opposed the bill, on the ground that the company had not complied with the provisions of the bill which they had obtained in a former session. By that bill they had agreed, whenever a dividend was made, that one-eighth of such profits should be invested in government security, until the sum so obtained should have accumulated to 250,000l., which was to be funded for the purpose of meeting all legal demands against the company. This arrangement had been shamefully departed from, and the company had the front, notwithstanding, to come to parliament for the purpose of acquiring an increase of power, and an extension of their funds. This company possessed an advantage over all other gas companies, as each member was liable only to the amount of the share he had adventured, whereas others incurred the risk of their entire fortunes. On these grounds he moved, that the report be read on that day six months. He opposed the bill on public motives, not knowing any thing of the parties concerned, but by their past conduct.

seconded the amendment. The directors of this company, instead of vesting in the public funds one- eighth of their annual dividends for the public security, as required by a clause in their bill, had, he said, taken care to keep the whole in their own funds. Now, would parliament consent to grant to this company additional privileges, when the directors had not complied with that clause in the bill? He was the more opposed to it, because he found among the directors and managers many names which figured in the concoction of the Arigna Mining Company, and various other fraudulent schemes. He hoped that the House would not concur in the report, as the directors had proved themselves unworthy of confidence.

hoped the House would examine the amendments recommended by this report, before they adopted the course now suggested. He admitted that the dividends had not been applied as required by the act; and it was to provide a remedy for that misapplication, that these clauses were now offered by the committee. If the directors should hereafter dispose of the one-eighth of the dividends otherwise than as directed by the bill, they would be subjected to a penalty of 500l. each. Another clause called upon the directors to lay their accounts annually before parliament. The only additional power that these amendments in the act was to give the company was the power of raising 150,000l. to enable the directors to carry the provisions of the former act into effect. The company lighted all the north-west of the metropolis, extending over several miles of turnpike-road; and their finances were insufficient for that purpose. He knew nothing of the company until the present session; and had now come forward because the hon. gentleman who had obtained the former acts was not now a member.

thought it would be highly improper to trust those who had already abused the confidence of the public, and set at nought the acts of the legislature. The hon. member, who spoke last, confessed that the company had been guilty of flagrant abuses. This was now the third time of their coming to that House for purposes of aggrandizement. On the first occasion they had obtained 250,000l. on the understanding that a contingent fund should be established. On the second application they received 250,000l. more, although the condition had proved a dead letter; and they now came a third time for an additional 150,000l.; and still there was no contingent fund. He thought the company had gained exceedingly by the change of support in that House; for, if this bill had been brought in by the hon. gentleman who had brought in the former bill, no man in the House would support it, as that hon. member (Mr. Peter Moore) was known to have concocted many of these fraudulent schemes. He hoped the bill would not be allowed to proceed any further. Instead of granting new powers, parliament ought to repeal the former act.

said, that the fact of a connexion with the Arigna Mining Company, and those other public cheats which had so materially injured the community, together with the admission, by the chairman of the committee, that abuses had been practised for so considerable a period, were fully sufficient to warrant their rejection of the present demand. Seeing that the company had so grossly abused their trust for the sake of emolument, the House ought not to listen to any proposal which had for its object any addition to their finances. Even if the bill were in itself a desirable measure, he would not consent to enlarge the powers of the company.

opposed the second reading of the report. The company enjoyed, he said, a charter which gave them a great monopoly; and they had endeavoured to make that monopoly still greater, by evading the condition's with which they were bound to comply.

presented a Petition, signed by the principal noblemen and leading Roman Catholics of Ireland, complaining oft he operation, and praying a modification, of the Landlord and Tenant bill, which had recently passed into a law.

expressed a hope that, whatever alterations it might be found necessary to make in the details, the House would not lose sight of the principle of the measure, as it was calculated to produce the most beneficial effects in Ireland.

also defended the principle of the bill, and contended, that it was calculated to put an end to the great evils produced by the pernicious practice of sub- letting land in Ireland. In consequence of the present system, the occupying tenant was often distrained three times, through the insolvency of the superior landlords through whom he held the land. These evils were of daily occurrence, and could not be borne patiently. The number of the people made them dangerous, and tyranny and poverty would render them formidable. These were the weapons before which, in the event of the present system urging them to despair, must ultimately fall the wealth, the education, and the greatness, of this country. By the present mode of government, instead of the people of Ireland being united in love and affection, a spirit of hostility was introduced between them. Let the parliament of this country yield the Catholic question, and they would hear nothing more about the management of property; but until that measure was conceded, its refusal would aggravate the amount of every grievance.

observed, that he felt it his duty to say a few words on the injustice of a petition, which had for its object the making a complaint against that part of the law known by the name of the Subletting Act in Ireland. When that act was about to be brought into parliament, the nature of its enactments were carefully made known throughout Ireland. No objection was made to it; and it was not until other circumstances had called up the Catholics in opposition to the act, that one word had been said about its supposed evils. The present petition was not from the landlords or tenantry of Ireland, but from the Catholic Association. There was hardly the name of one occupying tenant affixed to it; and he would venture to say that it was the petition of the real oppressors of Ireland—he meant her middlemen. In proof of this he would read from it a sentence, in which would be found words to this effect—" Can you, we ask with all deference and respect—can a Christian legislature contemplate two millions of murders, without horror and affright? We know that they are Irishmen, and poor Irishmen, but is not their blood of price in the sight of the Almighty." He would not comment further on such expressions; but he would ask whether, if the sentiments contained in the petition were those of the tenantry of Ireland, the table of the House would not have been crowded with them before now? The truth was, that the tenantry of Ireland were protected by this act; and while that protection was afforded them, he trusted the House would not be carried away by warmth of language, but would stay for proof of injury, before they made up their minds to condemn an act which had been so long in operation without complaint. This act afforded the only remedy against the miseries which the system of subletting had introduced. Instead of Ireland being a garden, as it ought to be, it was any thing but a garden: and instead of exhibiting that high degree of cultivation which it ought, its agriculture was in a state that was a reproach to any country calling itself agricultural. He did not mean to say that the bill was faultless; but he recommended the House to adhere to its principle, and to introduce such amendments as might appear necessary in its details. With such amendments it would be one of the greatest benefits they could confer upon Ireland.

approved of the principle of the bill, and thought there was not one man who really felt for the evils of Ireland that did not approve of it. He did not concur with all its provisions, as they at present stood. He thought the clause which provided that a tenant who possessed land under a lease should be precluded from devising his farm to more than one person ought to be repealed, as it compelled the testator either to sacrifice his children, and vest the property exclusively in his wife, or to mark out one favourite child to the exclusion of the wife and of the other sons and daughters. He thought, too, that some limitation of the periods of time mentioned in the act ought to be provided; and that the guardian of an infant or lunatic should be empowered to give his consent to an assignment proposed by the tenant.

was also in favour of the principle of the bill, the tendency of which, he thought, was to assimilate tenures of land in Ireland to those in England. In consequence of the dissimilarity which now existed in these tenures, the appearance of the land in Ireland was very different from that in England. The same difference existed between the appearance of the men and of their habitations; and whoever had passed through Ireland, must have remarked the want of those comfortable homesteads which distinguished the counties of England. It had been said, that the grievance of Ireland was non-residence; and the best remedy was, he thought, to create a numerous, honest, and independent body of occupying tenantry. The grievance of non-residence existed equally in Wales; but the great difference between Wales and Ireland was, that the former possessed a respectable body of occupying tenantry, of which the latter was in want. Though, in the reign of James, the operation of gavelkind tenures was put an end to by parliament, yet that tenure still, in fact, existed in the leases of Ireland. He appealed to the House, whether the attempt to intimidate them by the picture of the miseries of Ireland, and of their consequences, was calculated to produce a beneficial effect. He knew it had been said in a distinguished speech, delivered in a certain place, that the Catholics of Ireland had risen in strength, like the Jews of old; but he trusted no such language would be repeated, with the vain idea of intimidation. Let the House steadily adopt measures tending to improve the condition of the tenantry of Ireland—to secure them from that worst of all misfortunes, that of being driven for rent, when their rent had already been paid; and then, whatever might be the other evils of Ireland, the House would have done much towards lessening their effects.

suggested that the discussion had already gone far enough, as they would soon have an opportunity of debating the question when it came properly before the House.

said, from what had fallen from his right hon. friend, the Irish Secretary, the other night, he seemed to be prepared to submit a proposition, for the amendment of this bill, to their consideration. Under these circumstances, the best course would be, to wait until the proposed amendment came distinctly before them. He would not more immediately refer to the terms of the petition, or to the object of those who presented it, than by saying, that the most dignified revenge the House could adopt was, to pass such amendments as they conceived would afford the best remedy to the evils that were admitted to be in the bill.

thought that if members passed over the petition, without attempting to protect the petitioners from the effects of the bill, they would not discharge their duty. He differed from the hon. member who proposed to apply the same laws to the two countries; and he objected to the act, as he thought it was passed against the interests of the tenant, whose property was rendered almost valueless by the impossibility of assignment. He denied that the petition had originated with the Catholic Association, as he had last session presented several petitions from landholders to a similar effect.

said, that as future and fitter opportunities would occur, he should not go into any detail of the items. At present it was proposed only to take half the sum that would probably be required for the service of the year. He moved, "that the sum of 2,208,233l. 13s. 9½ d. be granted to his majesty on account, towards defraying the Naval Service of the year 1828."

said, that although he was one of those who were anxious to shorten the debates of that House, he was not altogether at his ease, when he saw that his hon. friend intended to shorten into a single vote a discussion which had often occupied the House more than a whole night. He conceived that there were items in/the present estimates, which the Committee of Finance ought to treat in a very inquisitorial manner, and which, if they did so treat, were certain to be reduced considerably. It was stated, the other night, by the Secretary to the Ordnance, that the duke of Wellington had made considerable reductions in that department of the public service, and that by those reductions he had not only increased its utility, but had stimulated the zeal of those who were employed in it. He trusted that similar reductions would be speedily made in the naval department, with similar benefit to the public service. He should like to know why his hon. friend below him, who had so often played first fiddle on occasions like the present, and the music of whose voice he was happy to hear again from his former situation, had again come forward to propose these votes, instead of his hon. and gallant friend (sir G. Cockburn), who had been first appointed to propose them. He wanted to hear from his hon. and gallant friend, what reductions were meditated at the Admiralty. He was afraid that we were at present between two stools, and that, what with the Finance Committee on the one hand, and what with the Government on the other, we should be in a pretty state before long. He wished to ask his hon. and gallant friend, what quantity of shipping it was determined to keep in actual force. He saw that there was 800,000l. to be voted this year for timber alone. He was sure that that grant might be very considerably reduced. We had, at present, one hundred and ten sail of the line building and in ordinary. Did government intend to keep up the whole of that force? Now, when he looked at the estimates for 1792, and again at the estimates for 1828, there did appear to him a mystery which it would be difficult to unravel. In 1792, we had 414 ships of all classes; and in 1828 we had 504. In 1792 the number of officers and shipkeepers were 4,224; and in 1828, 2,780. Indeed, it was impossible to look at these estimates, as compared with those of 1792, without seeing the wide difference in the expense of the men; 2,780 men cost at one time 105,815l., while at another 4,224 cost only 93,000l. He earnestly hoped the Finance Committee would look close at these things; and particularly at the cost of the manufacture of shipping. He was not a man to war against authority, and he therefore looked, not to the lord high admiral, but to the council who advised him; and if they gave his royal highness evil advice, we betide the executive. He was not in the House the other evening when his gallant friend had alluded to the fifty thousand seamen's jackets which had been turned up. These were charged 12s. 6d. to the seamen, and the taking them back left the country minus the Lord knew what. The council had advised his royal highness to get rid of these jackets, and the Navy-office had flung the business from their Atlean shoulders upon the feebler back of the Victualling-board. On these fifty thousand jackets, there was, perhaps, a loss of 10s. upon each, which made a good round sum. But, "Oh," said his gallant friend, "we have taken the seamen out of the hand of the Jews: the poor tars were previously in the habit of going to these infernal fellows, the Hebrew Jews." Into whose hands, then, had he put them? Why, he had taken them from the Jews to deliver them over to the Gentiles; for the Victualling-office was to charge them 24s. for these jackets. Thus, when a fine athletic sailor came on board, scrub him well was the first thing to be done, then put proper clothing on his back, taking care, however, that his debt to the government for these slops should be squared, so that he did not owe as much as would make it worth his while to run away. There was nothing so capricious as this system of clothing. Officers knew not, from day to day, how far they were safe in the official pattern of their uniforms. By arithmetic a man might cast up his accounts, and know how he stood; but there was no arithmetic to gauge the clothing for the circle of a man's person, to regulate the rotundity of an admiral's belly, as compared with the sparer shape of a midshipman's. Lately they had done away with the whole cut of the naval uniform, and for no purpose upon earth that he could understand. Why, it was only last summer, that at the very best dinner he had ever sat, Mr. Speaker's, he (sir Joseph) was complimented as the best-dressed man in the room. The compliment came from his rev. friend, the Speaker's chaplain. For forty years had he been in his majesty's naval service, and improvement after improvement, as it had been called, had been made in the pattern of his coat, until it had been reduced to what they now saw, with hardly a skirt upon it. Their coats were now reduced to trumpery jackets of the most extraordinary appearance. It might be convenient for the service to shorten the jackets, because it was not always fine weather; but was it equally convenient for the pocket? There was the rub. How long was this little jacket to last? Would his gallant friend, in the language of the famous Liverpool speech, give him a guarantee that this uniform would last a twelvemonth? Would he say it would not be penal to wear it at the end of the year? He hoped the Finance Committee would look to this particular grievance.

said, that, after his extraordinary speech, he could not help complaining of his gallant friend's not being in his place on the occasion to which he had referred, as he had thought proper in so loose a manner to quote the proceedings. His gallant friend had no right to put words into his mouth which he had never uttered, for the sake of answering them in his own way. What he had really said was, that an order had been given for a better description of jackets, but not for fifty thousand; and that, after experience of their quality, it had been deemed advisable, when a large stock was on hand, to reduce the amount to three months supply, and the rest were sold. The charge to the seamen was 11s. 6d., the cost price being 9s. 6d. The loss was not of such importance to the public, as to induce the Admiralty to continue the sale of these jackets, especially as the seamen would so much the sooner, after they were discontinued, obtain a comfortable suit. He had said that the jacket now sold was of a much better kind at the same price; but he had said, also, that as it was desirable to place the best kind within the reach of the seamen, the best that could be made were sold to them at 24s., the same as were commonly selling at the ports for 40s. and 50s. The Finance Committee were going into all the points connected with the expenditure of the navy. He had been twice before the committee, and he could state that they did not seem inclined to suffer any thing to pass unnoticed.

said, he was quite surprised that the government, in the manufacture of the Finance Committee, had not put upon it one, or two, or three professional men, connected with the navy, army, and ordnance, who could unravel the matters connected with their departments with technical dexterity. Upon it, however, there was not a single great gun; no, not even a pistol, or a patterero.

said, he could not help expressing his astonishment that the House should be called upon to agree to votes on account, without any statement being before them, or any one point marked out in which some reduction was to take place in the expenditure. That he considered to be the proper time for a member of that House to take into his consideration any and all the acts of government into which he deemed it right to inquire, and to demand something like a pledge from them, before he intrusted them with the disposal of large sums of money which might be spent, as it appeared, on their own shewing, that former grants had been, wastefully and extravagantly. It was rather a matter of surprise, that an hon. gentleman should, by way of passing a high encomium on a noble duke, have stated that a considerable effort had been made in the Board of Ordnance, to facilitate economy. The gallant officer had stated, the other evening, that a saving of 300,000l. yearly had been effected, and two hundred and forty clerks discharged. Now, he considered that this statement involved the most serious charge ever brought against any set of individuals concerned in the management of public affairs. It was obvious, on the face of, it, that a scandalous waste of the public money, to the extent of 300,000l. a year, had been continued for many years, and that two hundred and forty useless clerks had been retained in the public service when they were of no use to it; for the gallant officer had gone on to say, that every thing was, since this reduction, as effective and complete as before. The House had a most important duty to perform. They had been told, that they had nothing to do with establishments, nor with the question of peace or war; that it was their duty simply to give money for the wants of the government. That, then, was the only time, when the supplies were under consideration, to decide whether they would restrain or repress the extravagance of the men who held, the public purse. He, for one, objected to the voting of any money until the Finance Committee had done something satisfactory in explaining the mode in which the public affairs were conducted.—He begged the attention of the House to the facts which he was about to state. They were not charges against the present administration or the last, but against all the administrations and all the persons who, during the last fourteen or fifteen years, had been concerned in the management of public affairs. The other evening he had stated, on the authority of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), that there had been expended, during the last four years, an excess of nine millions and a half beyond the revenue of the country. Now, the House knew that every year when his majesty addressed his faithful Commons from the Throne, he always told them he had ordered the estimates to be prepared with every attention to economy. He would, however, ask the House whether it could be possible that ministers had paid all due attention to economy—whether they had not, in fact, put a falsehood into his majesty's mouth, in order to delude that House—when they made him say so; as it now turned out, on their own confession, that in one single branch of expenditure they had wastefully spent 300.000l. a year, and kept two hundred and forty useless clerks? How could the members of that House agree to suspend their functions, and suffer government to delude their constituents, by throwing every thing on the Finance Committee? He had as much confidence in that committee as any member. He believed they would honestly discharge their duties; but that was no reason why he should not also do his duty. No member could transfer his responsibility to any body else. The right hon. gentleman had taken him to task, the other evening, for not having known better than to introduce, what he called, extraneous matter on this question. But he would contend, that this was the proper occasion. If the right hon. gentleman turned to the speeches of Mr. Pitt, he would find that there was not a single point he now urged, which had not been maintained by that minister. The House had been told that it would be much better to leave the consideration of these affairs altogether to the Finance Committee. So it would be infinitely better, he agreed, for the government, if all were kept out of sight of the public, and talked over only in the committee. Had not the House had professions of economy enough? Yet, had they not seen that the expenditure was not lowered? This session they had voted thirty thousand seamen. Lord Castlereagh, in 1817, had reduced the number to eighteen thousand. They had voted ninety-one thousand men for the army. Not a single man had been reduced in either service. The right hon. gentleman had stated a most extraordinary fact in his recent speech on the finances of the country. He had admitted, that there was a deficiency of eight millions. If the Dead-weight was included, the deficiency would be thirteen millions. How was this to be supplied? Government would not reduce the expenditure: they left all that to the Finance Committee. By act of parliament they were bound to support the Sinking-fund. How, then, he asked again, was the deficiency to be supplied? Did ministers mean to raise money by a loan, or by new taxes? What means had they but by one or other of those courses? They told the House that they would protect the public creditor. So would he; but that could only be effectually done by raising money by taxes, or reducing the public expenditure. Without new taxes, or a reduction of the public expenditure the interest of the debt could not be paid. He had taken the pains to look into the expenditure of 1817, in order to contrast it with that of the present year. That year was rather an unquiet one. There were Spafields meetings, and various other disorders calculated, in the view of government, to create alarm; yet that very year lord Castlereagh stated, that the government would only want seventeen or eighteen millions; which he afterwards reduced, by deducting the expenditure of a former year, to about thirteen millions. If the expenditure since 1823 had not exceeded that of 1817, there would have been a saving, compared with what it really had been, of nine and a half millions. If the expenditure had been regulated according to the statement of the Finance Committee of that year, or that of lord Castlereagh, the saving from 1817 to the present year would have been within a fraction of twenty-five millions. Taking the expenditure at thirteen millions, the sum saved would be sixty-five millions. He called on the House to give its most serious attention to this subject. Had they ever touched the estimates? Had they ever cut down a single item? Had not ministers defended them, and insisted that they were reduced to the lowest pitch? His Hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had endeavoured in vain to effect the saving of 5,000l. here, and 10,000l. there, even in that very branch of the Ordnance in which such great reductions had been effected. But ministers had always resisted every economical proposition; and now they asked for the confidence of the House, and assured it how very saving they were going to become; while they admitted that they had been justifying the most extravagant waste, to the amount of 300,000l. in one department, in which two hundred and forty clerks had been kept of no use to the public. That House was of no use if it was merely to sit, and, by its acquiescence, give a colour to the acts of the ministry. Lord Somers had said, that "parliament was the great inquest of the whole kingdom, to search into all oppression and injustice on the part of the king's ministers." Had that House done so? Had they, in a single instance, thwarted the minister, excepting in the case of the Property-tax? That was the only instance, and let the House mark what followed—an immediate reduction of expenditure. If the House would, in the same manner, reduce the revenue, government would find means to reduce the expenditure. The House had it all in their own power. They might do it in a moment by a stroke of the pen, by withholding the supplies. It was for the House to say what burthen the country should bear, and for the government to make reductions in their establishments accordingly. The Finance Committee could not judge of items, but the individuals at the head of the departments could easily decide on the reforms they would effect; and after the important discovery of this saving of 300,000l. a year in the Ordnance, the House would be criminal if they suffered a single shilling to be voted on account, thereby confiding in ministers who had so greatly abused the trust reposed in them. They should compel ministers to come down with their plans of reform at once, and leave the House to judge how far they deemed them effectual. Lord Castlereagh did not throw every thing on the committee. He brought down a set of lowered estimates. If ministers wanted to know how the public money could be saved, it was easy to point out to them where reductions might be effected. They might get rid of two or three thousand cavalry, and they might cut down ten or twelve thousand seamen. Only a few years ago the number of seamen was reduced to fourteen thousand. Surely eighteen thousand seamen and one thousand marines would be fully adequate to the wants of the public service now. Government had gone on increasing the expenditure year after year. They had laid on one hundred millions of taxes since the peace, and nothing had been done towards the reduction of the debt; for the Sinking-fund had been aptly compared, on high authority, to the attempt of a wooden-legged man to catch a hare. The country borrowed at sixty or seventy, and paid at eighty or ninety. No greater farce or delusion was ever practised. If there was a surplus of revenue it would be wisely so applied, and a surplus there would be, if the public affairs were managed with common economy. He hoped the committee would examine minutely into the establishments, and if ministers were not prepared to defer the estimates until there had been an opportunity to revise them, he would oppose any grant on account.

also expressed the gratifica- tion he felt in joining with the gallant admiral (sir J. Yorke) his surprise, that no person connected with the navy, army, or ordnance, had been placed on the Finance Committee. He had looked into the estimates of 1792, relative to the navy, and those for the present year; and he held it to be a great injustice to make a comparison between them. He would go back to the year 1792, when he was serving in the East Indies. The squadron then was nearly equal in force to that now employed on duty there, though this country had then a smaller interest to protect. The squadron had only to watch over the two sides of the Peninsula, and not quite the whole of them; as there were some places on the coast in possession of other European nations. This country had since acquired immense possessions in that part of the world. We had now not only to guard the Peninsula, but to send a part of our force into the Straits of Malacca and the Persian Gulph after the pirates, both of which places we never visited in 1792. Besides these, we had the Mauritius and the Cape of Good Hope to attend to. The service of the navy was now five-fold, nay ten-fold, greater than it was in 1792. No fair comparison could be drawn, therefore, between the estimates of 1792 and the present year. The House knew, also, that there was the whole service of South America, and of North America, too, which had considerably increased on account of the growth of the navy of the United States. Even in Europe, though the navy of Spain was destroyed, yet every body was aware of the rise of a new naval force in Russia, more effective than any that Spain had ever had. There were sufficient reasons for keeping tip the service of the navy in a fit state to meet emergencies.

said, he could assure his gallant friend that, in the formation of the Finance Committee, nothing was further from his intention than to imply the slightest disrespect to the army or navy, by omitting the names of members of either service in the list of that committee. He could likewise assure him, that, so far from such a circumstance contributing to prevent the committee from turning its attention to the details of both services, since its appointment two distinguished military officers, members of that House, had been examined before the committee at great length upon all the points to which reference had just been made. In forming the committee, it was necessary to select its members from persons connected with England, Scotland, and Ireland, and when the smallness of its number was considered, it would be perceived that it was by no means easy to place upon it all those members who had turned their attention to finance, and whose assistance could scarcely be dispensed with. It was the limitation as to numbers which prevented the introduction of any members of the army or navy on the committee. But every military and naval man could attend the committee, and lay before it whatever information it was in their power to communicate.

said, that before the report was brought up, he believed he should not be irregular in saying a few words upon that subject. He had hoped, when the provisional grants for the different branches of the public service were passed the other evening, including that for the yeomanry-corps, that some hon. member would have taken the opportunity to have done that justice to them which they were so fully entitled to; but that not having been the case, he should trouble the House shortly upon the subject. Instead of offering any objection to the vote proposed on that head, he had to express his regret, that it was not to a greater extent. It had been his intention to have submitted a motion to that House having for its object the consideration of the measure of certain corps of yeomanry-cavalry having been recently disbanded by his majesty's late ministers; but, understanding that it was in the contemplation of the present government to make some alteration in that establishment, he had declined to fulfil his intentions. He felt, however, he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if he suffered that grant to pass, without shortly bringing the services of those corps to the grateful recollection of that House and of the country at large. He did not desire unnecessarily to impugn the conduct of his majesty's late ministers! They were, happily, defunct, and peace be to their manes: all he should apply to them was the epitaph on sir John Van- brugh, an architect of merit in his day; but remarkable more for the ponderosity than the elegance of his structures—

"Lay heavy on him, Earth; for he

Laid many a heavy load on thee."

Neither would he take up the time of the House in eulogising that establishment, whose loyalty, and efficient services, on all occasions, for more than a quarter of a century, were beyond all praise; but the cold and ungracious manner in which a portion of it had been dismissed called upon him to bear this public testimony to their great deserts. Economy was urged as the motive for their reduction: but this economy, he said, was false: it was being penny wise and pound foolish. For how could so cheap, and so constitutional a force be obtained by any other means? Disband the yeomanry, and the standing army (that never-ceasing subject of vituperation with the Opposition) must be augmented for home service; whereas these corps, composed of the brave yeomanry of the land, the independent country gentlemen, and the nobility of the realm, were always ready, and had been so for thirty years, at considerable personal expense and inconvenience to themselves, and at little charge to the state, to leave their homes, and to forego their private interests, for the public good. He concluded with expressing an earnest hope, that some more gratifying and more suitable acknowledgment than the paltry grant to the Staff only, of such as had been disbanded, would be extended to those who already had been, or who might hereafter be, released from the service, and that it would never fail to be registered in the recollection of a grateful country, that although it had not been the fortune of these corps to earn Waterloo laurels, they had proved themselves the patriotic protectors of their altars and their homes.

said, he could answer for the noble marquis, lately at the head of the Home Department, that in reducing the yeomanry corps, nothing was further from his intention than to cast the slightest reflection upon any one individual connected with them, or to manifest an indifference to the services which those corps had rendered to the public. The government felt grateful to the yeomanry forces for its past services; but there was an extent beyond which that feeling should not be carried. The extent of service rendered by that force bore no comparison with the expense which its maintenance cost the country; and the late administration felt that the public at large ought not to be taxed for the support of such a force, because in certain districts, and in certain times, services had been performed by it. Would it be said, because a particular portion of the yeomanry, on a particular occasion, had discharged their duty, that therefore the public should be burthened with the expense of the entire body? It was a principle of economy which animated the late administration in carrying this reduction into effect. But before the hon. member cast his censure so unsparingly upon the late government on account of this measure, he would request him to inquire how many members of the present government would be included in that censure. Because certain corps had been efficient in certain districts, was that a reason that those corps which were perfectly useless should be maintained at the public expense? For several years, the yeomanry corps in the county of Devon had cost annually 14,000l. and during the last ten years they had never upon any one occasion been required to afford their aid to the civil power. This was a sample of the system which the hon. gentleman would support, and these were the forces for the reduction of which he so freely lavished his censure upon the late administration. The reduction of the yeomanry corps was effected by the late administration, because it did not look forward to exist as a government of force—because it did not desire to be a government of military strength—but because it depended upon its measures and its regard to the principles of economy, for its claim to the public support. By the late reduction a saving of two-thirds of the charges for the yeomanry corps had been made. Those corps which had proved themselves a really efficient and useful force had not been reduced. He was confident that this reduction would meet with the approbation of the House; and the opinion of the country, with the exception of a few persons who were pleased with the amusements of soldiery, and whose personal vanity was mixed up with the establishment of yeomanry corps, had been already pronounced in favour of the measure, as one of great utility, and from which no detriment could arise to the public service.

said, that with him the only question was, why the dismissal of the yeomanry had so long been delayed? In 1817, he had propounded the same idea; and as he was connected with a regiment in Staffordshire, he trusted the House would give him credit for the purity of his motives. If there was any thing wanting to convince him of the good intentions of the late government, he should find it in the fact, that they had not regarded their own private feeling in favour of the yeomanry, when they deemed themselves called upon by public duty to dismiss the body.

thought that the only question to be asked was, why the whole body had not been dismissed? He could not see that any portion of them was necessary. In time of peace they were utterly useless, nay, they were worse than useless; for, from proofs of their acts, the painful particulars of which he would not bring to the recollection of the House, they had shewn how unsafe it was to employ them, and how much more preferably the regular soldiery might have been engaged to undertake the business. For his part, he thought they ought to have been abolished ten years ago.

said, he did not see how the present topic was connected with the question before the House, but he was quite prepared to take the fullest responsibility upon himself for the measure. It had been a saving to the country of 86,000l. a year, and that, too, without the sacrifice of any thing that was necessary to the well-being of the state. As to those corps which were retained, he thought that in that particular the noble marquis had exercised a sound discretion.

observed, that the hon. baronet had compared the late government to sir John Vanbrugh; nor did he object to that comparison, for he was quite willing that they, as sir John had been, should be the envy of the superficial, and the abuse of the ignorant; confident that they would inherit the well-founded admiration of posterity.

said, that upon every occasion, the yeomanry had distinguished itself for the public good. It had always merited and received the approbation of the country; and the same disposition still pervaded the body at large to contribute its exertions whenever necessary in future. He was justified in saying so by the fact, that many corps had tendered their services without any pay whatever, whenever they might be called upon; and he was confident that if the public service required their assistance, they would be found ready to come forward to devote their best efforts to its maintenance and support.

thought that, as long as Ireland was in the state in which she was at present, the army could not be safely reduced. It was beginning at the wrong end to think of reducing the army: they should rather seek for some way to tranquillize Ireland.

rose to explain why, upon this occasion, for the first time he believed, he should vote against reduction. They were at present only called upon to vote the estimates for six months, which were absolutely necessary, and nothing which passed now pledged any member to a particular line of conduct hereafter. He trusted that, in the Finance Committee, they should be able to reduce the military establishment of the country. In the existing state of their foreign relations, he did not think that the force specified in these estimates was too much to be granted to ministers for a period of six months [hear].

said, the House was called upon to make every effort to reduce the expenditure of the country. He should not, however, press his amendment to a division.

did not see any reason why reduction should be postponed, on account of the appointment of the Finance Committee. When that committee should make its report, the session would probably be near its close, the members would be out of town, and, under such circumstances, parliament would be called on to discuss this most important question. He was unwilling to vote so large a number of men as ninety-one thousand. Such a force was not required in time of peace. They had not such a force in 1792, nor in 1817, nor even in 1823. He could not see what were the peculiar circumstances of the country which rendered such an enormous force at present necessary. Looking at the difference between the expenditure of the country and its resources, he felt himself imperatively called on to vote for the reduction of the army; and for that reduction he certainly should vote, again and again, whenever it was proposed.

was of opinion, that, in the peculiar circumstances of the country, it would be only a delusion to hold out a hope that much relief could be obtained by reducing the army. This was a mere fallacy; and there was another which had gone abroad, namely, that by reducing the expenditure in other respects, great benefit might accrue to the nation. The total annual expenditure was about fifty millions, and of this there were not more than nineteen or twenty millions for the army, navy, ordnance, &c.; any reduction, therefore, that could possibly be made of these twenty millions of expenses, could not make a material difference, or meet the expectations of the public. The largest part of their expenditure was that which was connected with the interest of the national debt; and until they could reduce that, with perfect justice to the public creditor, it was clear that they could not make such a reduction as would satisfy the nation. Taking this point into consideration, it was, he conceived, very hard to expect from the labours of the Finance Committee that which they could not effect. He believed that the committee would prove to be an honest and efficient body; and nothing, he was sure, would prevent them from entering into a full investigation of every subject that might be brought before them; but it was unfair to expect impossibilities from them.

said, that at that late hour, and having in the last session occupied so much time on the subject of this bill, he should not, in moving the second reading, say more than was necessary to remind the House of the grounds on which it rested, and to explain the course he intended to pursue. Members would recollect that the committee appointed last year to try the merits of the East Retford Election petition, had presented a special report, in addition to that, by which they announced to the House that the election was void for treating. That special report stated, that it had been a "notorious, long-continued, and general, practice, for the electors, who voted for the successful candidates, to receive twenty guineas from each of them, so that the burgesses who voted for both the members returned, had customarily received forty guineas for such exercise of their franchise." In directing the attention of members to this report in the last session, he had touched upon the unparalleled extent of treating and the outrageous rioting at the last election—rioting which could only be subdued by a military force. However repugnant to the constitution and to the law such interference might be, the paramount necessity for it in this case had been such, that the committee had determined a petition complaining of it to be frivolous and vexatious. He had thus exemplified the depraved, disordered, and demoralized, condition of the borough, the electors of which consisted of about two hundred persons—one half-resident and the other non-resident—all of them in the most abject condition of life. As to the main charge in the special report, he had so far satisfied the House by a statement of the evidence, of the existence of the practice complained of, and of its tendency to vitiate and corrupt the choice of the members, that the House had not only allowed him to bring in the bill now again before it, but it seemed to be its general impression, that any evidence beyond that taken on oath before the committee was unnecessary, and he believed that if the session had not closed upon him, he should have been allowed to pass the bill through that House upon the grounds which the minutes of that evidence afforded. Those details were however probably forgotten—the impression produced was worn away—and he now found several gentlemen so desirous of evidence at the bar, that if the House would read the bill a second time, he should propose to examine evidence in a committee of the whole House upon the bill, in order to justify that part of it by which it was proposed to disfranchise East Retford. He abstained from saying a single word as to any other of the provisions of the bill; because as they were all necessarily dependant upon the course which the House should take as to the first, it would be premature to enter into any discussion with regard to the expediency of giving the franchise to Birming- ham or elsewhere until that first proposition was disposed of. The place to which two representatives should be given if Retford were disfranchised—the nature of the elective franchise to be established in such new borough—and all other subsidiary provisions, would be proper subjects for discussion in the committee, when he should be prepared to state the grounds upon which he thought Birmingham ought to be preferred, and, if he could not prevail on the House to agree with him, to submit to any alternative it might please to adopt.—In confining himself, then, to that part of the bill which related to Retford, he understood an objection was to be started in limine, namely, that the corruptions he complained of were not such as occurred at the last election, but at former elections, and that there was no precedent for any bill, either of disfranchisement or regulation, so grounded. He thought every case must be judged of on its own merits. He was not bound to produce a case similar to a precedent case. But if he had wanted proof of the ground stated in the special report, he thought the extensive treating, outrageous rioting, the demoralized, abject, and depraved, condition of the voters, and the various corrupt indications at the last election, would have been amply sufficient to justify the interference of the House. But he should stand upon the charge stated in the special report—on that notorious, long-continued, and general, practice there complained of. It was notorious, for every one of the witnesses before the committee, of whom inquiry was made concerning it, stated its notoriety, and if he wanted further evidence, he had in his hand a petition signed by the most respectable inhabitants of Retford (presented last Friday) in which this practice was set forth as one which had existed for a long period, and as one by which, in the opinion of more than two hundred of the most considerable inhabitants of Retford, the electors had forfeited their franchise. Evidence at the bar could not be better than this, for that would not be an oath, and this was signed by the parties giving the testimony. In addition, every witness before the committee, who was an elector, and had voted at former elections, admitted that he had received the election-money. It was clear then that the practice had long existed—he believed for about seventy years. Was it then, to be imagined, that it would not equally have taken place at the last election if the opportunity had occurred? Was it not absurd to say, that because these payments were not made at the last election (which was simply because they could not) the proceedings should be stopped? This objection was started in a petition presented, on the 8th of February, from the bailiffs, aldermen, and burgesses. But why did not these gentlemen seize upon that convenient opportunity for denying the charge against them? Not one word of denial did the petition contain; on the contrary, the omission of such denial must, under the circumstances, be taken as an admission of their guilt. They said, they should consider the suspension of the writ "a warning." Against what? Why, against the future commission of the offence charged upon them. But the House could not limit itself to a warning in so gross a case as he would prove this to be. As to the practice not obtaining at the last election—was it not the same thing if the expectation of it generally prevailed, and had an effect upon that election. If it had no connection with the last election, he should not want precedents: he believed the case of Shoreham was one, but he considered that unimportant. He could shew very conclusively, that the most extensive use was made of the practice in influencing the burgesses at the last election.—The hon. gentleman then made several references to the minutes, and cited the evidence of George Palfrey-man, Samuel Hindley, William Jackson, William Brown, and a letter written by direction of an agent of one of the candidates to one Joseph Marshall, which went to prove that the electors were seduced to vote for the candidates ultimately successful, on the ground of their being the strongest, and sure to pay the election-money. Thus, the practice had at the last election, as it always would, if not checked, the most injurious effect upon the public interest, by unduly and corruptly biasing the voices of the freemen. It must always operate upon the whole body of the electors prospectively, by inducing them to vote for the strongest party, without regard to qualifications. That the money was not actually paid at the last election arose from the claim being lost in consequence of the successful candidates being unseated. It was the inquiry now on foot, and the origin of that inquiry, which alone intercepted the pay- ment, and was it now to be said, that because the payment was not made, the inquiry which stopped it ought not to proceed? If such an objection prevailed, the practice would be immediately recurred to, and would go on to all eternity, which was precisely what the petitioners desired. He would not detain the House longer; but he wished it to be understood, that the real question before it at present was, whether it would go into a committee to examine witnesses; and although that vote was given in the form of a vote for the second reading of the bill, he should not consider any gentleman pledged by it to support the bill hereafter in its details, which, if the evidence were deemed sufficient to justify parliamentary interference with the borough of Retford, would remain open for subsequent consideration. The hon. gentleman then moved, that the bill be read a second time.

said, that having been intrusted by the corporation of East Retford with the care of their interests, he must object to the present bill, both on principle and because, in common justice to East Retford, the House could not entertain the present measure. In every former case—in the cases of Shoreham, Grampound, and Cricklade—the places had not been disfranchised on loose surmises of general corruption, but instances had been adduced, in almost all the cases, of individuals having been convicted of bribery. In the present case, the committee had thought proper to bring a general charge of corruption against East Retford at a former period, not properly under their consideration. In the Penryn case, what had passed at former elections had been stated to the House; but, in that case, repeated charges of similar acts at several successive elections had been recorded on the Journals of the House; whereas this was the first time that any charge had been made against East Retford. There was great hardship towards the accused in this course. The alleged acts of bribery had taken place in the election before the last. The accused, therefore, had not the same facilities of defence as they would have had if the charge had been made at that time. The evidence before the committee showed, that out of forty witnesses, eight or ten admitted that, at the former election, they had taken bribes. This was good evidence against those individuals, but not against others: yet this was the kind of evidence on which the committee had founded their charge. The evidence came before the committee casually and incidentally, whilst in pursuit of another object. If the present bill was suffered to pass, it would offer an easy and convenient precedent for the disfranchisement of a borough. Let it be brought before a committee on any charge, and if any instance of corruption could be shown, at any former period, then let it be disfranchised. There was another point of view in which the present measure was unjust: one fourth of the electors had been admitted to their freedom since 1820. So that if this bill passed, persons would be disfranchised to whom no guilt was imputed: it confounded the innocent with the guilty, if guilty they were. A total disfranchisement was justifiable solely on the ground that the whole body of electors were so corrupt that there was no pure stock to ingraft upon; whereas here a large body of voters were perfectly innocent.

opposed the bill. He said, he saw no reason why Birmingham should enjoy the privilege proposed to be taken from East Retford. There were four counties without representatives at all in that House. He would move, "that the bill be read a second time this day she months."

observed, that the trust with which electors were invested was similar to that of jurymen; yet it was the practice now a days, to consider the elective franchise as a great privilege. In an early period of our history there had been instances of electors petitioning the House to be exempted from the office of voting, on account of their poverty. It was now, however, found out that the office was extremely profitable, and that it was quite cruel to take it away.

said, that even if he agreed with the hon. member that the trust of an elector was like that of a juryman, he must still assert, that to deprive a man of such a privilege inflicted a disgrace which would be felt painfully. He could not agree, therefore, that in these cases the complaints of the parties ought not to be listened to. The members of that House did not sit in it for their own purposes alone. A seat in that House was a burthen from which no member could discharge himself. The objection of the hon. member was therefore no answer to the hon. member on the other side. If it were proved that the parties were guilty, then he admitted that their feelings ought no longer to be considered; but he could not allow that to be the case. He was not contending against the motion of his hon. friend, because the object of his hon. friend was merely to call other witnesses. He was a party to the report, and thought the case called for further inquiry; but he did not think that it was one which justified disfranchisement. It was a grave subject of inquiry, and he felt disposed to aid that inquiry; thinking it a most fit occasion for the House to exercise its inquisitorial functions.

thought it was material that it should be distinctly understood what was the principal object of the present measure. If he thought the real question involved in the proposition of the hon. gentleman was that which had been contemplated by two hon. gentlemen on his side of the House—that it was to decide whether East Retford was to be disfranchised or not—he might be disposed to vote against the proposition of the hon. gentleman. But he understood from his speech, that he only called on the House that evening to agree to his motion, in order that further evidence might be obtained, to enable members to make up their minds. If this were the case—if the House was to agree to the second reading of the bill, in order that evidence might be adduced at its bar, and that it might by personal examination of the witnesses determine the extent of corruption in East Retford—he should not refuse to the hon. member the opportunity of establishing his facts. He did not feel himself called upon to enter into the question of whether there was or was not a prima facie case of corruption; but he could not refuse the hon. member the opportunity he asked. Some regard should also be paid to the past proceedings of the House. The House had come last session to the second reading of a bill on this subject; he therefore thought it would be too much to set aside a former decision. On these grounds—the special report of the committee, and the past proceeding of the House—he gave his consent to the second reading of the bill. One part of the bill he thought objectionable, namely, that which stated the way in which the elective franchise was to be disposed of; which was assuming the guilt of East Retford. The part of the bill to which he most objected, was that which transferred the elective franchise to Birmingham. They ought to receive evidence without any previous prepossession in favour of the bill; and if after the evidence had been gone through, they should be satisfied that the borough of East Retford had been guilty of the imputed corruption, and therefore deserved to be disfranchised, their next measure would be to decide on the place to which the forfeited franchise should be transferred. Such, he conceived to be the course which justice and propriety dictated. To all those who might have an inclination in favour of the proposed change of franchise, he would suggest the inexpediency of making a transfer from a limited jurisdiction to a place so populous and extensive as that in contemplation.

observed, that in the case of the bill for disfranchising Grampound, the name of Leeds was introduced, as the place to which the elective franchise was to be transferred; and that in the bill now in progress for disfranchising Penryn, the name of Manchester was introduced in a similar way. He had no hesitation in saying, that he was prepared, on the report of the Select Committee, to proceed to disfranchise East Retford; and he trusted that the legitimate object in view would not be met by Jesuitical evasions; but that the House would determine to do its duty.

, in explanation, observed, that all he wished was, to wait until the evidence before the committee had proved the expediency of disfranchising East Retford: after which he should support the proposition for introducing into the bill the name of the place to which, in the opinion of the House, the elective franchise ought to be transferred.