, in rising to present a petition from the miners of Holy well Hold, and other districts in Flintshire, said — the petitioners complain, and with reason, of the reduction in the duty on foreign Lead Ore, and of the abolition of One Pound Notes. I understood that some proposition, for again advancing the duty on foreign lead ore, was intended to be brought forward; but, with respect to the abolition of the small-note circulation, I shall take the opportunity of expressing my surprise that government has not thought it expedient or necessary to explain to the House the ground of their proceedings on that subject. They have, indeed, stated what their intention is, but have given no explanation of the reasons why they propose to persevere; the measure in question is not one which, originating for the first time in 1816, is now to be expected to be carried into effect as a matter of course: their whole course of proceedings has led to a contrary conclusion. They, in 1819, adopted a measure, the effect of which was to extinguish the circulation of one-pound notes; but, in 1822, another was passed to continue their existence. In 1826, government again resolved on their abolition; but, of this last law, they showed their distrust before it had passed. Its authors proposed au amendment to curtail its operation. They have not now ventured to extend their measure to Scotland or Ireland; so that, if carried into effect as it now stands, it would be difficult to conceive any legislative proceeding: more absurd or more inconsistent. From 1819, when you passed their first law, to 1822, their second, was a period of three years; from 1822 to 1826, when the third law was passed, was another period of three years; and, from 1826 to 1829, there were also three years, so that, by the time we shall have arrived at April, 1829, we shall have got to a period when a periodical change of opinions and measures will be to be expected from the ministers on this subject. This is no forced statement of mine; it is the expectation which generally prevails in the country and in this House. Do ministers then mean that the House should proceed in this course, without any explanation being given, and do not they mean to show why, in their opinion, a measure, unsafe in 1822, is safe now? Why is it expedient not to abolish these notes in Scotland and Ireland, and yet to abolish them in England and Wales? The reasons given in 1826, for extinguishing this circulation in England, were equally applicable to Scotland. Some new light has, however, since that time broken in upon ministers, as relates to Scotland, but of this the House knows nothing. A committee has been appointed which has probably found reasons why it was advantageous not to apply this measure to Scotland; might not a committee make the same discovery, as regards the other part of the empire? The act of 1826 was adopted in a period of alarm—of a panic in Downing-street, succeeding one in the city; and whether it be fit to be revived or not, it is fit, at least, that the House I should, out of respect for its own consistency, go upon some intelligible principle. This is the last measure for settling the currency on a permanent and satisfactory basis; and are we to leave it on the footing proposed, of one currency in one part of the empire subsisting without limitation, which is put down as injurious in the other. The right hon. Secretary for Home Affairs has, in fact, given the only reason yet afforded for this proceeding; for he said, that if this measure were not now effected, he despaired of seeing it ever carried into execution. This may be a very good ground of proceeding for himself, desirous, as he must be, to preserve the consistency of his own proceedings, but it is no ground for the House to act upon. The question for us is—is it expedient, or not, to adopt this measure at this time? If expedient, let it for that reason be executed, and if not, abandon it. Why, I ask, are we to believe, that a future House of Commons will be less disposed than ourselves to abolish these acts, when it may be expedient to do so; whilst we are called on to take the same step with no expediency proved? But as no expediency has been assigned, I will shortly state what, in my opinion, would be the effect which might be expected from at present withdrawing this circulation; and in that, I shall give a disinterested opinion, for personal interest I have none in this question. I believe it will occasion temporary distress, of the extent of which, whether great or small, it would be difficult to form a previous estimate; but I think all calculations, founded on the mere amount in circulations, will be delusive. It might require five or ten million sovereigns to replace these notes, an amount not in itself large; but it is to be considered that this five or ten millions of capital is, perhaps, the most active and efficient of any part of the national capital—and puts in operation other capital to a great extent. Bankers, called on to pay off these notes, will reduce the general scale of their accommodations to the farmers, dealers in agricultural produce, manufacturers, and traders—in short, to the productive classes generally. These again, straitened in their resources, will reduce their concerns. The farmer and corn-dealer will carry their goods to the market. This, generally done, will be followed by a depression of prices; by what has been called over-production in short, though, probably, it may take place in the face of impending scarcity. The landed interest have been strenuous in their endeavours to support prices by their corn-bill, but they have mistaken their course, they can secure remuneration by no corn-bill. Corn is the food of the people; and if it were possible to advance its price by any measure, not giving, at the same time, increased means of purchase to the labourer, such a law would be a legislative famine. The high prices during the war have not been owing to the Corn-laws; they were accompanied with high wages of labour, which no corn-laws could give. If the landed interest desire to secure to their tenantry remunerating prices, such as would enable them to pay the rents stipulated in their leases, their first business must be to secure to the farmer the existence of money of the same value as that which existed when his lease was signed. If they cannot effect that, their business will be to reduce rents; and not, by unjustly exacting false rents from the farmer, compel him to oppress the labourer. Their remedy is, to reduce taxation; not to relieve themselves by an unjust burthen, by doubling it on their tenantry and labourers, but to spend it equally—to take care that taxation shall endure its full share of reduction. And next, with regard to the labourer—if the manufacturers, generally, find their resources lessened, their course must be to discharge their workmen. This, generally done, would press heavily on the labouring class, at present in a condition certainly not prosperous; with low wages, high taxes, little employment, and insecure of that. The result of their condition is to be seen in the appalling spectacle presented by the gaols. On this head, I submit it to the right hon. Secretary, that when he supported the act of 1819, he stated that its great effect would be to relieve the labouring classes from those high prices and fluctuations of the paper money. The right hon. gentleman was then told, and truly told, that he mistook the effect which his measure would produce. The right hon. gentleman opposite stated, some time ago, that the number of criminal commitments had increased to the amount of six thousand within the last four years. In the year 1804, however, the circulation of small notes was the most unchecked, and in that year the number of criminals increased only by one hundred and thirty-five; but, as we have heard, in the first four years of a gold circulation, the number of criminal commitments increased by six thousand; and the want of employment, which will arise from the further limitation of a paper circulation I have no doubt, will add still more to the number of commitments. It is, therefore, Sir, that I contend, that no measure should be adopted for diminishing the paper circulation without serious consideration. I am not, and never have been, a friend to an unlimited paper circulation; but I think no measure should be carried into effect without reference to the situation of the country, and the condition and natural character of the people. When the national revenue is free from the embarrassment in which it is now involved—when the agriculturist is not menaced by the prospect of ruin—when the tenantry of the country are not exposed to reverses which end in their indiscriminate ruin—when our gaols are no longer crowed with criminals—when we hear no more that unnatural cry of a redundant population—when the improvement of the country is steady and unimpaired, alike in war and peace—perhaps I may be induced to consent to doubtful experiments on our paper currency, but certainly not in the present state of the country. There are some measures which falsify all calculation; but I think that, by one act of parliament, you have doubled the debt, and put a forced value on every contract and engagement. Let any gentleman consider the altered situation of this country since we first began to tamper with its paper circulation. During the war, our paper currency enabled us to meet the difficulties of our situation, and to bring that protracted contest to a successful close. Since the circulation of small notes was abolished, however, we have not been able to make any exertion; nor do I believe that we shall ever again be able to make the same exertions as we made when there was a small-note circulation. There never was a country which presented so degrading and humiliating a contrast, as England during the war, and England since the peace. The situation of this country, be it remembered, was always prosperous, under whatever circumstances, of peace or war, down to that miserable period when we occupied ourselves in re-establishing,—not a metallic standard merely, for a metallic standard adjusted to the value of the paper standard it superseded, could have been established with no obstruction to our general career of prosperity; but,—a metallic money differing in value from the money it supplanted. This country, Sir, is in such a state of disorder and weakness, produced by those changes, that I do not believe it is equal to the present difficulty, light as that would have been to it, in any other time. It is upon these grounds I contend that no measure can be carried, diminishing the circulation of small notes, without difficulty, nor ought any such measure to be carried without the fullest inquiry. I have taken this opportunity to state my opinions on this most important question, and I have now only to move you, Sir, that the petition which I hold in my hand be read.

protested against the proceeding adopted by the hon. member. He must say, that on a petition, the principal prayer of which was, that the House would take into consideration the state of the trade in Lead Ore, the introduction of the topics on which the hon. gentleman had addressed the House was a little out of order. He knew that the state of the currency, the increase of crime, and other important topics, might be incidentally introduced into such a discussion; but when he had received no notice of the discussion, and when others who might wish to take part in it were absent, he put it to the candour of the hon. member, whether it ought not to be discontinued. To shew the unfairness of the views taken by the hon. member, he would just refer to one statement, in which he had asserted that England and Scotland were in precisely the same situation with respect to the circulation of small notes. In making that statement, did the hon. member think it fair to hide from the House the important fact, that, for the last century Scotland had possessed a circulation of notes under 5l., and that it was not until the Bank Restriction act that 1l. notes had been permitted in England. Until then the circulation of Scotland had been for a century a paper circulation, while that of England was exclusively gold. The hon. member might say that, in his opinion, there were reasons for making the circulation of the two countries the same, but it was impossible to contend that their circumstances were exactly similar. He should make no further observations at that moment, as his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, had postponed his motion on this subject, at the desire of many members who were interested in its discussion, and who could not be present that night; and he trusted, for that reason, the House would suspend their opinion until the subject came properly before them.

, sir J. Graham, and Mr. Western concurred in stating, that the subject was one of great importance, but that this was not the time for its discussion,

said, the object of the bill which the chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to introduce, was simply to prevent the Scotch paper money from coming into England after such a circulation had been declared disadvantageous for this country. He acknowledged the ability and extensive information of his hon. friend and colleague, but on this occasion he believed he was entirely wrong when he appeared to wish them to return to a depreciated currency, which, instead of relieving the difficulties of the country, would materially increase them. To what was much of the present distress of the country to be attributed, but to the tampering with the currency? And if any thing that had been done was good, as an argument on this subject, it was, that they should avoid that error in future. He trusted that we should persevere in the system which was now laid down; the strict adherence to which would best provide for our security.

was glad that the act regulating the currency of England had stopped short of Scotland, and he believed that this country must, ere long, return to what he would call a sound currency of paper and gold—a paper currency that was convertible into gold on demand. By banishing such a currency from this country we had crippled ourselves, and the difference in the currencies of the three kingdoms was productive of the greatest inconvenience: there was one currency for England; another, totally different, for Scotland; and a third, of a mixed kind, for Ireland; and the whole was now to have the additional patchwork of a bill, to prevent Cumberland, and the northern parts of this country, from enjoying the same advantages as Scotland.

said, he had postponed the discussion of his bill at the request of many gentlemen who could not attend that day, and from no fear that he should not be able to justify its necessity to the House.

thought, that under such circumstances, the present discussion was misplaced.

said, that the government had not given up the measure with respect to Scotland from caprice, but because they had been satisfied by evidence, that the present currency of Scotland was the most advantageous for that country, and they had therefore allowed her to follow her own course of prosperity in her own way.

said, he could not suffer the observation of the hon. member for Aberdeen to go abroad without contradiction. That hon. member had spoken of the necessity of a paper currency convertible into gold, and seemed to suppose that such a currency would add to the security of the country. Why, it was just that sort of currency which destroyed the security, whenever a panic occurred from any cause whatever. What was it that occasioned, in 1825, the failure of twenty-five out of every hundred bankers, but the power of demanding that their notes should be immediately converted into gold? That convertibility, therefore, constituted the danger which parliament had wished to avoid; and he trusted that they would not depart from a course which experience had proved so necessary.

observed, in explanation, that if the right hon. Secretary had attended to the former part of what he had said, he would have seen that the character of the petition was accurately described; the complaint was of injury from two causes, the introduction of foreign lead ore, and the abolition of small notes. He had used no argument which did not strictly bear on the petition. With respect to the practice of debates on petitions, he observed that it was generally deprecated by one party, and approved by another; but it was surely advantageous to discuss frequently, and on various occasions, questions of difficulty and importance. The right hon. Secretary had been mistaken, in imputing to him the allegation that Scotland and England stood on the same footing with respect to the circulation of small notes. His statement was, that the right hon. gentleman's colleagues, when they brought in the bill of 1826 for abolishing small notes in England, supported that measure by reasons applicable in the main to Scotland and Ireland, as well as to England; and he had pointed out the inconsistency, therefore, with which they were now chargeable in proposing, without explanation, to carry their measure into effect in the latter part of the empire, and not in the former. His hon. friend and colleague, Mr. Baring, had charged him with exaggeration, in his estimate of the mischiefs arising from these measures relative to the currency. Now the degree of mischief thus occasioned must be estimated from the extent of difference effected in the value of money. He (Mr. Attwood) had taken it at fifty per cent., or one-half; but had expressly said, that he gave such estimate as vague, and that neither that estimate, nor any other, could be taken as pretending to an approach to accuracy. But he well remembered the estimate given by his hon. friend himself—in answer to a calculation of the late Mr. Ricardo, who had said the difference was three or four per cent. His hon. friend, in answer, gave his own opinion, which was, that the money of Mr. Peel's bill differed in value from the paper money it superseded, to the extent of perhaps twenty-five or thirty-three per cent., and on many articles as much as fifty per cent. There was little difference, therefore, or, in fact, none, between what his hon. friend called an exaggerated estimate and his own. The difference of money, in which the debt was contracted, and in which it was now to be paid, was very great; and never was there a greater mistake made, than that which was made by that very extraordinary man, Mr. Ricardo, in his estimate of the effect produced on the value of money by the alteration which took place in the currency in 1819.

added, that his hon. colleague had observed, that his estimate was overcharged, not in the extent he ascribed to the alterations in the value of money, but in the evils he ascribed to the abolishing one-pound notes. But all he had said on this head was, that this abolition would occasion some degree of general pressure and difficulty extending to all the productive classes; but what degree, he neither himself pretended, nor could any man pretend, to estimate. It was doubtful how far it would go. His hon. friend admitted that the value of money had been altered from twenty-five to perhaps fifty per cent. That alteration had been effected in the legal money of the country, by the act of the government secretly, without its being known that such an operation was in progress; and if any man would consider what the effect of such a measure must, be, in a country like this, operating on all its public and private pecuniary engagements, altering to that extent, all monied contracts, he would be convinced, that it would be difficult to make any statements of the effects of such measure which could be considered as exaggerated. It was from the disorder thus occasioned, that he looked on the additional pressure which the reduction of one-pound notes would occasion, with apprehension.

said, that the principal objects for which he introduced his present bill were comprised in a very few words. One of the merits of the measure which he was now asking leave to introduce to the House, and if it had not that merit he had misapplied the pains and trouble which he had bestowed upon it, was, that the bill which he was desirous to bring in was not a long one, that the provisions of it were simple and intelligible, that it was calculated to work out its own object, and that all it aimed at might be easily effected. The chief object of it was to give to all cities, boroughs, and cinque ports, in England—Ireland and Scotland he specifically excepted out of its operation,—a register containing the names and descriptions of all persons who had a legal right to tender their votes for the election of members to serve in parliament for those places. He was fully aware that nothing was more distasteful to the House than to enter into a discussion of the abstract principles of representation; he should therefore abstain from saying even a word upon that subject: but he could not help remarking, that whatever might be the views of gentlemen on the abstract theory of representation—or he should rather say the machinery of representation—there could be no good gained in practice by the concealment of the numbers or qualifications of those who had a right to vote at elections for cities and boroughs. There was no tenable ground on which it was desirable that either the candidates, or the returning officers, or the voters themselves, should be left in ignorance of the number and qualifications of the different voters. Whether gentlemen were inclined to favour the influence of property or the influence of population, in regard to elections, in neither case were they left uncrippled by being totally ignorant of the numbers and qualifications of those who exercised the elective franchise. Indeed, he apprehended there were only one or two objects that could be answered by refusing his motion; and he did not expect that gentlemen would rise up in that House to advocate either of them. One of them would be, to continue in the hands of a set of country attornies, an undue monopoly of knowledge as to the extent of the voters, which gave them a most prejudicial power, not only over the candidates, but over the voters themselves; and the other would be to confirm to the members of corporations, in corporate towns, a fraudulent privilege which they enjoyed under the present system,—he meant the power of creating voters ad libitum at the moment of election, or just before it, to give a preponderating advantage to the candidates they favoured. He apprehended no one would say that it was desirable to give effect to either of these objects. To prevent the disadvantages of such a system, and to bring down the wisdom of country attornies to a level with their neighbours, some measure was imperiously necessary. If his measure should be useful in acting as a check upon local interests, it would also be useful in acting as a check upon that which all parties agreed in thinking a great evil,—he meant, fraudulent personations at elections. If gentlemen would look at the detail of the present measure, they would find it calculated to meet the evil of fraudulent personation, as far as the legislature could grapple with it. It was obvious, that there occurred at every popular contested election, a great loss of time in taking the votes during the polling, a great temptation to fraud and perjury, and much quarrelling and confusion among the electors. The first object of his bill, was to procure a registry of the names of all the voters in every city, borough, and cinque port, in England, and a description of the qualifications on which they claimed the right of voting. This was to be lodged, in all places, with the returning officer, and the name and description of the qualification of the voter was in all cases to be entered by himself. For that purpose, he would have a court held in each city or borough four times in a year, at which those who were qualified to vote should be present to enter their qualifications. A severe fine should be inflicted on every returning officer making a false entry in the book of registration, or erasing an old entry. Each court should have power not only to enlarge, but to correct, the register-book, and a certificate should be given at them, by the returning officer, to any voter who made application for it, on the payment of a small determinate fee. That certificate, too, should be of equal value with the entry in the register-book, and should be considered in all cases as a proof of it. Furthermore, no one should be permitted to vote at any election who had not entered his name in the register-book for a certain term,—say twelve months,—before the election, with the exception only of those, who by birth, inheritance, office, or by any act not their own, became qualified to vote in the interim. Copies, too, of the registration should be printed, and offered for sale at a low price. His intention was, to give increased effect to the provisions of the Durham act, in one important particular. The act 3 Geo. 3rd. c. 15, commonly called the Durham act, provided that all citizens, burgesses, or freemen of any city, town corporate, borough, cinque port, &c, which returned members to parliament, should be registered in a book kept by the mayor or bailiff for that purpose, but did not provide that that book should be published. The consequence was, that a corporation might alter the register, or circulate false registers, or play tricks, or commit various other faults, which would either be totally prevented or immediately corrected by having a copy of it printed at stated intervals.—He had now slated the main features of his bill.—He did not intend it to interfere with the right of any elector to appeal against the decision of the returning officer on his particular case, or with the right of any candidate to demand a scrutiny after the poll. Indeed, it provided for both such, cases. Still less did he intend it to interfere with the undoubted privileges of that House, with respect to the examination of the qualifications of the voters before a committee. What he wished to supersede was, the examination of the qualification of the voter at the moment of the poll, when the minds of men were heated, and when all the elements of confusion were, afloat. That was not the time for such, examination; the time for it was when party spirit was cooled, and when men had thus a better opportunity of hearing calmly and deliberately, any complaints that might be made against the entries of voters. It would shorten the time which was now necessarily spent in taking the poll, as the process of taking the poll would be limited to the tendering of the necessary oaths, and to the examination of the ticket of qualification of the voter. Every thing else would be reserved either for examination before, or scrutiny after, the election.—He wished to provide against any objection, by which he might be met, of the trouble and inconvenience which this measure would occasion to the out-voters, who would have to go to be registered. He intended to éxcept from the registry of the first year, all persons who claimed the elective franchise by birth or inheritance, and to limit it to those who had gained it by servitude, or marriage, or purchase. Those who obtained the right of voting by birth, or office, or inheritance, might vote immediately on gaining their franchise; those who gained it by servitude or purchase, would have an opportunity of registering their right at the time when they acquired their franchise, either by applying for admission to their freedom, or by completing the purchase of a burgage tenure. The extent of the frauds practised upon candidates, in consequence of their ignorance of the numbers or qualifications of the voters at the places which they aspired to represent, reached a degree which gentlemen who had not paid attention to this subject could never anticipate.—On the subject of out-voters, he should make no observations at that moment; though it was a point on which he entertained a very strong opinion indeed. At the same time, he trusted the House would allow him to say, that one of the great abuses which arose from the ignorance of their numbers, this measure would cure. He had occasion last year to call the attention of the House to the proportion which the out voters bore, to the resident voters in cities and boroughs. He had shown, that in many instances the out-voters amounted to a third, in some to a half, and in a few to more than a half, of the whole constituency. At Bristol, in consequence of the charter, which Elizabeth granted to the citizens, and which made it transmissible through females, one half of the people of England might unconsciously be voters; and every gentleman who then heard him might vote at the next election, if in his genealogical tree he could trace back to the daughter of a citizen of Bristol. Bristol, however, was not the rule, but the exception. His bill, he contended, would have a good effect in showing to candidates and to returning officers, who and how numerous the parties were, who had a right to exercise the elective franchise. At present it was unnecessary for him to go any further into this question, except to say, in answer to those who charged the friends of reform with always bringing forward wild and visionary plans of reform. "Here is a practical measure—deal with it as you think proper." He believed that it would be an effectual remedy for many evils, justly complained of under the present system. Entertaining that opinion, he should now move for leave to bring in a bill "for the Registration of Voters in cities, boroughs, and the cinque ports of England."

said, he had given notice of his intention to introduce two bills, bearing upon the practical domestic economy of the country. The first measure went to abolish what were called Church Briefs, for raising money in cases of calamities by fire, and for the raising of money for the building or repairing of churches or chapels. In the first place, he conceived that the existence of insurance offices dispensed with the necessity of making collections in this way, in cases of loss by fire; and, besides, to any one who attended the celebration of divine service, it must appear, to say the least of it, very indecorous to introduce into the middle of it a subject so totally unconnected with it. A return had been called for last session, to show the enormous expense attendant upon this mode of collection, and the disproportion between the loss sustained, and the amount of money collected. All that appeared on those returns combined to show the policy of abolishing- this system. He would therefore propose the total abolition of the system of raising money in cases of loss by fire by means of church briefs. He held in his hand an account of all the church briefs which had been issued since the 15th of May, 1819. He would select one or two instances to show the smallness of the sum paid to the party by whom the loss had been sustained, in consequence of the immense expense incurred, for the patent, for printing notices, and for the salaries paid to officers for distributing them, and collecting the subscriptions. Under the first brief which he should select, the loss sustained by the party amounted to 362l., and the amount of the sum raised was 549l. But the fact was, that a greater portion of that sum was expended in collecting the contributions of the charitable, than was paid over to the individuals who had suffered the loss by fire: 971. was the expense incurred for the patent, and the collection of the subscriptions cost 362l. So that the nett sum paid over to the party on whose account the subscription had been raised, amounted to 124l. out of 549l. There was no blame to be attached to the officer charged with the collection: he had to pay for the patent, for the printing of the papers, and for distributing them all over the country. It was plain that, if the contributors imagined that the party for whose relief they gave their money, would only receive 124l. out of 549l., they would not have given a shilling to the fund. In another instance in which the loss by fire amounted to 3,682l., in the raising of the contribution, no reference whatever was had to the amount of loss incurred. The contributors who had given a shilling in former instances contributed the same sum on that occasion. In truth, the whole was a lottery, in which the sum raised was usually alike, and had no reference to the amount of individual loss which had been sustained, and for the relief of which it was intended. With regard to the system of collecting money by briefs for the repairing or building of churches or chapels, the same objections did not equally apply to it, but the returns would show that the sum raised had no reference to the circumstances of the parish, or to the extent of the repairs required. It would appear from the returns, that the sum raised in all instances was between 340l. and 440l. He proposed to repeal the act of Anne, which authorized the collection of money in this way by church briefs, with a view to put down the system altogether. The contribution of money for the building of churches and chapels was founded upon an excellent principle; and he would propose to substitute another system, to compensate the church for the loss which it might sustain by the abolition of this mode of collection. If his majesty should be pleased to issue letters patent, authorizing the collection of voluntary contributions for the building of churches and chapels, he proposed to incorporate a society to receive the subscriptions thus collected, and the society he would incorporate for that purpose was one already in existence. He alluded to the society for the rebuilding and repairing of churches and chapels. He was happy at being afforded this opportunity of bearing his testimony to the merits of that excellent society. The whole amount of its funds consisted of the general contributions of individuals who were anxious for the maintenance of the pure doctrines of the church of England, and it had distributed 110,000l. for the purposes for which it had been founded. By means of the distribution of that sum in particular districts, it had excited the zeal and emulation of those who wished to support the church, and had induced the raising of local subscriptions for the maintenance of religion to the amount of 400,000l. The total sum, then, of voluntary subscriptions distributed by this society, amounted to 500,000l. By the application of 110,000l., free sittings had been provided for a hundred and fifty four thousand persons. Without devolving upon this society the power of imposing church rates upon any parish, he proposed to incorporate them, to enable them to receive voluntary contributions for the rebuilding and repairing of churches and chapels, to receive the sums left by bequests for that purpose, and the sums raised under the letters patent, authorizing voluntary contributions for such objects. He would propose that the bishops of the several dioceses should be vice-presidents of this society, and he would also propose that not less than twenty-five laymen should be appointed amongst its vice-presidents. To exemplify the admirable system of economy with which this excellent society had been conducted, he would mention that the sum of 500,000l. which I had been in their hands, had been appropriated, including all the expenses of rent, officers, collectors, &c, for a sum not exceeding 840l. per annum. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to abolish church briefs, and to provide for the better collection and application of voluntary contributions, for the purpose of repairing and rebuilding churches and chapels.

wished to know whether the measure was to extend to Ireland. The principle of voluntary contribution for the building and repairing of churches would be extremely acceptable there, where a large majority of the inhabitants who dissented from the Established Church were taxed to an enormous amount for the support of that establishment. The right hon. baronet alluded to the returns which had been laid before the House of the appointments made under the Vestry act, in Ireland. In many instances, they were of the most oppressive nature; and he mentioned one case, in a parish in Dublin, where a close vestry, consisting of Protestants exclusively, applotted 2,300l. upon the parishioners, while at the open vestry only 220l. was laid upon the parish. From the constitution of the magistrates in Dublin, the right of appeal, under the Vestry act, was rendered nugatory.

highly approved of the motion. The mode of raising- money by church briefs was inadequate, as the expense often exceeded the nett amount received. The country was much indebted to the right hon. gentleman for his proposition to incorporate a society, most excellent in its principle, and most beneficial in its effects.

defended the magistrates of Dublin from the sweeping charge that had been made against them by the right hon. baronet. So far as his experience, went, they were wholly unobnoxious to such a charge.

said, that briefs for the last fifty years had been farmed by contractors, and that was the reason why they produced only 300l., although they were rated at 1,000l. or 1,700l. What were called the walking briefs, produced a great deal more than the church briefs, because the churchwardens and the beadles, with their gold-laced hats and gold-headed canes, and all the paraphernalia of their office, actually went round and teased the inhabitants out of their money. The worthy alderman, after observing upon the objectionable nature of this tax upon the people, expressed his thanks to the right hon. gentleman for its abolition.

, in reply, said, that it was his intention to repeal the act of Anne altogether. He thought the worthy alderman must be misinformed as to the farming of the briefs; for any one guilty of that offence was liable to a penalty of 500l. The contribution to the society he proposed, was wholly voluntarily, and as the donation of twenty guineas made a member for life, he hoped the hon. alderman would become one, as his services would be found very useful on the committee. With respect to the observations of the right hon. baronet, he could only say, that he had so many measures to propose, connected with this country, that he really had not time to attend to Ireland. He, however, had not the least objection to a similar bill being brought in for Ireland.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill, the object of which was the more speedy Recovery of Small Debts. Speaking of the system which prevailed in the country generally, he believed it would fee found better, in most instances, to abandon any claim which an individual might have for a certain sum, than to attempt to recover; it, as the law now stood. The expense of proceeding in the county courts was so I enormous, and their jurisdiction so confined, that in many cases, the party seeking redress there was actuated by feelings of pique and resentment, rather than by any; hope of recovering his debt. The attention of the House had been repeatedly called to this subject, and great difficulty had been experienced in attempting to devise a remedy for the present defective state of the law. A noble lord (Althorp) had: given much consideration to the subject, and several bills had been introduced by him. Those measures had not met with the approbation of the House, and it was at the desire of that noble lord, in the course of last session, that he (Mr. Peel) had undertaken to introduce a bill. The first bill brought in, proposed to enable the lord lieutenants of counties to appoint assessors, who were to receive considerable salaries, and a separate court was to be established in those towns where the ordinary courts were on a small scale.; Several objections were urged against this plan, and the impropriety of placing the appointment of assessor in the hands of the lord lieutenant was very justly pointed out. By the subsequent bill, the appointment was left with the Crown. It was there provided, that assessors should preside in the county courts, and they were; to look to the Crown for their salary. Again, it was proposed, that the commissioners appointed to discharge the duties connected with the Insolvent Debtors Court should adjudicate in cases of small debts, and should, for that purpose, make circuits through the country. To these measures objections were also taken, and they were abandoned. He should propose to adopt in each county the ancient institution of the county court, and to extend its jurisdiction from debts of 40s., which was the present limit to debts of 10l. A gentleman very eminent in the legal profession had drawn up this bill, and he believed that, on examination, its enactments would be found admirably adapted to effect the intended object. The bill made no alteration in the original constitution of the county court. It rendered the whole proceeding most plain and simple: the form of the plaint was set forth, and it specified the fees that were to be paid. As different counties varied in extent, it provided for the division of the large counties into districts; and it further provided, that the sub-sheriff should give notice of the time and place where the court was to be held. The proceeding would be conducted on the principle of trial by jury in a certain way; the qualification of jurors to be the same as that now required in cases of trials at Nisi Prius in Westminster-hall. A power was given to the judge before whom a case was tried to grant a new trial, on proper grounds being advanced for that proceeding. It was proposed that the remedy should not be against the person of the debtor, but against his goods. He conceived that the provisions of the bill were calculated to promote the object in view. The only part of it which seemed at all likely to excite opposition was that which was connected with the compensation of persons who were interested in the continuance of the existing system. There were, as the House knew, individuals in the higher courts, whose interests were materially concerned; and he could not introduce a measure of this nature, without providing a suitable compensation for those whose interests were at stake. He was very sorry that offices of the nature of those to which he alluded were in existence; but when measures were adopted for effecting a reform in the administration of the law, provision ought to be made for those whose offices would, in consequence of that reform, be clone away with. He, therefore, proposed to award compensation for the loss of offices that were conferred for the term of life. As to compensation, having reference to the quantity of practice now enjoyed by individuals under the present system, and which might be lessened by the intended alteration, he did not mean to propose any. In the different bills introduced for the abolition of writs of error and other technical forms, the same practice had been followed. He moved, for leave to bring in a bill "for the more easy Recovery of Small Debts in the county courts of England and Wales, and for extending the jurisdiction thereof."

was happy to hear that the right hon. gentleman intended to abolish the taking of the person, in all cases of debt decided against the defendant in the county court; because he held the principle of arresting the person to be contrary sound sense, good policy, and humanity. If the right hon. gentleman admitted the principle in the case of persons against whom debts of 10l. were recovered, he hoped he would extend the exemption from arrest to debtors generally. The bill brought in by the Solicitor-general last year, which extended the exemption from arrest from 10l. to 20l., had been of little service; for he who would swear to a debt of 10l., which had no existence, would as readily extend his oath to 20l. During the last year, the persons confined on mesne process, in the five prisons, were, in comparison with those confined under judgment obtained, as eight to one.

approved of the bill, and trusted that the valuable principle recognized in it would not be restricted to 10l. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that the qualifications of the persons were to be the same as those who tried causes in Westminster-hall at Nisi Prius. Why not, then, since they were equally qualified, enable them to try causes to the same amount? He did not wish to extend the powers of the county courts unlimitedly, but he thought that they might conveniently be extended to the trial of 20l. cases. There was one thing he hoped would be provided for; and that was, the responsibility of the judges, who he understood were to be drawn from the sub-sheriffs. He begged also to suggest, that it might be well to enable a party, if the verdict went against him, to pay by instalments; so that a man should not be harassed by immediate execution upon judgment.

observed, that as the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts would greatly increase the number of causes in those courts, and as the consequence must be, that a large income would be derived from the increase of fees, it would be proper to introduce a clause in the bill to enable the House to regulate those fees hereafter.

expressed his cordial concurrence in the policy of the bill. The Small Debt Society had lately relieved three hundred individuals, who had been confined for months for debts under 2l. 14s. each. This was a lamentable state of things, which loudly called for the interference of the legislature; for while those unfortunate people were in prison, their families were probably receiving assistance from the poor-rates. He thought it would be wise to limit arrests to sums above 20l.

said, that his object was, to enable the creditor to allege his debt by the simplest and most unexpensive process. For instance, instead of a cumbrous declaration, the form proposed in the bill was—"A B complains of C D. that he owes him 10l. for goods delivered on the 1st day of March, 1827." Before the bill was extended to debts of a larger amount, it would be wise to watch the progress of the bill as it now stood, and ascertain how it worked. At present, he proposed, in the case of a debt of 15l. to allow the creditor to take advantage of the provisions of the bill. But 10l. was a very considerable sum to the lower classes, and he thought it better not to begin with a larger. If the bill answered, it might be extended to 20l. He wished to reserve to the court the power of allowing the debtor to discharge his incumbrances by instalments; which would prevent an unfortunate man having his goods taken away from him, while, at the same time, it would be security to the creditor for the payment of his debt. He would limit these instalments to the space of four months, and the ulterior process of seizing the debtor's goods might be resorted to by the creditor in default of payment at the end of that period. The fees of the bailiff he had left the magistrates of the county to settle; but for the sheriff's fees, he had settled that they should in no case exceed one shilling.

expressed his gratitude to the right hon. gentleman for this measure, and thought it might be advantageously extended to debts of a larger amount. He hoped to see the time when there would be no imprisonment for debt in this country. He thought it better, however, to proceed by steps than to attempt too much at one stride; and he would suggest to his hon. friends the adoption of an old proverb.—"Do not work a willing horse to death." The right hon. gentleman had proceeded cautiously, and had never found it necessary to retrace his steps; which he might be compelled to do if he proceeded with that rapidity with which some of his friends wished him to proceed.

said, that, as, on a former occasion, he had treated this subject at considerable length, he would not detain the House many minutes now. He had shown the consequence of the abuses of that branch of the Poor-laws which related to the employment and relief of able-bodied persons: and he thought it would be conceded to him, that those abuses ought to be removed. He would now merely state, that these abuses were different in different parts of the country, though the laws were, of course, the same. In the southern counties these abuses prevailed, and the peasantry were poor and degraded: in the northern counties there were no such abuses, and they were well paid and happy. They must also recollect the burthens which agriculture was subject to, in consequence of these abuses. In the county of Cumberland, where these abuses did not prevail, the poor-rates were only 1s. 7d. in the pound on rack rental; in the county of Sussex, where they prevailed to a great extent, the poor-rates were 7s. in the pound on rack rental. To show that he had not acted unfairly in taking two counties, he would state that, in eight northern counties, the poor-rates amounted to 750,000l., while in eight southern counties the poor-rates were exactly double that sum. To show that these abuses were extending their baneful influence to other parts of the country, he would state, that in 1800 the persons relieved by the poor-rates were as one in nine; and that in 1826 they were as one in seven. He would merely add, that his opinions on this subject were not founded on idle surmise, that his statements were borne out by returns on the table of the House, and that rive committees had declared these abuses to be the source of the poverty which prevailed in the southern districts of the kingdom. The hon. member then moved for a select committee "to consider that part of the Poor-laws relating to the employment and relief of able-bodied persons from the poor-rates, and the abuses arising therefrom."

said, that, on a former occasion, he had stated the grounds upon which he objected to this grant. Since that occasion he had met with additional grounds for opposing the grant. By a discussion that had taken place on a former evening, it appeared that no less a sum than 200,000l. was at the disposal of the Crown. He had made an application to see how this sum was appropriated; with the view of finding out whether the funds granted to his majesty for the express purpose of rewarding meritorious services, might not be sufficient to defray this grant to Mr. Canning's family, instead of coming to the public purse for that purpose. His majesty's ministers had refused to tell him how the sum of 95,000l. given to his majesty for the purpose of rewarding the servants of the Crown, had been disposed of. It might be possible that it was given to the ministers of the Crown, but he did not know the fact. He did not know until the other night, that 3,000l. a year had ever been given to Mr. Canning. He was not aware of this until it was stated by the chancellor of the Exchequer. He did think, that until they were told how this fund was appropriated, they ought not to agree to the proposed grant of 3,000l. In stating this, he begged to be understood as not throwing any imputation either on the private or the public conduct of Mr. Canning; though he did not by any means approve of the whole of the public conduct of that gentleman. But the grant was spurned at, as resulting from the liberality of the House, and they were told, that it was to be considered as a mark of their approbation of Mr. Canning, as a patriot. Now, though he approved of the last acts of Mr. Canning's life, he could find no single act, until he became minister of state, with the exception of his support of the Catholic claims, which entitled him to this grant. On this ground he would move, as an amendment, "that the report be received this day three months."

declared, that he also must oppose the proposed grant. In the case of the earl of Chatham, that House was almost unanimous in granting a pension to his family, but in the House of Lords the proposal met with considerable opposition, and a protest was entered upon the Journals, in which he perfectly concurred. He opposed the present grant on the grounds laid down in that protest. One of those grounds was public economy; and if that argument was a valid one then, it could not be less so now. The other ground was a constitutional one; namely, that in after times that act might be made use of as a precedent for granting votes for party and factious purposes. It appeared to him also, that these grants were voted on wrong ground. No services were now thought worthy of reward, unless they were performed in office and by ministers. Now, he would contend, that services quite as efficient had been performed on his side of the House. Gentlemen on his side of the House had wasted their time and talents in useless opposition to extravagant expenditure, and unjust and improper wars. They had been remarkable, too, for a magnanimous refusal of office, when a compromise of principle was required. In the precedents in favour of these grants, then, there was nothing of reciprocity. Another thing, too—public services, such as Mr. Canning was said to have performed, must always be doubtful, and it was rather the province of future historians than of that House to decide upon them. Now, he thought it; would be wise to follow the ancient course and confine reward to military and naval services [Cries of "Oh! Oh!"].

said, he had sat in that House for five and twenty years, and when he assured them that for a large portion of that time, it had been his fortune to be in political hostility to Mr. Canning, he was sure they would acquit him of being actuated by any improper motive in voting as he should vote on this occasion. He did consider that the latter years of Mr. Canning's life had created so large a debt of gratitude, both from this country and from the whole of civilized Europe, that he should be wanting to himself if he did not come forward and support his vote by stating the reasons on which he gave it. He thought the country was indebted to Mr. Canning for liberating it from that system which, under the Holy Alliance, would have crushed all liberal institutions throughout Europe. He thought that the cause of liberty throughout the world was largely indebted to Mr. Canning, for the speedy recognition of the South American States. The question was, whether the family of Mr. Canning should not have that support from the House of Commons which an untimely death had deprived them of. It ought never to be forgotten, that when they abolished certain great offices, it was expressly stated, that whenever a case of merit was made out, that House would never be backward in rewarding it. In conformity with that pledge, he thought that the family of Mr. Canning ought to receive that support which they would have received if Mr. Canning had lived. In his opinion, a fair case of merit had been made out; nor could he believe, that the finances of the country were in such a state as should preclude it from discharging a debt.

supported the amendment. He was the last man, he hoped, to look upon public services with indifference; but he could not assent to such a grant, in the present state of the finances of the State. For himself, he should always be inclimed to say, "de mortuis et de absentibus nil nisi bonum" He had differed from Mr. Canning upon many points of policy, but he would not let that feeling operate, in the remotest degree, to the prejudice of his family. He was no disappointed agriculturist, as had been insinuated, but he would persevere in the course which he had chosen; and if any suggestions were thrown out, that he acted from motives of private feeling, he would fling back such an imputation with the contempt that it merited.

said, that the grounds upon which the vote ought to be supported, were grounds upon which he had hoped a difference of opinion scarcely could arise; and most sincerely had he been gratified by the declaration of the right hon. baronet who had recently spoken, that he would give his support to the grant, however to the man he might have been opposed. For himself, he had entertained no difference of opinion, either as to the foreign or the internal policy of the country, from Mr. Canning; and if he forbore from resting the present motion upon the merits of that policy, it was because he wished to found it upon a principle which the House could hardly fail to be unanimous in admitting. He wished to claim the vote as a meed of honour due, apart from the question of persons, to the services of an illustrious public man, whose disinterested regardlessness of all pecuniary considerations Had left his family unprovided with those advantages, which a devotion les enthusiastic to the interests of his country might have secured them. It had been objected to, as if it were a grant of public money to the family of Mr. Canning. It was no such thing. It was to enable the Crown to appropriate to Mr. Canning's family a pension which the Crown had a right to grant to a public servant. So far was it from being a grant of public money, that it was a donation, on the part of the Crown, of a pension which the Crown would otherwise have a right to confer. The hon. member for Reading had said, that he wished the House would return to the wholesome practice of the constitution when pensions were granted only for naval and military services. God forbid that England—a country of free institutions—should be so degraded, that naval and military services alone should be regarded, and that important civil services should pass unrewarded. Such a doctrine might be held in places where no services were estimated but those of a military nature, but he did not expect to hear it maintained within the walls of the House of Commons. As to the fear that the present proposition might be brought in future as a precedent and example by a faction or a party. He did not conceive that any similar proposition would ever be made on party grounds. If it were, it would be easy to anticipate how it would be dealt with by parliament. The present proposition emanated from those who had long been Mr. Canning's colleagues; who were his successors; and who, although separated from him by circumstances during the latter part of his public life, were most anxious to do justice to his character, and to make that provision for his family to which they were entitled.

spoke to the following effect:—Sir, I feel that I should be guilty of a great neglect of duty, if, not having addressed the House upon this subject on any former occasion, I were not to avail myself of this, my last opportunity, to justify the vote which I intend to give; and, in so doing, to express my dissent from some of the maxims which we have heard—maxims subversive of the whole of that system of national rewards, which forms one of the best parts of the policy of a powerful, a civilized, and above all, a free state. In so doing, Sir, I should have been exceedingly desirous to recommend a calm tone of discussion; a tone calculated to appease, and not to excite, those angry feelings, which are so peculiarly unsuitable to the consideration of such a subject as that upon which we are now called upon to decide. My right hon. friend, however, who has just spoken, has too well performed that office to render it necessary for me to do any thing, except to endeavour to prevent a recurrence of any undue warmth by my own example, and by the nature of the topics to which I shall advert. Sir, the only ground on which I intend to justify my opinion on this question, and the vote which, if it be brought to a division, I shall give upon it, is, that every man in the House, whatever may have been his political differences with Mr. Canning, who believes that this country still possesses the means of shewing honour to an illustrious and departed statesman, by making a moderate provision for his family, is bound to support the present bill. That proposition comprehends the justification of the vote, which, if I am called upon to give it, I shall give more heartily than I ever gave a vote upon any question whatever.—But, Sir, I am desirous of stating a little more explicitly the general principle on which, in my apprehension, honours such as these not merely may be granted, but on which alone they can justly be granted. They can be justly granted only when they have reference to a man in honourable public employment, and of splendid and distinguished endowments, when he has filled a station high enough, and for a time long enough, to enable the public to judge of his commanding talents and of the purity of his motives. Whenever that has been the character and position of a public man, and when, after his decease, his family are in circumstances to require assistance, that assistance ought not to be withheld. All who agree in the soundness of this maxim; that is, all who agree with what has been the invariable practice of all great and civilized nations, must vote for the present proposition. For, let us consider what would be the consequence if this maxim were not received. If I am justified in objecting to any such proposition as the present, on the ground that I differed in political opinion from the individual who is the object of it, it follows, that no national honours can at any time be paid to a distinguished statesman in this country. In every country, more or less, but in this country especially, where, as we all know, party is sometimes carried to a foolish excess, it is absolutely impossible that any man can pass a long public life, without supporting or opposing many measures, on which there exists the greatest difference of opinion. The nature of our constitution forbids the possibility of such an occurrence. If, therefore, an unanimous or a general concurrence in the opinions of any public man, during a period of thirty or forty years, is to be considered necessary, in order to justify a proposition such as the present, it clearly follows, that no national honour or reward can ever be conferred on any public man whatever. A victorious faction, indeed, may grant honours and rewards to its chief; but national honours and rewards can never more be conferred on meritorious public servants. It would be worse than folly to render such questions the subjects of factious contest.—Sir, no person can approach the contemplation of departed talents, genius, and virtue, without feeling that they are entitled to the reverence of every good mind. I am persuaded that such is the sentiment of every hon. member who now hears me; and that whatever warm words may have fallen from different individuals, with respect to this subject, those words are far from representing a settled and permanent feeling. We have been told by the hon. member for Reading, that he is desirous of recalling those times when national honours were paid only to the profession of arms. Sir, I should have thought that such an objection as that, had been sufficiently refuted in the first debate in this House upon the subject, by the eloquence and by the example of the hon. and gallant officer who is the commander-in-chief of his Majesty's troops in Ireland; and who is not more distinguished as an ornament of the profession to which he belongs, than he is by the manner in which he discharges his duties in this House. That hon. and gallant officer, in a manner which did him infinite credit, rejected the barbaric principle of confining national honours to the achievements of war, of war, in which it is very possible that barbarians may be able to cope with us, and declared that it would rob the rewards of valour of half their glory, if in such rewards the talents and the virtues of civil life were not allowed to participate. That hon. and gallant officer, as eminent for the qualities which he has manifested in peace, as he is for his exploits in war, rejected with disdain a monopoly which he considered injurious to his own profession. But, Sir, it has been said, that if motions such as that new before us, were not acceded to, it would not thence follow, that no honours or rewards would be conferred on statesmen. True: those honours would be conferred by the Crown; those rewards would be conferred by the Crown. The means of wealth are always opened to a statesman by the Crown; and if such a bill as 'that on the table is to be rejected, he will be taught to avail himself of them. All; that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen can do is, not to take away the means of rewarding our; great statesmen, but to deprive both; Houses of Parliament of one of their most valuable privileges, the power of conferring rewards and honours on those, or on the families of those, whose splendid talents and virtues commanded the. admiration of the world. Shall I be told,; Sir, that because, at a former period, I differed from Mr. Canning on political subjects, that my present sentiments are inconsistent with that difference? Sir, it is enough for me that he was a man of honour, as every one knows him to have: been; that he was a man of splendid talents, as every one knows him to have; been; that he was a man whose genius exercised a powerful influence throughout Europe, and gave additional dignity I and character to this country, as every one knows that it did. By the high qualities which he manifested, he rendered his public career illustrious.—Sir, I will refer to an observation of lord Bolingbroke, made in a much more chivalrous spirit than some of the remarks which I have lately listened to in this House. Being asked his opinion of the duke of Marlborough, with whom he had long had a fierce political contest, his answer was, "he was so great a man that I have forgotten what were his faults." Something has been said of the vote of this House, after the death of lord Chatham. Lord North happened to be absent at the time when that vote was proposed. He returned to the House in a hurry; and immediately after having taken his scat, rose to express the happiness he felt in being in time to share in the honour of supporting the motion. Let any dispassionate person read that part of our history; let him read it with a freedom from all prejudice, and I will then ask him, if he does not love the memory of that amiable man the more for the generous course which he pursued on that occasion? Sir, a great mistake appears to exist with respect to the vote to which I have just adverted. The hon. member for Reading enjoys the distinction of being the only man who has censured it. Since the period of its occurrence no other human creature has spoken of it in any but terms of the highest approbation. The circumstances of the case are sometimes forgot. We are apt to suppose that it was lord Chatham at the end of the seven years' war. But what is the fact? That previously to this vote, lord Chatham had for eight years been engaged in a personal and most acrimonious opposition to government; so acrimonious, that the comparatively lukewarm politicians of the present day would take fright at the language in which he occasionally indulged. If any one had said to lord North, "What! will you grant these honours to the memory of a man who has so virulently and so pertinaciously attacked you, who has charged you with folly and imbecility, who has incited his Majesty's subjects to rebellion, who has rejoiced at the resistance of America to your measures, who has prophecied the impracticability of subduing three millions of people?" Lord North might have justly answered, "I do not vote thus in consequence of these expressions, but in spite of them; I vote thus, because lord Chatham was an illustrious man, who did honour to his country; I vote thus, on the principle that if such a vote be not acceded to, we can never pay a mark of national respect to the memory of a great public man."—Sir, I will say nothing of the cases of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Perceval, except that I believe the votes in those cases were unanimous. And if the hon. member for Reading will read the protest to which he has alluded, he will find that it is not signed by those whom he would wish to quote as authorities, or hold up as examples. He will not find attached to it the names of Camden and Richmond; men who zealously employed themselves in the furtherance of the measure in question; honouring the man to whom they had nevertheless been warmly opposed. Sir, it appears to me, that the only ground on which this vote ought to rest, is that which I have described; namely, a con viction, on our part, of purity of motive, of superior talents, exerted in a high situation for a time sufficiently long, to enable the public to give that sanction to the proposed honours, without which all honours are valueless. On such grounds I rest my vote. I will not say that those who vote for the bill may not have lawful auxiliary motives. Private friendship, for instance, would be a lawful auxiliary motive, although it would not be a just ground on which to rest the vote. Such a motive might sweeten the performance of that which duty would otherwise prescribe. On the other hand, personal enmity or resentment would not be a lawful auxiliary to an opposition to the motion, for our feelings may be allowed to aid us in the discharge of our duties; but ought not to be allowed to impede us. Feelings of kindness may be tolerated, even if excessive; but feelings of a contrary character ought to be closely watched, and ought never to be permitted to prevent us from rendering honours to those to whom honours are due. The more especially should that be the rule when such honours are posthumous:—"Mors obruit iras." I do not charge—God forbid that I should charge—any one with entertaining feelings of this abhorrent nature. I have merely stated that which I have stated, in illustration of what I am going further to state. I say then, that approbation of the measures of a great statesman, is a lawful auxiliary to the motives of such a vote as the present; but that disapprobation of those measures would not be a lawful auxiliary to an opposition to that vote. If it were not so, the result would be monstrous. If it were not so, we could not have had such a vote as the present for the last century. The same reasons apply to this view of the case as to that which I have just before taken. We must lay out of our account differences of political opinion, if we admit that posthumous honours of any description ought to be conferred one minent public men. Public resentment ought no more to influence us on such an occasion than private enmity. I think, therefore, that my hon. friend was quite right, who stated his approbation of one part of Mr. Canning's political conduct as auxiliary to his motives for voting for the bill; but I should not consider any hon. gentleman right who should state that his disapprobation of any part of Mr. Canning's politi cal conduct was auxiliary to his motives for opposing the bill. There is no inconsistency, no incongruity in this. Our opinion is required, not on the expediency of this or that political measure, but on the value of great talents honestly exerted for the benefit of the country.—Sir, I might enter much more largely into this subject; but I will abstain from doing so. I will only allude to what a great poet has said of two Statesmen, who in their day opposed each other with the firmest determination. The state he observes—

"Carteret's calm mind, and Stanhope's noble fame Admir'd; and saw their generous end the same."

Nor will a great poet of our own time be charged with being lukewarm in his political feelings, because, when speaking of the neighbouring graves of the two greatest statesmen of modern days, he says—

" Drop upon Fox's tomb a tear,

'Twill trickle to his rival's bier."

I mention these circumstances as proofs of the unsophisticated feeling and common sense of mankind on this subject; for to those feelings and to that sense will every great and successful poet be found to have addressed himself.—Sir, with regard to myself, I can most conscientiously declare, that if the same question had arisen in 1821, I should have given the same vote upon it that I shall give this night. That vote would have been as satisfactory to my conscience, although it might not have been so gratifying to my feelings as a public man. But I will abstain from further remarks, not only out of respect to those hon. members who differ from me on this subject, but also out of respect to the memory of Mr. Canning himself; whose name is already under the guardianship of the historian. A friendship of six and thirty years with that highly-gifted and extraordinary man, has given me, I confess, a deep interest in any measure which is intended to do honour to his memory. An humble place in his friendship was the only favour that I ever received from him; but it was the greatest that he could bestow.

said, that his sentiments on this question had been so completely anticipated by what had fallen from the right hon. and learned gentleman, that little was left to him to say; vet, when the House considered the situation in which he stood, with respect to the late Mr. Canning, he hoped they would allow him briefly to state the grounds on which he should suppo this vote. He was glad that the example of his right hon. and learned friend had permitted him to use the auxiliary of private friendship on this occasion, for he was connected by ties of private friendship, and also by those of gratitude, to the deceased statesman. He could mention instances which would at once illustrate, not less the greatness of his late friend's mind than the goodness of his heart; but as many of those were personal to himself, he would not dwell on them. The question which had been raised on the ground of economy, was equally whimsical and absurd. That the country, to which thirty million of taxes had, within fifteen years, been remitted, could not now afford 3,000l. a year to reward the services of one of its ministers, was absurd, particularly when that sum was to be taken from a fund which was otherwise at the disposal of the Crown. Not less absurd, he thought, was the argument derived from the protest in the case of lord Chatham,—that such a grant would be made from party feeling. Surely this argument could not apply to the case of a pension to an individual, whose accession to power occasioned the retirement of the very party by whom the grant was now proposed. The argument of the hon. member for Reading, that we should return to the practice of our ancestors and grant pensions only for great naval and military services, was strange, to say the least of it; for, at what time was this the practice? At a period of some centuries back, when there were no civil services to be rewarded: but it was more strange at a time when the heads of some of the highest families in the country were those whose ancestors had laid the foundation of their fortunes in the rewards which had been conferred upon them for civil services. He would ask any man, whether the talents of the late Mr. Canning did not warrant his being taken up into the higher orders of the state? But, though the forms peculiar to our constitution, and to ours alone, did not permit that, consistently with the continuance of his services in that place in which they were so eminently useful, yet he thought the Crown had been most properly advised to confer those honours on his family to which he himself would have been so justly entitled had he been spared; and when that family were brought before the House by the ministers of the Crown, he thought they were entitled, in virtue of the services of their late head, to that sum which had been granted for three lives in so many instances, as the reward of civil as well as military services. It was asked, whether the services of the late Mr. Canning could he compared with those of the duke of Wellington. He did not intend to make any comparison of the kind; but he thought they were equal to any of those other distinguished individuals who had been raised to the peerage, and who had obtained premiums of.2,000l. a year for three lives for military services. He would not press the subject further than to say, that if the House refused premiums on grounds such as had been urged, they would in future confine all the great offices of the state to persons of high hereditary rank; and he asked those gentlemen, the Whigs, who ascribed to themselves the peculiar guardianship of popular rights, and the possession of popular feelings, whether they would consider this to be consistent with the constitution of the country? He could say more on this subject, but he had been anticipated by what had been so well observed by his right hon. and learned friend as to the grounds of grants to public men. He could go to the circumstances of the political life of his late right hon. friend, and in the review of that life he would say, that if there was any thing in which he had been at all to blame, it was in having lent himself too much to the views of the hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), who now was among those who opposed the grant to his family. But in the other acts of his right hon. friend's political career, there was nothing in the last of his career inconsistent with the first.

said, he would cheerfully concur in the speech of the right hon. and learned member behind him, if he could bring his mind to believe that splendid talents, highly cultivated, were the sole guide to public reward; and the more readily should he do so, as he saw no living evidence that the precedent was likely to become extensively burthen some to the country. But, greatly as he admired the transcendent powers of Mr. Canning, and that brilliant combination of mind and beauty which marked his parliamentary efforts, yet that pleasure was, with few exceptions, greatly subdued, because he thought those talents had been directed to purposes at variance with the ends of all good governments—the freedom and the happiness of the people. Recent events had combined the most opposite parties, and hence originated that singular concurrence in a grant which, under other and not very distant, circumstances, would have been very dissimilar. That factious feelings had had their influence, was manifest from the protraction of the proposal; for to what else could be attributed the delay of a measure which, if at all, ought to have been brought forward at the beginning of the session? Or had ministers been terrified into the proposal by the notice of motion recently given by a noble lord? The hon. member said, it would be as unjust to future ministers, as inapplicable on the present occasion, to say that great talents alone formed the basis of national gratitude. It was their useful direction that gave to them their charm and value; and he saw nothing in the straight-forward management of a nation's affairs, which might not be effected by an ordinary mind, aided by industry and a singleness of purpose. But if it were competent for hon. members to dwell on isolated acts, which in their judgment merited applause, and called for public compensation, it could not be less appropriate for those who differed to point out those measures of public policy which rendered Mr. Canning's conduct open to reprehension. When he traced the public conduct of many of those whom he now saw around him, and who were the supporters of this giant, he could not fail to remind them, that they had for years opposed, by the sternest and apparently with the sincerest efforts, the public course of Mr. Canning, which, in his judgment, had inflicted on the country the direst calamities. He could not forget that that distinguished individual had, on every occasion, manifested the bitterest and most uncompromising hostility to every measure which recognised the rights and liberties of the people. Never was the stream of his untameable eloquence directed more strongly than when it flowed in that course; never did man indulge in more savage and brutal derision of the corporeal infirmities of a fellow-citizen, nor mangle with more ferocious delight the charters of a nation's freedom. It was further alleged in support of this grant, that Mr. Canning displayed a magnanimous contempt of riches; but he could not reconcile this pretension with that eagerness with which he sought and seized on the 10,000l. given as the price of what had been appropriately termed the "Lisbon job." But least of all could he overlook the fatal effects which had arisen from the exertions of his powerful talents, when he infatuated the strongest and proudest opposition ever formed under the auspices of the Whig aristocracy, and seduced them captive to leave the opposition benches, and, without any stipulation in favour of popular pretensions, to throw their whole weight in aid of his personal ambition; and when he had undeniably secured them, when retreat would have been as disgraceful as the advance was inglorious, then it was that Mr. Canning expounded to his Whig converts his and their political creed—that never would he support parliamentary reform, and that he was decidedly adverse to the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts. No one more admired the splendid burst of eloquence by which Mr. Canning so frequently fired and enchanted that House than he did; but at the same time, being deeply impressed with the mischievous effects which his principles, his policy, and his power, had entailed on the country, he felt it his duty, however painful, to vote against this grant.

said, he had not intended to take any part in this discussion, but after what had fallen from the hon. member who spoke last, he could not give a silent vote. He was surprised at first, why the hon. member had so construed the speech of his right hon. and learned friend as to dismiss from his consideration all the historical recollections of the life of Mr. Canning; but, as the hon. member proceeded, he saw on what ground he had dismissed them; they would not have answered his purpose, and therefore he touched only on those points which were calculated to excite angry feelings. His right hon. and learned friend's object had been to allay any such feelings, but the hon. member who last addressed the House, had, with perverse diligence, raked up every thing calculated to give a different tone and temper to the discussion. Now, he thought that the circumstance under which they were called to vote this grant was an addition to the praise of the lamented individual to whose services it referred; namely, the comparative poverty in which he had died. It was the duty of that House to take care that the families of those who had devoted themselves wholly to the public service should not suffer by that devotion. It was, indeed, the best economy to encourage men of rare talents and acquirements to devote themselves wholly to the public service. The same honourable exertion in any other pursuit would have left the right hon. gentleman's family independent of any such grant; but

" Fame is the spur, which the pure soul doth raise

To spurn delights and live laborious days."

He owned he was surprised to hear, in the British House of Commons, of any objection of the kind which he had heard that night against this grant; for there, and there only, it had been urged. If he had any objection to this grant,—it was, that it was dealt out with too niggardly a hand. It was, he conceived, a departure from the principle which had been laid down in former cases. He did not wish to make comparisons with others, but it was admitted by all, that his late right hon. friend had possessed the most eminent talents, and that they had been all devoted to the service of the country.

regretted to hear the grounds of objection which had been taken to this vote. These were various and inconsistent: some were on the score of economy, that it was too much; others that it was not enough; and others, again, that it should not be granted because of former votes in other cases: but he thought those objections had been set at rest by the eloquent speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman. It was painful to think, after the long and meritorious services of Mr. Canning, there should be such opposition to a grant which was deserved on so many grounds. What must have been the feelings of the right hon. gentleman in his last moments, and what his anxiety at the destitute condition of his wife and children? But how much more painfully acute would they have been, if he could, at that moment, have anticipated such a course as had that night been taken, in opposition to the very moderate provision which had been proposed for them? Did such an opposition become the representatives of a generous nation? Did it become them to refuse this scanty pittance to the family of one who had wasted his best energies and spent his whole life in the service of the public If there was any ground for this grant, extrinsic of the great services of the late lamented statesman, it would be found in the principle, that it was wise, by a proper provision in such cases, to encourage others to enlist their talents in the service of the country. He owned that, if he felt any satisfaction at seeing this vote pressed to a division, it was on the ground that the memory of the deceased would be as much honoured by some persons endeavouring to withhold it, as by the cordial vote in its favour which others would feel bound to give. His undying fame would drag their names along with it to future ages, with a degree of celebrity, that nothing in themselves could ever have conferred.

said, he could not remain silent, after the manner in which the hon. member for Colchester had mentioned the name of the late Mr. Canning. The hon. member had said, that he had spoken of the Manchester massacre with savage brutality. Now, if any man would look back to the history of that time, he would find that there was no just ground for such a charge. He would admit that the right hon. gentleman had, on the occasion alluded to, made use of one indiscreet expression; and dearly had he afterwards paid for it, by the gross misrepresentations to which he had been subjected in consequence; but it would be found that the expression had not been used in the offensive sense in which it had afterwards been described, and that it was almost deserved by the individual to whom it had been applied. As to the talents of Mr. Canning, there could not be a difference of opinion; but it was not for the possession of those talents that the pension was now granted to his family, but for their entire devotion to the service of his country. Mr. Canning had filled several public offices, and he had filled them, particularly that of Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to the satisfaction of all and in a manner highly beneficial to the country. It was on these grounds that the provision was now proposed to his family. But it was said that the opinion of the people was against this grant. He should, however, be at no loss, not only to justify this vote to his constituents, but to glory in having paid the tribute of his homage to long-tried public services, private worth, and exalted genius.

said, he should, on constitutional grounds, give his cordial vote in favour of the grant.

said, he would state in a few words, the grounds on which he should give his vote. He could not but admit that the late Mr. Canning had been faithless to that party by which his talents had been cradled. He must also say, that he was irregular in his ambition, and not constant in his political attachments. Of this the sudden friendship which he had conceived for those to whom he had been so long opposed, was a proof: but that sudden friendship was accompanied with a haughty and overbearing conduct towards those who were thus suddenly enlisted amongst his political supporters. At the same time, he would admit his great talents; and it would be injustice to deny that the country owed much to his powerful exertion in opposing the innovation of jacobinical principles. These circumstances gave to his family a strong claim on the liberality of parliament, and he was satisfied that if there was but a shilling left in the coffers of the country, it could not be better bestowed than on this grant.

supported the vote, on the ground of the public services of Mr. Canning, and thought that ministers were entitled to thanks for having introduced it.

said, he entertained, for the memory of the illustrious statesman, the highest possible respect, and felt bound to give to the motion his cordial support.

hoped the House would not imagine that, in the vote which he should feel himself conscientiously bound to give on the present question, he was influenced by personal motives. He must oppose the motion, but that opposition was founded solely on constitutional grounds. He for many reasons, however, wished his hon. friend to withdraw his opposition for the present.

felt himself called on to state on what grounds, if his hon. friend should divide the House, he should vote with him. Having already had an opportunity of stating the constitutional grounds of his opposition, he was inclined not to oppose the present motion, lest the opposition might appear to be of a personal character: but, after the speech of the gallant officer opposite, which was not in accordance with his usual good taste, and which threatened those who opposed the grant with the obloquy, not only of the present generation, but of posterity, he felt himself obliged to support the amendment. He thought it was incumbent on all those who opposed the grant on con- stitutional grounds to show that they had acted conscientiously by voting with his hon. friend. He had heard the language of the gallant officer with surprise and astonishment; particularly when he recollected by what noble lord the opposition had first been made. It was not for him to praise that noble lord; but the language which had been applied to the minority by the gallant officer deserved no other answer than a repetition of the vote formerly given. For this reason, he should vote for the amendment of his hon. friend, if he did not withdraw it; which he would at the same time, recommend him to do.

said, he had not understood the gallant officer to impute any thing improper to those gentlemen who had voted against the measure on constitutional grounds. His urbanity recommended him as much to his friends, as his gallantry made him distinguished in the country. He had alluded, he thought, to those who, in the debate, had raked up all the topics which they could possibly collect against Mr. Canning, and which were now every where forgotten, except as they were still made the vehicles for vulgar abuse. Giving the hon. member for Colchester all possible credit for his integrity, he thought his speech was in much worse taste than that of the gallant officer. He did not mean to follow the hon. member for Colchester through all his remarks, but he would say that, the more Mr. Canning's character, public and private, was investigated, the brighter and the purer would it appear. The question had been argued on constitutional grounds, and the grant opposed as unconstitutional. Now, he thought there was nothing unconstitutional in it. The Crown had been accustomed to reward great public services in a liberal manner; but parliament had taken away the means, promising, when it did take them away, to be always ready to meet the wishes of the Crown on such a subject. Was it, therefore, unconstitutional for parliament to bestow great rewards for splendid public services? It was not: there were many instances to the contrary. The rewards bestowed on the duke of Marlborough were the subject of an act of parliament. The more modem examples of similar proceedings, had already been referred to, and he did not know on what ground the grant was unconstitutional. He understood the argument of those who said that where there had been no services there ought to be no reward; but he did not understand the argument of those who admitted services, and yet said it was unconstitutional to reward them. Assuming the services, he contended, that to reward them was quite constitutional. Mr. Canning's life had been devoted to his country. If, with his great talents and commanding genius, he had pursued the profession he first intended, and had been called to the bar, he would have illustrated that profession, and have added to the fortune of his family, in a far higher degree than he could ever do in the civil service of his country. No man had ever reproached him with having been wanting in honour, or fixed a stain on his integrity. His life had been devoted and even sacrificed to his public duties. No man could doubt that his life had been shortened by his public services. And, was it right for the House to refuse its protection to that family which had been deprived of him. He concurred in the motion most heartily and cordially, and he concurred in it on constitutional grounds. If he had differed with Mr. Canning more than he did on political questions, he should have given the same vote; but of all the public men he ever knew he differed least from Mr. Canning on public principles.