, seeing the hon. member for Coventry in his place, was anxious to request, on his own part and for the convenience of government, that the hon. member would postpone his motion for them appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the State of the Silk Trade, which stood for to-morrow, until Monday next. It was the wish of the hon. gentleman and of parties concerned in the Silk-trade, that, when, the motion for a committee was made, he should mention the course which government intends to adopt. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the hon. gentleman would not feel disinclined to admit of a short delay, which would enable him to state explicitly the intentions of government on the subject.

expressed his willingness to comply with the right hon. gentleman's request. He should be sorry to interpose any difficulty in the way of government. He was glad to find that the right hon. gentleman would be prepared to state the intentions of ministers with respect to the Silk-trade on Monday.

presented a petition from the Silk-throwsters of Somerset, Wilts, and Dorsetshire. They prayed that their ruin might not be accelerated by taking off the duties, and that the miseries of the people they employed might not be increased. As it was the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to communicate his views on this subjects on Monday, he would not discuss the question now; but he hoped that any future legislation on this subject would be consonant to the principle of the laws of England, which were for the preservation of the lives and properties of the subjects. If more duties were taken off, 25,000l. of property embarked in factories and machinery would not sell for 6,000l.; and the work people who now dragged on a miserable existence on an averaged of wages of 2s. 6d. a-week, which afforded them just potatoes and salt, would inevitably be more distressed, these were considerations well worth the attention of government; who he sincerely hoped, would not sacrifice an industrious people for a theory, nor apply the principles of free trade to complex state of society that did not suit them.

corroborated them statement of his hon. colleague, as to the distress of the Silk-trade in Somersetshire. It was quite true, that the great body of them were in a state of the most dreadful distress. Much capital had been invested in that trade within a few years, and a very considerable population was employed in it in the town and neighbourhood of Taunton. He was glad to hear that it was the intention of the right hon. gentleman to state the plan prepared by his majesty's government for the benefit of the Silk-trade.

thought there was occasion on which less apology was required for declining to enter into the subject than upon the third day previous to that fixed for the discussion. He was not going into the case then, but this he must say, that there might be other causes for the distress and depression experienced in the Silk-trade, than those assigned by the petitioners. However, he abstained from discussing these considerations at present. The hon. member expressed his hope that the measures of government would be stated without further delay. Government could not be fairly called upon to state the course they intended to pursue so early as some gentlemen appeared to suppose. Nevertheless, they were anxious to explain their intentions as soon as possible. The laws regulating the Silk-trade did not expire until the end of the session; government therefore were at liberty to select the most convenient time, previous to that period, at which to bring forward their plan. However, they were willing to state the nature of the measure they proposed on Monday. It was evident that, in doing so they were only actuated by a desire to comply with the wishes of the parties interested, and to satisfy their minds upon the subject; for no measure proposed on Monday, could be carried through until after the recess.

presented a petition from the silk-throwsters of London and its vicinity, complaining of the depressed state of their trade. The petitioners had, he said, embarked a considerable amount of property in mills and machinery for throwing silk, on the faith of the protection afforded them by the duties formerly imposed on the importation of foreign thrown silk. They declared that, since the alterations had been made in those duties, they found it utterly impossible to compete with the Italian throwster. If some adequate protection were not afforded, their trade must inevitably fall into ruin and decay. They stated, that, in the year 1825, they were suddenly and most unexpectedly exposed to great losses and fluctuations in their property, by the issue of a Treasury order, which reduced the duty on foreign thrown silk imported into the English market, from 7s. 6d. to 5s. per lb.; and they added, that the latter duty was utterly insufficient to afford them adequate protection against the foreign throwster. In consequence of the new system introduced into the Silk Trade, a great depreciation of property had taken place, and the operatives were involved in the utmost distress. He could adduce many instances of the frightful extent to which property invested in silk mills and machinery had been depreciated. He would, however, mention one case of this kind—it was that of a large mill in the neighbourhood of Dublin, the building of which and the erection of machinery cost 1,700l. This concern was lately sold for 50l., in consequence of the reduced state of the silk trade. There was no instance in the history of commercial affairs, of a depreciation so sudden and extreme, as had taken place in that species of property which was employed in throwing silk. With respect to the importation of foreign silk, the petitioners were of opinion, that in order the more effectually to prevent smuggling, the revenue officers should be stimulated to effect seizures, by a larger allowance of the property confiscated. They thought that if this expedient were adopted, an illicit trade in silk would not be carried on, to such an extent as it was at present.

said, the silk-throwsters had an immense amount of capital embarked in their trade, and gave employment to a great number of individuals. Without some alteration in the existing system, it was impossible that they should compete with foreigners.

Ordered to lie on the table.

rose, to move for a committee to inquire into the present state of the Law and Practice of granting Patents for Indentions. He had no intention, he said, of impugning the principle on which the law in regard to patents was founded, nor of encroaching on the prerogative of the king to grant them. The prerogative in that respect was as old as the constitution; it was clear that at common law them Crown had the power of granting to the inventor of any new and useful manufacture or art, the exclusive right of using or vending it for a reasonable time. Such a grant was no violation of the rule laid down by lord Coke, that no one is to be restrained of any freedom or liberty he had before, or hindered such a grant, so far from being injurious to the public, was on the contrary beneficial to it, by tending to encourage useful discoveries. But this power having been greatly abused, particularly in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and king James, having been made the means sometimes of enriching a favourite at the expense of the public, sometimes of raising a revenue for the prince, having (in the words of queen Elizabeth, when she revoked some monopolies which had been complained of by parlia- ment) "been repeatedly turned to the hurt of the people," it was at length found necessary to define and limit it by statute, and to reduce it within its ancient and constitutional limits, which was done by the well-known Statute of Monopolies passed in the 21st James 1st. That statute suppressed all monopolies generally; but the sixth clause in it authorized the Crown to grant letters-patent, or grants of privilege for fourteen years or under, of the sole working or making of any new manufacture within the realm to the true and first inventor of such manufacture. It was upon that clause that the right now exercised by the Crown, of granting those letters, which confer upon an inventor the right to the exclusive benefit of his own invention, for fourteen years, was wholly founded. Whenever that power was exercised, the privilege or protection thus granted was the result of what might be called a compromise between the Crown, or rather, he should say, the public on the one hand, and the inventor on the other. That clause, which did no more than declare that it should be in the power of the Crown to make such grants if it should think fit, left it to the Crown to prescribe those terms on which it would make the grant. Accordingly, in the reign of queen Anne, a condition was introduced into the patent, which had always since been insisted on, that the inventor should, within a certain time, generally within one or two, sometimes six, months after the grant of the patent, enrol in the court of Chancery, such a description of his invention, that the public might, at the expiration of the patent, have the use of it in as cheap and beneficial a manner as the patentee himself used it. By obtaining, that statement the public derived a benefit, and an equivalent in return for the benefit the patentee derived from his limited monopoly.

In looking at the limited and peculiar privilege granted by letters-patent, which he had spoken of as a monopoly, they must not confound it with the common notion of a monopoly, which it was not, being merely a bargain between the inventor and the public: the public acquired something which it had not before, or acquired it in a better form, or at a cheaper rate. And it was manifest that it was equally just, as it was politic, that those who had employed their time and spent their money in the production of some new thing, which was to be useful to the community, ought to be rewarded;—that he who informed the public of a new method of increasing their wealth or their comforts, should obtain a compensation or recompense for his labours and ingenuity. The best and most appropriate method of doing this seemed to be that which was marked out by the statute; namely, the giving an inventor a limited monopoly in his own manufacture; for, in proportion as his invention was valuable to society, so would the amount of his profits increase. He considered, therefore, that the principle was a sound one on which our patent laws were founded, and which were intented, on the one hand, to stimulate industry and ingenuity by securing to inventors a reward proportionate to the value of their inventions, and, on the other, to secure to the public the perfect knowledge of such useful inventions or discoveries as might be made. His object was, to make the law efficient for these purposes, which it was not at present.

He should not say any thing in regard to the expense of taking but a patent: he had heard it spoken of as a grievance, but he was not prepared to say that the law required any alteration in that respect. It was his own opinion at present, and he knew it was the opinion of many persons who had great experience in that part of our laws, that it was not desirable to facilitate over-much the obtaining of patents by any reduction of expense; but what he did contend for was, that when a patent was obtained, it should be perfectly effectual for its purpose; namely, the security of this limited monopoly to the inventor, and of so perfect a knowledge of the invention to the public, that every one might use it when the term of the patent was expired.

Such being the case, he would proceed to the consideration, of those parts of the law which he thought the most important to bring under the attention of the House, and in which he thought it possible some improvement, on mature deliberation, might be made. The patent, as he had said, was granted on condition that the invention should, in the specification, be accurately and completely described—that it should describe the best and properest materials, and that the machine, or thing, or substance discovered, should be accurately and completely described. He was aware of the necessity of insisting on that; it was part of the bargain and fairly made; but the different interpretations that had been put on the law, the doubt what the law was, the different and the fluctuating opinions of judges as to the application and best mode of construing the law, had made the property under letters-patent very insecure; and had tended manifestly to discourage, inventors, who, seeing others lose the benefit of their labours, were deterred from bringing forward their own inventions. It was a sort of proverb among inventors, that he who took out a patent took out a law-suit with it; and the issue of a law-suit in support of a patent was so exceedingly uncertain, that the patent right was said to be of comparatively little, value, till confirmed by the verdict of a jury; so that where there was any probability of a discovery being kept private without a patent, as in chymical discoveries, the secret was thought of far more value than a patent. In mechanical inventions, the machinery would for the most part betray the secret; but in chymical inventions, where the secret could be better concealed, it had been said that no man in his senses would think of disclosing his secret for such an imperfect protection as a patent gave him. The consequence of this was, that many a valuable discovery died with the inventor, and was lost to the public, or was locked up, and formed a perpetual monopoly in the hands of his representatives. The principal cause of the insecurity of the patent consisted in the difficulty, not to say the impossibility often, of framing a specification which should not be liable to any of the manifold and often technical and formal objections which were allowed to prevail against them in courts of law.

He would not weary the House with attempting to enumerate the manifold imperfections in specifications, which had been held to be fatal to the right of the patentee. It was sufficient that it was notorious that the drawing a specification was a matter of the greatest possible nicety, and that most of the patents which on judicial trial had been lost, had been so from mistakes in the framing of that document. The history of the courts of law afforded, perhaps, no one head of law about which there had been so much difference of opinion amongst the judges, He was not contending that the patentee should not be obliged to give a complete and accurate description of his invention—far from it; he saw the perfect justice and the necessity of this; but when a man had made a discovery, and was willing to come forward, and bonâ fide make the discovery known, which was part of the condition of the grant, he had a right to ask, when he gave the description of that discovery, "Are you satisfied with it?" "Is it complete"? "Can you work by it?" and then, unless he had wilfully concealed some part of the process by which the invention could be better or cheaper made, he ought to be secure of that protection which was to him the beneficial part of the bargain which he had entered into with the public; and not, after laying out vast sums of money, be liable to have to maintain his right before two or three successive juries, and ultimately, perhaps, after a balanced opinion of two juries and the court, lose the benefit of his invention on some technical point, which might have been foreseen, or which, perhaps, was really of no importance.

He thought it would be found that some mode of ensuring the validity of the patent, when the specification was complete, or, if incomplete, of making the patentee acquainted with that fact, and of allowing him before it was enrolled to make it complete, might fairly be required. The history of the cases showed that some of the most meritorious and scientific men, who had devoted their time and their fortune to the perfection of inventions—to whom it was that we owed the unparalleled extension of our commerce, the increase of our manufactures, and the improvements in agriculture, those resources of that extraordinary prosperity and power to which this country had arrived—had, for some technical inaccuracy in the specification, nearly risked the loss of their property. He need only refer to the case of Bolton and Watt, whose patent was all but lost, and that from some technical error in the description—such as a description of a method rather than a thing. It was a fact well known that these eminent persons expended between 30,000l. and 40,000l., in the defence of their patents, which never would have been infringed if there had been persons authorized and competent to examine the specification on its enrolment, and to have said, "You have taken a patent for a principle rather than a thing, or for a whole machine, when yours is only an improvement of a part." If that power existed, the public would be as well and better served than at present, and inventors would be saved all the cost and the uncertainty as to their invention and property. Whether that might be done by a commission composed of scientific men and lawyers, or whether it might be found impracticable, he knew not; but he thought the state of the law, and more particularly the state of opinion which existed among scientific men, were at least good grounds for inquiry and consideration, and he asked for nothing more.

There were other points on which he might say a few words, one of which was, the shortness of time allowed for the specification. The history of nearly all great inventions showed, that the first sketch of the machine, or process, was cumbrous and complex; the operation of time was to simplify and perfect it. A man made a discovery, he was in hourly danger of being forestalled, or at least of losing his right to obtain, a patent for it; for any publication of his secret, in any way, before the patent was rendered safe by passing the great seal, rendered his right to a patent void, whether that publication was made maliciously or accidentally, by a friend to whom he might have communicated his invention, or by a servant, whom he might have employed to assist him in the experiments necessary to perfect it; and such caution on that account was thought necessary, that lord Eldon once declared from the bench, if he were maturing an invention, and soliciting a patent, he would not intrust his own brother with the secret until his patent was sealed. The consequence of this was, that the moment the idea of some discovery had occurred to a man, he was tempted to endeavour to secure it by a patent, which he immediately applied for, and probably obtained; but he was obliged to specify, often within a time that was insufficient for the due perfection of his invention, and the result was, he specified for an imperfect machine. The machine was improved, and he was from time to time compelled to take out a fresh patent for every successive improvement, and at the same cost. It in fact often happened, that an inventor had only the alternative of incurring the expense of taking out several patents for one invention, or of waiting before he took out his patent till he bad completed his invention, at the hazard of losing, through the carelessness or treachery of his friends, or servants, his right to a patent at all. Now he thought the law of France might be found worthy of imitation on that head; there, though the time for which a patent might be granted was fixed at fifteen years, yet a patent for five years might be taken out at a third of the expense of one for fifteen years, which might be renewed from time to time, with all the successive improvements, for fifteen years in the whole, and at the cost of one patent; so that there a man was enabled, without the costs of many successive patents, to have the full benefit of his improvement at the cost of one, and without the hurry attending on the shortness of time allowed for specifying. He was aware that there was a discretion as to the specification in the Attorney and Solicitor general, but he alluded to the known and general practice, and to what was the known and general evil. He thought that that, or something of that sort, might be found very beneficial in this country. The only protection which an inventor had, previously to his application for a patent, was by a caveat, which was nothing more than a request, lodged at the offices of the Attorney or Solicitor general, that he might have notice of all applications for patents for the same or the same sort of invention, in order that he might claim a patent for it, if found to be really the first inventor. That was the whole virtue of the caveat, which some persons had erroneously imagined to be a sort of minor patent, capable by its own operation of staying the hands of all persons engaged in similar inventions. As a protection it was a very hazardous, not to say uncertain one to resort to—hazardous, because the mere circumstance of a caveat being entered, was likely to direct attention and the inquiries of others to the very point which he who had entered the caveat was investigating; and uncertain, because any description that could be given of an invention, before it was completed, must be defective, and liable to be defeated, on the ground of its being defective. He believed there was a very general opinion, that while a caveat afforded no certain protection, it was a sure means of raising opposition, and often of defeating its own end.

So much for the specification, in which the principal movements of the law would be found to lie. He thought, if the in- ventor really made a fair discovery of his invention, or described it in a way prescribed to him, he ought to be guaranteed his property, as much as the public were guaranteed theirs. As to the priority of discovery—as to the points whether or not the patent was infringed—as to whether or not the patentee was the true discoverer—as to the utility of the invention itself, though those points gave much litigation, they were incidental to the nature of the property and the necessity of the law; and he did not think any thing further could be effected in this, or any protection granted. There was a difference of opinion upon another point—namely, as to the propriety of keeping the specification concealed during the existence of the patent. According to the present practice, the specification was open to the public, and any one might obtain a copy of it. It was said, and he thought truly, that that operated injuriously towards the patentee in two ways: in the first place, it operated against him by serving as a guide to piracy at home, by enabling persons in this country, before the expiration of the patent, to obtain facilities for pirating it; and he believed it did operate in that way to such a degree, that there were few patents which had not been infringed very extensively. In the next place, it enabled persons to carry the invention abroad, where, of course, the patent article was made, the foreign market shut against the real invention, and the undue benefit given to foreigners, of having the free use of the invention fourteen years before the patentee's countrymen could enjoy the same advantage. The only reasons in favour of the publication of the specification were, first, that the public should judge if the thing had been truly described; next, that a man might see for what a patent had already been obtained, that he might not waste his time in perfecting a similar invention. As to the first objection, it would be greatly removed by the adoption of a proposition he had already made; namely, that means should be taken to ascertain the accuracy of the description before it was enrolled. As to the second, which had been urged by lord Eldon, he was not sure that there was any perfectly satisfactory answer to it; but it had been said that a description far short of a minute specification, would be, publication enough, if made in the title of the patent, to inform ingenious men of the nature of the inventions already protected by patents. The question, however, involved a balance of evils, but it was obvious that the point was one which deserved consideration. In France the specification might be concealed on special application; and if it was necessary to inspect it, in a case where a patent had been infringed, it was referred to persons to decide, but who were not at liberty to dissolve its nature. How far that might be thought advisable in this country, he conceived no one could decide without a detailed consideration of the point, and taking the opinion of those who were at once interested in, and conversant with, the subject

He had not gone into any particular review of the different cases, and the niceties of construction which had arisen, for fear of tiring the House. He had been the rather inclined to take the case as one primœ impressions,—as one in which the difficulties and niceties were generally known, and felt, and complained of. It could not be denied, that in the present state of the law much difficulty did arise;—that many patents for great and useful discoveries had been lost;—that there was a strong and prevalent opinion that the laws did not at present, for some reason or other, afford such certainty of protection to inventors as they might;—that a general opinion existed, particularly among scientific men, and he believed also among lawyers, that something might be done to improve these laws. All he asked was, that the House should consider how far that could be done—only that it should comply with the petition which he presented some time ago, signed by some of the most eminent engineers and scientific men, praying for a review of those laws; and he hoped he had stated enough to induce the House to comply with his motion, "that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the present state of the Law and Practice relative to the granting of Letters-patent for Inventions."

begged leave to second the motion. There were many disadvantage experienced by patentees under the existing law, which would form a very proper subject of inquiry by a committee. At the same time, he thought it right to say, that it was, a subject full of difficulties and one which should, be approached with caution, and with a due sense of its great importance to country so much indebted to its mechanical inventions as England.

said, he would not oppose the appointment of the committee, from whose inquiries, much advantage, he was inclined to believe, might result. He would suggest, that it would be a proper subject of the committee's investigation to ascertain what was the state of the law respecting patents in other countries, and what was the mode of protection usually adopted in those places where mechanical contrivances most prevailed, and where there was a great application of skill and ingenuity to the advancement of manufactures. He entertained some doubt, however, whether any great advantage would be derived from diminishing the expense of taking out patents; as, if there were too great a facility in the taking them out, a patent might be asked for any inconsiderable and unimportant invention. Manufacturers in such towns as Birmingham and Manchester, who had large establishments, might be made liable to vexatious actions brought against them by persons taking out patents for some improvement, which they, unconscious of the existence of such patents, might already have brought into practical operation. The subject was one which should be proceeded in with great caution and circumspection.

said, he would have no objection to the appointment of a committee, for the purpose of inquiring into the means of protecting patentees; but he would not consent that patents should be obtained otherwise than as at present—from the Crown,—or that the preliminary public specification of the nature of the invention or improvement should be dispensed with. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. mover, as to the hardship of exposing grantees to the trouble and expense of defending their patent rights in a court of law, in the case of any infringement on those rights, he must say, that he considered this defence to be the just price of their monopoly. One person obtains a patent from the Crown, for what is considered to be an invention; and another, he alleges, has invaded his granted rights. How, in the first place, is his faith in the originality of his invention to be tested, but by his readiness to prove it in a court of law? and how, in the next place, can it be known that his patent rights have been invaded, but by the decision of a competent jury?

contended, that there were many defects in the existing law, which it would be very easy for a committee to remedy. That part of the law, for example, which denied to a native a patent right of improvement for a certain time after the date of the patent of invention, served to throw the whole advantages in this country of improvements into the hands of foreigners. The expense also was very great.

said, he was one who, many years ago, had brought the subject before parliament, and expected beneficial consequences from the proposed; committee.

doubted very muck whether the present law of patents was productive of public advantage—whether, it fact, it did not throw obstacles in the way of mechanical ingenuity.

The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.

moved, to refer to a select committee such of the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates as were voted in a committee of supply on the 3rd of April. The noble lord, in submitting, this motion, intimated, that there were three items in the estimates reserved for future consideration; as there was some difference of opinion amongst members upon the votes to which they referred. These items related to the subject of education; and especially comprised the vote for the Society for Discountenancing Vice, the Kildare Street Society, and the grant to Maynooth College.—The motion was agreed to, and a committee, appointed.

rose, to present the petition, of which he had given notice, from the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, on the subject of Education. The petitioners did not pray that sums of money might be granted to them for the purpose of promoting the education of the people, but that parliament would be pleased to adopt a system of national education calculated to benefit the community, without interfering with their religious opinions. The petitioners expressed their willingness to co-operate in the promotion of any such system.

observed, that there was something so novel in the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland coming forward to that House as a body, that he could not refrain from directing its attention to the circumstance; the more especially as the petition contained an application for a grant of public money. The petition, the House would observe, came from the Roman Catholic bishops: now, by the existing law, there was no such office as that of a Roman Catholic bishop. At the first glance it appeared to him, that the present petition, asking, as it did, for a part of the public money, was one which required the sanction of a minister of the Crown before it could regularly come under the consideration of the House.

said, if the hon. and gallant member had heard the petition read, he must have perceived that his remarks were totally inapplicable to it. The petitioners did not petition the House now for the first time; neither had they assumed the character, in which they appearedy for the first time. He and his hon. friend had frequently been honoured with the petitions of these individuals, styling themselves, not the Roman Catholics bishops of Ireland, which, he admitted, would be improper, but styling themselves (and to this title they had as good a right as the hon. and gallant member possessed to his military rank) bishops, professing the Roman Catholic religion, residing Ireland. The objection to the titles of the petitioners was wholly inapplicable, and the observation of the hon. and gallant member, with respect to this being a petition for a grant of public money, was equally unfounded.

referring to the act of 1782, contended, that of that and other laws it was a direct infringement on the part of the petitioners to style themselves bishops. The designations which those persons assumed were by no means so much a matter of indifference as the hon. member for Limerick would have it believed: it was on their part an assertion of a claim of right which parliament was bound to resist; and he called on the solicitor-general for Ireland to show if the law were otherwise.

repeated the call, and contended, that if the statement of his hon. friend was correct, as he believed it to be, there could be little doubt that the petitioners had approached that House in a character to which they were not entitled. If the solicitor-general for Ireland could establish their claim he had no doubt he would do so.

referred to the heading of the petition, and said, that it was from "the undersigned bishops professing the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland." He observed that they were bishops by law, and that his majesty, when in Ireland, had received them as bishops.

said, it might be perfectly true, that his majesty's gracious condescension had proceeded so far as to receive them as bishops, but he questioned the propriety and the legality of the advice under which his majesty had then acted. The petition then before the House appeared to him to state the legal assumption of the title of bishop ["hear, hear," from, Mr. Wynn]. The right hon. gentleman might cheer, but their title to be bishops could not be legally acknowledged by that House.

declined entering, into, the legal discussion to which he had been challenged by the hon. member for Corfe Castle on an occasion when the House was occupied with a great principle, and when the settlement of their technical, differences would not be very edifying. Surely the discussion of such a question on the presentation of a petition was any thing but convenient or well-timed; but if the hon. member would, on that day week, ask him what the law was, he should have great pleasure in stating it.

contended, that there, was no better time than the present. In his opinion, the present, petition could not be received, as it came from persons who described themselves in a manner which could not be recognised by the House. In an act of parliament, passed before the commencement of the present century, a proviso was made, that no person should assume to himself the title of bishop, unless, that title had been granted to him by the king; but, contrary to this proviso, the persons from whom this petition came had assumed to themselves the ecclesiastical rank and degree of Roman Catholic bishops. It was further provided in this act, that no person should be appointed a bishop but by the king, and that any person acting as a bishop upon the appointment of the pope should be subject to the pains of premunire. These persons, therefore, assuming to themselves the title of bishops—a title which they had not received from the king,—were, in fact, subjecting themselves to the pains described in the statute. As to what had been said about the state of the law upon this subject at the close of another week, he did not think that the hon. and learned member who had promised to give his opinion at the end of that time would be much assisted by what might occur in the intervening period; for the same confliction of legal opinions and of legal difficulties would exist then that had ever existed before. At all events, he thought that the present petition was sought to be laid before the House by persons who could not legally approach it; and he, for one, therefore, was decidedly of opinion that it ought not to be received.

thought, that the hon. member had carried his argument too far; for, since parliament had, for years, admitted the title of bishops to some of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, it was now too much to say, that all which had been done had been done wrong. If the hon. gentleman wanted a proof of the recognization of this title by the parliament, he would give him no more than this—that, in more than one instance, bishops of the Roman Catholic church of Ireland, who had conformed to the Protestant faith, had immediately been admitted to the same rank and degree in the established church of England. The point, indeed, urged by the hon. gentleman, and founded upon a statute which he had cited, was some years since overruled by both the Irish Houses of parliament.

thought, that the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Corfe Castle could have been urged with no other view than to occasion a complete abolition of that privilege, for the right of which that hon. member and many others had lately made the House resound—he meant the right of petition. If the persons who had signed this petition were not to be called Roman Catholic bishops, he would beg to ask by what term they should designate themselves? He would venture to say, that never until this day had such a distinction been made, as was now attempted to be set up about the title of these bishops. He thought the objections made by the hon. member were an unnecessary and preposterous attempt, in this last hour to interfere with the right of petition In Mr. Plunkett's bill they were called Roman Catholic bishops, and in several other instances the same title had been recognized by parliament. Bishops, in fact, they had been from the time of the Reformation, and bishops they would continue to be. All that the law required was, that they should not interfere with the temporalities of the established church. One week only remained, before the question would be permanently set at rest. He therefore thought it quite unnecessary to reject this petition upon any captious ground, or to insult the body of the Catholic priesthood by doing so.

did not intend to trouble the House by any further observations upon this subject, but when it was said, that he intended to convey any thing like insult to the petitioners he felt that he was called upon to explain. He was sure that the hon. gentleman did net understand, or had not attended to, the observations which had fallen from him; for he had taken especial care to word them in such a manner as to avoid any thing which might appear offensive to the Catholic clergy. He disclaimed any intention whatever to offend or to insult them.

observed, that the question appeared to be purely, whether the petition was or was not an informal one. He believed that this question had already been discussed in another House, when a petition was presented from the same body terming themselves Roman Catholic prelates—a term, he thought, synonymous to bishops. That title, however, was recognized, and the petition received. The term bishop, indeed, as applied to some of the Roman Catholic clergy, was admitted by our own church, for in the thirty-seventh article of our faith we termed the pope himself a bishop, and spoke of him in the following terms:—"We deny that the bishop of Rome has any jurisdiction within this realm." Looking, therefore, at all the circumstances, he did not see that there was any thing to object to in this petition.

Ordered to lie on the table.

, after stating that the affairs of Greenwich Hospital were at present in the hands of a large body of governors, deputy governors, &c. too numerous to administer a revenue of a hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year, moved for leave to bring in a bill "to provide for the better management of the affairs of Greenwich Hospital."

characterised the proceeding out of which this proposition originated, as a conspiracy to oust the twenty-four sages who had hitherto had the administration of the affairs of the Hospital, and to substitute the lords of the Admiralty; who had already, if the statements made when it was proposed to reduce their number were to be believed, quite as much to do as they could possibly accomplish.

said, that the patronage of Greenwich Hospital was already vested in the Admiralty, which did away with any objection to the bill on that score. The original charter of the hospital only provided for the care of the infirm and worn-out seamen; but other duties, such as the distribution of prize money, had afterwards devolved upon the directors and governors. In his opinion, it was much better to have three or five responsible persons for executing these duties, than twenty-four or more irresponsible persons, and on that ground he thought the bill entitled to the support of the House.

concurred in thinking that a responsible body was more likely to administer the affairs of a corporation well than an irresponsible body.

, with reference to what had been stated as to a conspiracy against the directors, begged to say, that the first information he had of the matter was through a request of the directors to become a member of the secret committee. When called on to give his opinion,—he had expressed his belief, that with four or five hundred governors and twenty-four directors there was too heavy a mass of management to make it possible that it should work well. They had accordingly declared, that the whole thing as it stood should be done away, and that an act of parliament should be brought in, to authorise the appointment of a responsible committee for managing the affairs of the hospital. The Admiralty had certainly enough to do; but the superintendence of five directors would not add much to the weight of its business, while an advantage would be gained to the public, in the regularity of keeping and auditing the accounts.

admitted, that he had not been a very useful member of the direction.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.