was a question that implied the affirmation of a distinct proposition, and one which should not come before the House in the form of a question. Whenever the noble lord thought right to bring it before the House in its proper form, and to make a motion on the subject, he should, so far as he was concerned, be prepared to meet it; in doing which he should certainly feel no difficulty. He could assure the noble lord, that if he had to perform the arduous task of instituting, or forbearing to institute, proceedings, he would find abundant occupation, without having to meet every casual question that hon. members might think proper to put. He had only further to observe, that there was no act which he had done or forborne to do, in reference to this statute, which did not receive the full sanction of every branch of his majesty's government, on both sides of the water.

thought, that the answers given by the right hon. gentleman were by no means satisfactory, and trusted that the noble lord would not rest content with them, but would bring the subject under the consideration of the House.

said, that the Roman Catholic Association had assumed to itself the powers which belonged to the Crown and government. The Attorney-general of Ireland had not, however, thought it right to take those steps, which, under the authority of the bill in question, would have enabled him to put down the Association. He spoke the opinions of the majority in Ireland, when he said that the bill, if properly carried into effect, was sufficient for the purpose. It had often been stated in that House, that Catholic emancipation was the remedy for all the evils of Ireland. This he denied. He firmly believed that even the discussion of the question would prove a ground of further dispute and contest ["Question! question!"]. He would not trespass upon the House many minutes. He wished to say a few words, because he believed that Catholic emancipation was no remedy for the calamities of Ireland. He would not take more than five minutes. He would shew what were the remedies for the evils under which Ireland laboured. In what state was Ireland? They were told, from the highest authority, that Ireland was in a most disturbed state, owing to the operations of the Catholic Association, and to the violent and inflammatory speeches that were uttered by its members, as well as elsewhere. They had heard a right hon. and learned member of the Irish government say, that Ireland was in a disturbed state. "The state of Ireland," said the hon. colonel, "is this—here lie the combustibles, and there stands the man with the match in his hand" [cheers and laughter, with cries of name, name]. He should use his own discretion as to naming the gentleman to whom he alluded. He bore no personal ill will to any individual in that House; but he was not one of those who could deposit all his feelings, and lay them aside the moment he left the House. They would still cling round his heart. A system of kindness and firmness on the part of government would allay the ferment of Ireland; but the inflammatory speeches to which he alluded would set the combustible matter in a flame. The Catholics were told, that they were merely tools, and objects of degradation. They were further told, that in England such ill treatment would not be met by idle murmurs and vain complaints, but would be resisted with energy and effect. Those who knew the temperament of the Irish people, could only use such language from a wish to make them burst out into acts of violence. In 1798, it was said that the government had caused the Irish Rebellion, for the sake of carrying the Union. A similar intention must be equally imputed to individuals at the present moment; if persons believed in their extreme zeal in the cause. The Catholics were excited to the highest degree, in order to carry the Catholic question [murmurs, and cries of question! order, order!] Gentlemen called upon him to deviate from his own intentions. He should not listen to their suggestions; which were only designed to betray him into that impetuosity, which, from his intercourse with Ireland, he might be prone to fall into. It was not necessary for him to name the person to whom he alluded; every man who heard him very well understood the allusion.—He held in his hand a paper which had cost him much labour. When he saw that emancipation would but aggravate the evils of Ireland, lie was disposed to state a simple and obvious remedy, which might, in the common course of events, be applied each successive day, and which would take away the sting from that which did so much mischief. He thought it most advisable that the people of Ireland should be taken out of the hands in which they were at present placed. He had several measures to propose, which, he thought, would tend greatly to the pacification and prosperity of Ireland. First, he would propose to put down the Catholic Association. This, he thought, might be easily done, by the proper application even of the existing laws. Secondly, he would propose the employment of the poor by government for a limited period. By this means the people would be trained to habits of industry, and capital would, in a short time, find its way into, and might be beneficially employed in, Ireland. Next, he would educate the people of Ireland. Here he should merely mention the word Education, and content himself with throwing it out as a suggestion to his majesty's government. Fourthly, he would take measures to improve the agriculture of Ireland; which, he feared, was not likely to be benefitted by the present system. That system might do good in America, but for Ireland he doubted whether it would do anything, except increase existing evils. He would pay the Catholic clergy, and pay them liberally, out of the public revenue, and by that means establish a golden link between them and the Crown. Next he would alter the elective franchise. He only threw this out as a hint, and would not enter into details at present, further than saying, that the existing system under which that franchise was exercised, was full of the grossest and most flagrant abuses. He would appoint a governor in each county in Ireland. Having gone thus far, he had done [cries of hear, hear! and laughter.] He had done with the state of Ireland. But he must observe, that more had been done in that country during the short administration of lord Wellesley, than had been done for ages before. Much had been done, and much might still be done for Ireland; but it was too much to see the law officers of the Crown standing with their arms folded, when they should exert themselves in putting down those who disturbed the peace and tranquillity of that country [hear, hear! and a laugh from both sides of the House.] There existed in Ireland an association decidedly illegal, and he hoped and trusted that it would yet be put down. [Here the groaning, which had been regularly set up, as the gallant colonel came to the end of each of his sentences, was continued to the end of his speech without intermission. It was totally dissimilar from the coughing which usually takes place when the House wishes to show that it is tired of attending to any particular speaker. A long drawling cry of "Oh! oh!" began at one end of the Opposition benches, and ran on to the other. The regularity with which the cry rose and fell as the gallant colonel proceeded with his speech, created considerable laughter, and completely drowned the voice of the hon. member.]

rose, for the purpose of deprecating the continuance of a discussion of which no notice had been given, and the occurrence of which could scarcely have been anticipated on an occasion like the present; namely, that of presenting a petition on the subject of the Roman Catholic claims. Certainly, he could not have imagined that the hon. member who spoke last would have adverted to any one of the numerous topics which he had brought under the notice of the House in a manner so irregular; and, he might be permitted to add, so premature and uncalled for. The hon. member had referred, in the course of his speech, to the Catholic association—the subject of education—the payment of the Catholic clergy by the Crown—the determination of the Catholic question—the present state of the elective franchise—and the improvement of Irish agriculture. Now, he had not seen the petition which had given rise to this extensive choice of subjects by the hon. member; neither was he in the House at the time when it was presented; but he confessed he was not a little curious to see it, in order to see whether or not it contained as great a diversity of topics as the speech of the hon. member. If it did, it must, indeed, be a most extraordinary document. When it had been laid down by the chair, as in the present instance it had, that hon. members were precluded from alluding to any thing which was not contained within the four corners of the petition, he thought that this must be a most extraordinary one. However, he was rather disposed to consider the speech of the hon. member in the light of a record of his opinions and sentiments on the subjects in question; and he assured the hon. member, that he intended him not the slightest disrespect, when he deprecated such a discussion as his speech was calculated to excite. He had risen principally for the purpose of deprecating the continuance of the discussion; but, before he sat down, he would advert to another subject. It arose out of the question which had been put by the noble marquis relative to the enforcement of the law against the Roman Catholic Association. It was difficult to answer a question of that kind; but what he meant to state was this; namely, that the subject was one for which the law officers of the Crown were not exclusively responsible. True it was, the law could not be enforced without first obtaining the opinion of the law officers on the subject; but when that opinion was given, it. was also a question of discretion as to putting the law in force, which rested as much with the government as with the legal officers of the Crown. It was, therefore, but justice to his right hon. friend, the Attorney-general for Ireland, to say, that if any responsibility was attached to the government, in regard to the enforcement or non-enforcement of the law, quite as much of that responsibility attached itself to the individual who might hold the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, as to his majesty's Attorney-general, or any other of the ostensible law advisers of the Crown. He felt bound also to say, that hitherto, between all the parties alluded to, the most perfect agreement had existed in regard to this subject, and that their unanimous opinion was, that, up to the present period, no circumstances had occurred, which rendered it advisable to enforce the law against the Roman Catholic Association. Having concurred in this opinion, and in the propriety of following the course which it dictated, he thought it right thus publicly to avow his participation in it; and he should only add, that in state prosecutions for libel, or for any other offence, he had never found his right hon. friend, the Attorney-general for Ireland, deviating from that line of conduct which it was correct to pursue. He had never known that right honourable individual to prosecute, or to abstain from prosecuting, public offenders, on account of the speculative opinions which they might entertain, or the party to which they belonged.

observed, that so far as any individual responsibility could be supposed to attach to him, arising out of the question which had been put by the noble lord opposite, or the observations which were made by the honourable colonel, perhaps the House might think that he was relieved from the necessity of saying any thing, by the manly declaration of his right hon. friend, the Home Secretary, and the unequivocal testimony which that right hon. gentleman had borne to the conduct of his majesty's law officers in Ireland. On that topic, therefore, he should not add another word. But the House might think it extraordinary if he were to permit some observations, which had fallen from the hon. member who spoke last but one in the discussion, to go without a reply. The hon. member had thought fit to allude, in a most pointed manner, to a speech which he (sir W. Plunkett) had made about three weeks ago in that House, on the subject of the Roman Ca- tholic claims; and it was, perhaps, owing to the impetuosity of temper, of which the hon. member claimed the benefit, that he had withheld his remarks on a speech, which, be it good or bad, was delivered at the period mentioned, until the present moment. Notwithstanding the hon. member's impetuosity, he had tamely held back, while he (sir William), according to the hon. gentleman, was about to apply a match to the gunpowder and other combustible materials collected in Ireland by means of his dangerous and inflammatory speech. It was not till three weeks had elapsed, that the hon. gentleman came forward with the lightning which was to electrify the House and the country, while it involved both in a common conflagration [hear, and laughter]. Now if the hon. gentleman's memory had kept pace with his impetuosity, he must have perceived how grossly he had misrepresented him, in attributing to him actions, motives, and doctrines, from which, he trusted, the whole course of his life had been such, as to render it unnecessary for him to defend himself on this occasion. He repeated, that the misapprehension exhibited by the hon. gentleman, had been as great as his charges against him were disorderly; and he hoped it was unnecessary to refute them. If there existed any person, who, having ever interested himself in what was called the Catholic Question in that House, or having been in any way connected with the Roman Catholics, could appeal to his uniform language and conduct both in and out of that House, to prove the correctness of his sentiments and actions in regard to that subject, he hoped that, without running the risk of being considered a self-eulogist, he might safely appeal to his whole course of conduct, in relation to the Roman Catholics; to whom his advice had invariably been, that it was only by submission, and obedience to the laws, that they could hope to attain the object which they had in view. In the speech to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, that was the language which had been distinctly held by him; and he should now crave the attention of the House to what he did say on the occasion. When it had been argued that the Roman Catholics pressed their claims with violence and clamour, he had asked the House to consider the value of the privileges of which they had been deprived, and the restoration of which they sought. For the pur- pose of impressing upon the House the value and importance of the privileges in question, he had put this case—"If any attempt were made to deprive the Protestant inhabitants of this country of their liberties or privileges, how would they feel?" He now repeated the observation he had then made; namely, that "they held their privileges dearer than their lives, and would make correspondent efforts to retain them." He did not know in what manner the "impetuosity" of the hon. gentleman caused him to consider the subject. He could not know what passed in the hon. gentleman's mind; and he claimed no sympathy in his feelings; but of this he was sure, that there was no man who had an English heart in his bosom, who did not respond to the argument he had made use of upon that occasion; namely, that the people of this country would never tamely endure the privileges of choosing their representatives, and taking a share in the formation of the laws which were to govern them, to be taken front them. He had not insinuated that the Roman Catholics were justified in appealing to arms, for the purpose of procuring the privileges they sought to obtain—far from it. What he had said was, that, "if any attempt were made to withdraw from the English people their share in making and administering the laws, they would not content themselves with idle murmurings—their indignation would be, 'Iræ leonum vincla recusantum.'" This he did not apply to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who were applying for the repeal of existing laws, but to the people of England, arrayed in the defence of their established institutions. The course for the Catholics to adopt was one of quietness, obedience to the laws, and respectful application to the legislature for relief; and of his opinion on this subject, the Roman Catholics were perfectly aware. He had repeatedly told them, that they had already been relieved from many disabilities, by adopting this line of conduct; and it was only by continuing the same course, that they could hope to attain the remainder of their object. On this subject, his opinion, and the language in which he had expressed it, had been uniform and unvarying. He did not know whether that had been the case with the hon. member. It was true, public rumour might have deceived hint on the subject; but, if the holding of dangerous opinions was an adequate reason for ex- cluding the Roman Catholics from the enjoyment of the privileges which they sought, then, he apprehended, that what the hon. member would now, doubtless, designate as very dangerous opinions, were once held by the hon. member himself [cheers]. He did not know, nor did he care to ascertain the reason of, the change which had taken place in the hon. gentleman's mind; he. only knew that, for himself, he had always held and expressed, but one class of sentiments on the subject. The right hon. gentleman concluded by craving the pardon of the House, for trespassing so far on their attention; at the same time that he expressed his conviction, that he should have been wanting to himself, if he had passed over the statements of the hon. gentleman in silence.

said, he had been induced to call the attention of the House to this subject, in order that hon. members might turn their attention to the matter during the recess. When the right hon. and learned gentleman had delivered the speech to which he alluded, upon the Catholic question, he thought he was listening to another learned gentleman in another place. Mr. O'Connell, the learned gentleman to whom he alluded, had lately written a very sensible letter to the Irish Roman Catholics, recommending them to preserve peace and quietness; but the speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman in that House, upon a recent occasion, was, in his view, more deserving of prosecution than was the speech of Mr. Sheill, which the right hon. and learned gentleman had recently been roused to prosecute. He did not know much of the right hon. and learned gentleman, save by the reputation of his eloquence and celebrity as a public man, and the excellence of his character in private life; but he felt called upon as an Irishman and an honest man, to take the course he had done upon that occasion. As to his change of opinion upon this question, he freely avowed it. He admitted that, in 1812, he was a strenuous advocate for Catholic emancipation. In advocating that question he had quarrelled with some of his nearest and dearest friends. But he was not then sufficiently acquainted with the real state of Ireland. He now possessed some property in that country. He had for years been a daily witness of the evils which arose from the system pursued by the Irish Catholics and their ad- vocates, and he was now a conscientious opponent of their claims.

Ordered to lie on the table.

rose for the purpose of making a suggestion to the hon. baronet near him; a suggestion which he hoped would have the effect of inducing him to withdraw his notice of that motion which had excited so much interest in the country. He thought that, when he referred to circumstances which all the world knew, the hon. baronet would see in those circumstances sufficient to justify him in requesting the hon. baronet to withdraw his motion altogether, and that, too, without questioning either the propriety of the motion, or the soundness of judgment which the hon. baronet had exercised in framing it.

agreed with the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Kent; and he trusted that the hon. member for Somersetshire, taking into consideration the circumstances to which allusion had been made, would withdraw his motion. At present, it could not be brought forward either with benefit to the country or to the House. The hon. baronet who had proposed the motion must be aware of what every one else knew; namely, that his majesty was in town, and that, if the new administration had not actually been formed, matters were in a train for settlement.

said, he must confess that what he had heard from his two hon. friends had made some impression upon him. The observations they had made had thrown him into a situation of great difficulty; and he could hardly say at that moment what course he should determine to pursue. He could assure them, that he was always most anxious to submit his opinion to the judgment of others; and if, upon this occasion, he could ascertain the sense of the House, he would adopt it; but he had no means of doing so. No one valued the judgment of his two hon. friends more than he did, but he confessed he could not, on this occasion, at once determine to follow their advice. He entertained a due sense of the nature of the motion; which, he was well aware, involved a matter of great delicacy and importance. Many of his majesty's ministers were now in the House; and, if he could understand from them that there was no necessity for the motion of which he had given notice—that the royal prerogative had been exercised—and that the administration was actually formed—he should abstain from pressing it upon the House. But, unless he had some information of that kind, he should be obliged to bring it forward, in order to ascertain what was the opinion of the House. He was sorry that his motion should have the effect of militating against any arrangements that might have been entered into; but he could not compromise any opinion which he entertained. Without some assurance that the new administration was entirely formed, or wholly agreed on, or that it was about to be formed, he should be compelled to press his motion; and he hoped that, through the means of that motion, information which would prove satisfactory to the House might be obtained, or, at least, that the ministers would favour the House with some notice on the subject.

said, that if he understood aright the propositions of the hon. baronet opposite, they amounted, in effect, to this, that whereas the hon. baronet had given a notice which, in his discretion, he thought right, for carrying up to the Throne the opinions of that House, as to the principles on which an administration ought to be formed, he was prepared to withdraw that motion, or at least to desist now from pressing it upon the House, if he learned that an administration either was, or was on the eve of being, formed. Now, as to the fact whether there were any arrangements in progress, he should have thought, that those circumstances which he stated a few days since, and the fact of his majesty's arrival in town that day, would have afforded a sufficient ground for the exercise of the discretion of any honourable member. But, certainly, he must say, that he was as much at a loss to comprehend the arguments on which the hon. baronet was now prepared to withdraw the motion, as he had before been to comprehend the reasons on which the hon. baronet had been induced to make it. If the hon. baronet really thought the advice of the House was necessary in the formation of an administration, surely nothing short of the actual formation of that administration—nothing short of the fact of his counsel coming too late—could logically and reasonably form a justification for his withdrawing his motion. It was whimsical enough that he should say, as say he did in effect, that he would bring forward his motion if he was too late, or he would withhold it if he was in time [hear! and a laugh]. The hon. baronet must judge for himself as to the course he should pursue; but he was bound in honesty and in candour to tell the hon. baronet, that the arrangements had not so far advanced as to afford him the excuse that he must withdraw his motion—for he was not yet too late.

certainly wanted no excuse to withdraw the motion. As the right hon. gentleman had afforded the House no information on the subject, he should feel bound to press his motion.

was about to explain the reason which had induced him to present himself to the House, but the cries of "Order, order! Chair, chair!" were so loud as to compel him to resume his seat.

then said, that the House could not fail to observe the inconvenience of proceeding with this discussion. Not only was there no question before the House, but when the hon. member for Somersetshire had been asked, in no very concise manner, to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice, he had distinctly declined doing so; and the hon. member would, therefore, see the necessity of postponing any observations he might have to make, until that motion came regularly before the House.

said, he had to call the attention of the House to a subject of some importance, inasmuch as it involved deeply the privileges of the House. He had just had put into his hands three letters, addressed by a person signing himself "H. C. Jennings," to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department; in the first of which, he commented on part of a speech which he presumed to have been made two or three nights ago, by that right hon. member, and in no very courteous terms contradicted its assertions. The second letter was still more violent; and in the third, written this day, he declared his intention of making an answer to the right hon. member from the gallery of the House. Under these circumstances, the House would feel that as soon as the matter came to his (the Speaker's) knowledge, he had but one course to pursue, to acquaint the House with it, and with their permission, the letters should now be read by the clerk.

The Letters were then read by Mr. Lee, to the following effect:—

"Norfolk Street, Strand, Tuesday Morning.

"Sir; I was in the gallery of the House of Commons last night, and heard you say I had written to you to state, that some of the jurors on the coroner's inquest, held on lieutenant Devenish, who died in the Fleet prison, were drunk while on the jury. I beg to say that this statement is totally false; and I defy you to produce, under my hand, any such words, for I never wrote such a statement to you. I heard you say, that Mr. Hume was deceived in me; allow me to say, you are deceived in me, and not Mr. Hume. My intention and motives are pure. May the Almighty Governor of the Universe reward or punish me, according to the truth of my statement to you regarding abuses in the Fleet prison. I will bring this matter before the public, even at the risk of my life; and I earnestly and respectfully entreat you to compassionate those poor men, twenty-five in number, who signed the petition to the House. My own wrongs I bury in oblivion. I advocate the wrongs of others, and I court the severest scrutiny into my morals and character. Be sure, Sir, some day all the facts will come out, when you will stand convicted of partiality and injustice.—I am, Sir, your faithful, humble servant,

"H. C. JENNINGS."

"The Right Hon. Secretary Peel."

The second Letter was to the following effect:—

"18 Norfolk Street, Strand, April 5.

"Sir; I had hoped to have had the honour of a reply to my letter of yesterday; in which I accused you of having stated circumstances to the House of Commons highly prejudical to my character, as it was a deliberate falsehood; for you uttered it not in the heat of passion, but with a grace which only makes the offence more deep, but deserving a better cause. Do you refuse to make me an apology, because I have just been released from prison? because I am defenceless and in ill-health? If you do, I pity your courage as much as I deplore your want of generosity. To attack me in this manner, and under my circumstances; to hold me up to the world, and debase me in the eyes of the public, and of the House of Commons, is a moral assassination, and I envy you not the triumph obtained over truth and misery, by such base and unworthy means, of late years resorted to by official men. But when you got up, and stated such a fabrication, I confess I was hurt, and disappointed; as, whatever may be your opinion of my character, I take the liberty of forming, no very honourable one of yours, unless you apologise to me; and I shall take the liberty also of considering my situation in society, however struck down I may be, as more desirable than yours, for you shall stand at the bar of the public a detected liar. In case I had written such words as you stated to the House, show the words, prove them by my handwriting. I defy you to do so; I am incapable of saying any thing against any one's character that is false, to gain any purpose whatsoever; and I do not believe any misfortune would so far corrupt my heart, or degrade my mind, as to make me pursue such a course."

The third Letter was to the following effect:—

"Sir; Finding you are determined not to offer me any apology for the false and injurious statement you made to the House of Commons and the public, to the great prejudice and ruin of my honour and character, I shall, therefore, regardless of the result, speak to you from the gallery of the House, as my life is a curse to me under the present affliction. Your honour demands this apology, as well as my feelings; for how can you rise in the House, and state facts, if it is proved against you, you have told a wilful falsehood? This must paralyse every power you have, unless you defy truth and justice, you will live in a country where laws are not distributed equally for rich and poor alike. I am determined at all events to obtain the reparation I demand."

said, he should perhaps be excused for stating the circumstances under which he had transmitted these letters to the Speaker. As he had received the last of them at four o'clock that day, he thought it possible, from what was therein stated, that a breach of decorum might be committed, and he had therefore deemed it best to send them to the Speaker. He had not had an opportunity of communicating with the right hon. gentleman upon the subject; and he supposed that the right hon. gentleman, drawing the same conclusions as he had done from the intimation in the last note, had thought it proper to call the attention of the House to the matter. He wished to take that opportunity of saying, that the impression which the writer seemed to have formed concerning what he had said, was certainly erroneous. When the hon. member for Aberdeen had brought forward his motion on the state of the prisons, he (Mr. Peel) had stated, that he had certainly received a great many communications on the subject, from a gentleman of the name of Jennings; and he supposed that Mr. Hume, too, must have received communications of a similar nature; and if he had, he had expressed his opinion, that that hon. gentleman ought not to place implicit confidence in them, for that, in his opinion, they were exceedingly exaggerated. In the course of the evening he had made an inquiry into the statement, that the jury assembled on lieut. Devenish had been made drunk, and had sent to the chief justice of the Common Pleas, who had despatched a messenger to the prison, and had found on inquiry that the statement was not true. He (Mr. Peel) had merely stated the result of that inquiry. He therefore repeated, that Mr. Jennings seemed to be labouring under an erroneous impression as to what had been said. Whatever degree of lenity the House could show to Mr. Jennings, of course they would shew him; but if he had allowed any individual to tell him, as Mr. Jennings had done, that he should make an address from the gallery of the House, and had not communicated the fact to the House, he feared that he should have been censured for negligence. He wished now to state that Mr. Clayton Jennings had also written to him on the subject of Tuesday night's debate, and through some misconstruction of what had been said, seemed to imagine that he had been alluded to. To correct that error, he thought it only necessary to say, that Mr. Clayton Jennings was not the person referred to by him, but a Mr. Constantine Jennings, who had been before a committee of the House.

said, he had received letters from Mr. H. Jennings, complaining in the same manner as in the letter to the right hon. Secretary of State. His impression had been, that the right hon. Secretary had alluded to Mr. H. Jennings. Now, he assured the House that that gentleman, who certainly had displayed much warmth in his letters, did not number among his failings a want of humanity. He had seen him that day, though he did not then know of these letters; and, undoubtedly, Mr. Jennings did appear to be much excited by the imputations which he imagined to have been cast upon him. It was to be hoped, that the House would take the circumstance of warm and excited feelings into their consideration, as an excuse for what Mr. Jennings had done; and that they would make some allowance for the natural warmth of a man who believed, however unjustly, that he had been misrepresented, and who thought he was deprived of any chance of redress, except through the means mentioned in his letter. He thought that, after what had now passed, the further notice of the matter might be dropped.

said, that however painful it might be to proceed against an individual circumstanced as Mr. Jennings was, it was impossible to let the matter pass by quite in the way proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen. The letters were a manifest breach of privilege; and he should therefore move, that Mr. Jennings be ordered to attend at the bar of the House on Monday next.—Agreed to.

said, that considering the feeling which the House had displayed a short time since upon the subject of his motion, he should deem it best now to withdraw it, reserving to himself, at no distant time, the right of bringing the question before the House, not exactly in the same form, but, undoubtedly, in a similar shape.

said—Sir, having, on former occasions, tried in vain to attract your attention in the earlier stages of this bill, I hope I shall be allowed to avail myself of this opportunity to address the House on a subject to which I have paid of late years much attention, and of which I can scarcely have avoided to acquire somewhat of practical experience; and I am the more desirous to do so, because I take a view of it somewhat different from many of those with whom I have voted. The measure itself has my unqualified approbation. No candid man can fail to recognise in the principle of the bill, a salutary, though somewhat tardy, wish to mediate between the conflicting interests; whilst the provisions of it give us all the protection we have any right to ask, and possibly somewhat more than we may eventually be found to require; and if such should prove to be the case, I for one shall have no objection to assent to the modification of the scale of duties. For, though few persons in or out of this House feel a more sincere solicitude for the maintenance of British agriculture, this feeling has never made me unmindful of the impolicy and injustice, towards other classes of consumers, of pushing protection one iota beyond the mere point of bona fide remuneration; by which I understand the cost of production, with moderate rents and moderate profits. On this principle, I and my friends opposed the 64s. amendment, because the price was too high if it ever could have been realised; and if (as I believe it would have proved) delusive, it would have done mischief. If I did not vote for the amendment of my hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, it was not because I presumed to impugn it, but because my hon. friend, not satisfied with the recognition of his own principles in the bill before the House, insisted on our taking a leap in the dark, up to the precise point to which he thought fit to carry it. Now, I am extremely anxious that the landed interest should not believe that we have settled all that is essential, to procure for their productions a remunerative price; and I have my fears that certain expressions of the Secretary for the Home Department, relative to "an oscillating price between 55s. and 65s. for the quarter of wheat," may tend very much to mislead those whose hopes we ought rather to depress than encourage, under present circumstances. We have been very busy discussing values in "the integral shilling, and parts of such integral shilling;" but we say not a word about the pounds, in which the main question lies. Much delusion has already gone forth, and much unmerited obloquy against that interest to which I belong, and to which, under such circumstances, one is almost ashamed to belong. But the true cause of that pressure, which has produced numerous meetings and angry discussions on corn, may be traced to a source which I shall describe in the words of Mr. Locke, under the persuasion that the authority will insure the respect of the House. After enumerating the various causes which lower rent, such as when "The markets are supplied with the same commodity cheaper from another place," Mr. Locke says—"Or when the money of the country is less; for the exigencies and uses of money not lessening with its quantity, and it being in the same proportion to be employed and distributed still, in all the parts of its circulation, so much as its quantity is lessened, so much must the share of every one who has a right to this money be the less, whether he be landholder for his goods, or labourer for his hire, or merchant for his brokerage." And again; "indeed, people not perceiving the money to be gone, are apt to be jealous of one another, and each suspect another's inequality of gain, to rob him of his share, &c.; but this is but scrambling amongst ourselves, and helps no more against our want then the pulling off a short coverlet will, among children who lie together, to preserve them from the cold. Some will starve unless the father of the family provide better, and enlarge the scanty covering. This pulling and contest is usually between the landed men and merchants; for the labourers' share being seldom more than a bare subsistence, never allows that body time or opportunity to raise their thoughts above that." These observations were printed a hundred and forty years ago; but they are as appropriate to our present condition as if they had been composed expressly for the occasion. I herewith submit an illustration in a table, containing the price of wheat, compared with the total computed amount of our currency during the last nine years, whereby it will be found that their variations sympathise as nearly as possible:—

I moved for the Greenwich Hospital Contracts Returns without the least knowledge how they would bear me out; and I find they tally with the above exactly, with one very slight exception.

hoped the right hon. gentleman would consent to substitute a lower price for that at present contemplated, at which to allow a free importation of foreign grain. In a petition which he had presented to the House, from his constituents, there was a prayer to substitute 70s. for 80s., as was the law at present; but he, himself, thought 64s. would be still more likely to meet the wants and wishes of the country. Such a proceeding would have been but an act of justice towards the agriculturists, to which they were entitled. The supporters of the present bill had advocated it, on the ground that it would afford relief to the poorer classes; but he was of opinion that it would not operate in that way. The moment the price of wheat was reduced, the manufacturers would reduce the rate of wages. At all events, the agriculturists could not continue to pay their labourers at the same rate under the proposed law, as they did under the existing one. The moment the present measure should he adopted, the landed interest would be entitled to call for a considerable reduction of taxation.

thought it desirable that it should be clearly understood whether or not the warehousing system would be applicable to corn under the proposed measure: for unless that were the case, it would, in his opinion, be perfectly nugatory.

The House having resolved itself into the committee,

begged to offer a very brief explanation of the connection between this bill and the general warehousing system. It certainly was the intention of ministers, that bonding should be applied as well to corn as to all other commodities paying a duty; and by the second clause, he conceived that that intention was carried into effect. The warehousing system was the general law of the land at this moment, and without reference to the particular provisions, it would be applied to grain as a matter of course. In order to render this object more clear, he should propose to leave out the words "imported or," and to leave the clause only with. the words "all corn which shall be entered," &c.

wished to know distinctly whether, as far as warehousing was concerned, corn was to be put on the same footing as any other article on which duty was paid? If so, whether the duty was to be calculated at the price of wheat in this country when the imported grain was warehoused, or at the price of wheat when the warehoused grain was thrown upon the British markets?

recommended, that the duty should be paid according to the price when the wheat was first imported.

explained the general nature and object of the warehousing system, and re-stated that the duty upon warehoused articles was calculated according to the price of the day when they were taken out for home consumption. The simple principle adopted in the bill upon the table was, that the duty upon corn was to be fixed exactly like other duties: the only question for the collector ought to be, what was the price on the day when the corn was removed from the warehouse? It was true, that the duty on corn was fluctuating; but the duty on sugar was also fluctuating; and when that was entered for home consumption, the duty of the day attached upon it. The warehousing system had been applied to corn as long ago as the year 1773, when the great corn act was passed. It was provided by it, that corn, grain, flour, &c. should be admitted into warehouse, under the importers' locks, without payment of duty, and that when the importer brought it into home consumption, the duty to be charged was at the rate of the day when it was released from confinement. The duty at that time could not be correctly called fixed, inasmuch as it was 15s. per quarter, when the price was under 53s.; and only 6d. per quarter afterwards. The principle now revived had, therefore, in fact, been in operation fifty years ago.

said, he had been desirous of clearly understanding the point; but what had just been stated made it necessary for him to propose, that constant importations of corn should not be permitted under the new system. To effect this object, he would strike out the words "at all times," in order to substitute an amendment. He denied that the Corn-law of 1815 was the only instance of absolute prohibition. There certainly was in the former Corn-laws a proviso, which, under some circumstances, amounted, in effect, to an absolute prohibition. With respect to fluctuations, it was impossible to prevent them by any description of regulations; and, in truth, fluctuations ought, in certain cases, to prevail. It was impossible that corn should be at the same price, in good and in bad harvests. In abundant harvests, the prices would be reduced; and, in cases of deficient harvests, the price must rise; and rise the more, because it was more expensive and difficult to get in a bad crop than a good one. A right hon. gentleman had, the other night, contended, that farming could not be in such a depressed state has had been represented, since so much manure had of late been imported; and he had instanced particularly bones and rags. Whether these bones and rags were imported for the purposes of manure or not, he could not tell; but at any rate, the inference might be unfounded. When a farmer cultivated land, which could not be rendered productive without such manure, he must have them, or entirely abandon his business; and in point of fact, in 1821 these farmers were, in many instances, obliged to abandon farms of about 700l. per annum, and take farms of 300l. per annum; and these they continued to cultivate as they best could, living from hand to mouth; but liable, on additional pressure, to be completely overwhelmed. He concluded, by proposing that the words "at all times," should be left out of the clause, and that an amendment should be inserted instead; the effect of which was, that the ascending part of the scale of duties should be allowed to remain, but that the descending scale should stop when the price of wheat was at 62s. per quarter, so as then to occasion a prohibition.

was decidedly opposed to the principle of prohibition, which always gave rise to the most mischievous speculations. Whenever a prohibition was fixed, the moment the prices approached close to the prohibitory price ruinous speculations were entered into, and tricks played.

suggested that the amendment had better be proposed at a future stage of the bill.

then rose to propose an amendment, of which he had previously given some intimation. He wished his proposition to stand thus—that the duty taken on all foreign corn should be estimated by the amount of the home price at the time of its importation, and not at the time when it might be taken out of bond and brought into the market: with a proviso, that the duty so levied should never be more than 20s. a quarter, and that the duty should not be actually paid, until the time when the corn was taken out of bond. The effect of the law otherwise, as it was brought forward originally, was to give an advantage wholly unreasonable to the speculators in foreign corn, who held their grain in bond. If they imported when the price was 60s. the duty immediately chargeable to them, if they carried their corn to market, was 20s. a quarter. But if they held back, and the price rose to 65s., then, while the home agriculturist gained an advance of 5s. a quarter on his commodity, the foreign speculator gained an advance of 15s.; for he gained 5s. upon the advance of corn in price from 60s. to 65s. and 10s. more upon the diminished amount which he had to pay in duty.

said, that his proposal of a fixed duty had been constantly objected to, upon the ground that, in a time of scarcity, no fixed duty could ever be maintained. Now the amendment of the hon. member for Kent, involved a fixed duty of a peculiarly oppressive description. It was possible that corn might be at 80s. or 100s. in the home market, and yet 20s. duty would be charged on the letting into the market of foreign corn, because that corn had been imported when the price was 60s.

The amendment was withdrawn, and the original clause agreed to.

brought up a clause, the object of which was, to give to his majesty in council a power of prohibiting the importation of grain or flour from any country in which higher duties should be levied on the produce and manufactures of this country than on the produce and manufactures of foreign countries, or in which higher duties should be levied on British shipping than on the shipping of that country.

objected to the clause, as a departure from the principles laid down by ministers.

was of opinion that the power of prohibiting the importation of corn might be abused.

objected most strongly to the introduction of this clause. He objected to it on principle in the first instance, and as contrary to the professed doctrines on which the trade of this country was to be regulated; but he objected to it more particularly, because he considered it as liable to misinterpretation in foreign countries, and likely to raise feelings of animosity and of jealousy, which it was our interest most certainly to avoid. He would instance Russia. It was well known that we had no treaty of reciprocity with Russia, and he felt convinced that this clause would be considered in that country as a blow aimed at their commerce. The utmost jealousy and distrust already prevailed in that country, on the subject of our restriction regulations, and especially as regarded corn. He was sorry to say they had been materially increased by the new law. It was only that day that answers had been received from St. Petersburgh to the letters conveying the resolutions proposed by the Secretary of State, and they were considered to be almost as bad as the old system. The new plan was considered to be a finishing blow aimed at the commerce of that country. These were not only the sentiments of the merchants and landowners, but of the government. A newspaper edited under the eye of the authorities there, said of the resolutions, that the proposed law was a final blow aimed by Great Britain against the agriculture and industry of Europe. Such were the feelings entertained by that country, which it was not our interest to excite. He, therefore, earnestly hoped that the right hon. gentleman would reconsider the clause, or reject it altogether.

After some desultory conversation, the clause was agreed to. The House then resumed.