said, he had two objections to this bill; first, that it was contrary to the provisions of the 17th George 3rd, cap. 53, by which it was enacted, "that Parsonage-houses and other buildings belonging to the Church should be rebuilt by the Rector, by borrowing money at four per cent., and making provision for the gradual extinction of the debt in twenty-five years." This act applied to the archbishop of Canterbury as much as to any other minister of the church. Now, by this bill the debt was not to be wholly paid until the end of forty years; by which means the present archbishop would be enabled to lay out a sum of 60,000l. for his own advantage, instead of half that sum, and would pay only out of his income 1,500l. a-year instead of 3,000l.; which he could well afford. The second objection was to the fund from which this money was to be borrowed. It was intended, by this bill, that the commissioners of queen Anne's bounty should lend the money. Now that fund was expressly provided for the endowment of poor clergymen. This, therefore, would be an abuse of the fund. As the bill had gone through the previous stages, he would only move, as an amendment, that the term of repayment be shortened from forty year to twenty-five; and he would afterwards move the omission of the clause for borrowing the money from the fund of queen Anne's bounty.

opposed the amendment, and said, he was sure that a more perfectly correct bill was never before the House. It had been closely investigated in the committee, through which it passed without a dissentient voice. This was not a question as to the repair or rebuilding of a parsonage-house, under the act of George 3rd, but whether the archbishop of Canterbury should have a residence suitable to his dignity? This bill, indeed, provided that the Palace at Addington, in Surrey, should be repaired so as to be fit for the residence of the archbishop's family, by adding to it a chapel and library; which, no doubt were essential, to the country residence of an archbishop. As to the objection respecting the fund, it was altogether a mistake. There was a sum of upwards of 1,700,000l. in the possession of the trustees, and it was a complete mistake of his hon. friend to suppose that this loan would injure the poor clergy. On the contrary, it would benefit them; for, at present, the trustees had the money in stock, and it yielded them only about 3l. 11s. per cent, but the archbishop agreed to give four per cent; so that their income would be increased and not diminished, and they would be able to make larger grants to the poor clergy. He trusted his hon. friend would withdraw his amendment.

thought his hon. friend decidedly wrong in his view of this bill. Its object was, not only to repair, but to improve and extend the accommodation provided for the archbishop. The act of Geo. 3rd had no analogy to this bill. The archbishop had received from the executors of his predecessor the sum of 6,000l. for dilapidations, and this he subscribed towards the improvements; which he was not bound to do. The sum to be borrowed was 50,000l. and with the approbation of the archbishop of York and the bishop of London, 10,000l. more might be added. The fund of queen Anne's bounty would be considerably a gainer, and the allow antes to the poor clergy would be increased, by the greater interest received by the trustees.

supported the amendment. The principle of the act of 17th George 3rd applied, he said, to all cases of this kind; and queen Anne's bounty was exclusively intended for the poor clergy. The income of the archbishop of Canterbury might be calculated at 20,000l. a-year. The late archbishop had possessed the see for nearly twenty years. For whatever dilapidations there might be in the palaces, his executors should have fully indemnified the successor. The bill described the palaces as falling into decay and ruin. How much had the executor paid? The bill said 2,967l. only. The executor should be called on to show, that the property of the late archbishop was insufficient to for the dilapidations he had suffered to take place. Queen Anne's bounty was a trust for the benefit of the poor clergy, of whom more than seven thousand had livings under 50l. a-year. Yet this fund was to be applied to assist a rich archbishop in maintaining his dignity. If it were so, let the archbishop subscribe 6,000l. a-year out of his income, instead of 3,900l. The bill said, that this was necessary for the State purposes of the Established Church. This was a new doctrine, and he intreated the House not to sanction it.

said, that the observations of the hon. member for Colchester induced him to offer a few words to correct, if possible, the erroneous impressions which he and his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, appeared to entertain. He (Mr. Tennyson) knew as a fact, from information which could not be doubted, that, however the bill might state the matter, the executor of the late archbishop of Canterbury had paid a sum amounting, very nearly, to 6,000l. for dilapidations. The actual sum was 5,848l., and, including certain contingent expenses, 5,996l. This sum was to be laid out by the present archbishop in the improvements proposed, and it was the whole which he could be called upon to lay out, being the amount which, upon a strict survey and calculation, was sufficient for the repairs now wanting. The late archbishop had effected very considerable repairs and improvements at Lambeth. He had, with his accustomed generosity, been satisfied with the small sum of 700l. for the dilapidations of his predecessor, and as it was well known that he left Lambeth Palace in a much better condition than he found it, it was obvious that the sum recently paid was not for dilapidations incurred by him; yet his executor, with a liberality which well corresponded with his own, and without scruple or question, had paid the large sums which, upon a survey, had now been required of him. If he (Mr. Tennyson) rightly comprehended the reasoning of the hon. member for Colchester, he was compelled to dissent from the conclusion to which it pointed,—whether applied to the late or the present primate; namely, that the occupant of a see is bound not only to keep the buildings in repair, but to erect such new buildings, chapels, and other accommodations, as the dignity of that see, or the accommodation of his successor, may require. Who, if such a principle could be maintained, was to be judge of what was to be done in each case? and where would the liability of bishops and their executors end? But all a bishop was bound, or could in reason and justice be expected, to do was, to maintain the edifices upon the scale and footing on which he might find them.—With respect to the bill before the House, it appeared to him to be characterized by a most liberal spirit on the part of the present archbishop of Canterbury. He was already far advanced in life; yet, after expending the 6,000l. received for dilapidations, he consented to sacrifice a large portion of his annual income, in order to accomplish such additions and improvements as appeared necessary to adapt the palaces of Lambeth and Addington to the dignity of the see. By the arrangements in the bill, in order to pay four per cent upon the whole principal money, and annually two and a half per per cent towards the liquidation in forty years of the principal money of 60,000l. to be borrowed, his grace will have to disburse out of his income, in the first instance, nearly 4,000l. per annum. If the sum to be borrowed were to be paid off in twenty years upon the analogy which his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had attempted to establish between this case and that of an ordinary parsonage—and if accordingly the period of repayment were limited to twenty years, as under Gilbert's act, or to twenty-five years as proposed by his hon. friend—the archbishop would not and could not consent to so large an outlay as 60,000l. He would then probably suggest a diminution of the sum to 30,000l. As far as his grace was concerned, this would be a material benefit to him, for he would only have 2,700l. a year to pay instead of 3,900l.—but the see, in which the public interest was concerned, would not derive half the benefit now proposed. If therefore, the larger alterations devised were desirable, he thought it better they should be done at once, and that the princely proposal of the archbishop should be adopted. Any outlay beyond the 6,000l. received was strictly voluntary; and, moreover, the archbishop was willing to expose himself to all the inconvenience and delay which the projected changes would create. Besides, the annual payments would decrease with the diminution of the principal, so that he would have to bear the heaviest annual charge. There could not in his (Mr. Tennyson's) opinion be any fair analogy—as had been contended—between this case and that of an ordinary parsonage. The repairs of a rectory house were of a very slight and ephemeral kind, in comparison with the improvement which these palaces demanded. He admitted it would be unjust to onerate a succeeding rector with payments of principal and interest, for sums laid out more than twenty years before, and after the repairs effected were worn out; but here, where the repairs and additions would be of a substantial, durable, and magnificent character, suitable to the see of Canterbury, and from which the archbishops, for a century to come, would derive benefit, it was just that the successors for a more extended period, should contribute, and nothing could be more unfair than to expect the present prelate to do more than he now most liberally proposed. If any change were to be made, it might be—but he thought it most inexpedient—by borrowing a smaller sum; but he could not listen to a suggestion that the present occupant of the see should contribute more largely. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had complained, that the money was to be borrowed from governors of queen Anne's bounty and he argued as if that fund, which was dedicated to the increase of small livings, was now to be invaded to improve an archbishopric. The answer was this, that it was the interest of their capital which was applied by the governors for the increase of small livings, and whatever increased that interest, promoted the object of the fund. Now, by this bill, they would receive four per cent by a loan to the see, upon a portion of their money at present invested in the public funds, which, as his hon. friend (Mr. Denison) had shewn, did not yield to them nearly so much; so that their means of benefiting the poor clergy would be increased and not diminished. Besides, the governors were not bound by the terms of the bill, so to lend the 60,000l., but were merely authorized to do so, if they should think fit.—Recurring to what had fallen from the hon. member for Colchester, with regard to the dilapidations, he hoped he should be corrected by the Speaker, who, he believed was the executor of the late archbishop of Canterbury, if he had stated any thing erroneously; trusting that there was nothing in the forms of the House to preclude such correction as to any fact within the peculiar knowledge of the right hon. gentleman.

supported the bill, and replied to some of the preceding speakers, taking up pretty nearly the same ground as the other advocates of the bill. He hoped the House would not allow themselves to be carried away by the invective of the hon. member for Colchester—invective directed more against the church in general, than against the particular individuals in question.

said, he was amazed that the hon. member for Colchester should have adopted such ideas as he had put forth on the present occasion. The proposed expense did great honour to the munificent spirit of the present, and reflected in no degree upon the representatives of the late archbishop. It was very gratifying to see the income of a prelate expended in maintaining that sober state and becoming dignity, which all men desired to see preserved by the higher functionaries of the church.

also maintained the necessity of supporting head of the church in splendor and dignity.

seeing the opinion of the House so decidedly against him, would not press the matter further. He admitted the force of the argument, founded upon the fact, that the archbishop was to pay interest for the loan.

The amendment was negative, and the bill read a third times and passed.

presented a petition from Morris Pollock, of Gowan, near Glasgow, praying that the protection to the British throwster might be raised to the same degree as that extended to the British growers of grain or that the protection accorded to the latter might be lowered to that extended to the British throwsters and manufacturers silk. The hon. member assured that House of the great respectability, enterprise, and intelligence of the petitioner.

said, it could not be disputed, that the Silk Trade was greater now than it had been some years ago, and yet the persons engaged in the trade were infinitely worse off. The hon. member contrasted the accounts of the importation of raw silk in the years 1822 and 1823, with that of 1828, and contended, that the Silk Trade was improving.

pointed out the inconvenience of anticipating the discussion fixed for Monday, and regretted that the hon. member who spoke last had not confined himself to the topics suggested in the petition. The hon. member then proceeded to discuss the principal statements and reasoning contained in the petition. The petitioner called for a duty of 240 per cent. on the thrown silk. He could, therefore, scarcely consider the petition in any other light than as a hoax.

repelled, with indignation, the charge of the petition being a hoax. The petitioner contended, that silk and corn should be placed upon a footing somewhat analogous; and though that might not be the most advantageous arrangement, yet there was nothing so absurd in it as the last speaker seemed to suppose. There might be delusion; but the unfortunate manufacturers were not deluded as to the nature and existence of their own distresses, and those the House was bound, in justice and humanity, to attend to. He had recently had some communication with persons engaged in the Silk Trade, and nothing could be more clear and satisfactory than the manner in which they communicated information; and really, if the House would but give them an opportunity of being examined before a committee, they would instruct many members of that House.

deprecated further observation on the eve of a general discussion of the question. He begged, however, to correct a statement which had gone abroad, with respect to his opinions on the subject of the duty on raw silk. It had been reported of him, that he wished for a reduction of the duties on raw silk. Now he could not have said any thing at all like that; for he knew those duties were a mere trifle, and could not have expressed a wish to see them reduced.

complained of the statements of the public press, which he thought tended very much to mislead the House upon this question. He had been for forty years in the Silk Trade and therefore knew something of it; and he was satisfied he should be able to make out case for the interposition of parliament.

protested against the continuance of this discussion, when the House was aware, that the whole question would, on the motion of the hon. member for Coventry, come under consideration on Monday. He had only one word to say, and he entertained a sanguine hope that it would not give rise to any further observation. No one could be more anxious to alleviate the sufferings of the weavers than his majesty's government, and he trusted that any reluctance which they evinced at this moment to go into a discussion upon the question, would not be construed into an indifference to the distress of the weavers—a distress which, he was willing to admit, was as great as it was represented. While, however he repeated his hope, that the unwillingness to continue the conversation of that evening should not be construed into any neglect of the petitions of the people, he entertained a strong expectation, that those who expressed themselves so feelingly on the subject of the sufferings of the silk weavers would take the opportunity which presented itself of attending the charitable meeting which had been got up for their relief, and, by that means, contribute more effectually to assist them, than by continuing to descant upon the unfortunate state of the trade.

presented a petition from the bailiffs, aldermen, and burgesses of East Retford praying that a writ might issue for a new election for that borough. He said, he considered it most unfair that the representation of the town should be suspended. The question had been now agitated during three sessions; and, at the present moment, when it was very desirable that the feelings of the people should be fully ascertained, the borough was unrepresented. It was, therefore, the wish of the petitioners that a new writ should be issued. He trusted that this request would be granted, and that his hon. friend, the member for Blechingly, would accede to the wish of the petitioners. The proceedings had now been for three years before the House and nothing had yet been concluded, except the sending forth a sort of pilot boat for disfranchising the borough, by the resolution to which the petition referred. In the cases of other boroughs which had been disfranchised, it was not deemed proper to exclude the members for those places from sitting in parliament during-the progress of the inquiry, and he saw no reason for departing from this rule in the present instance: he saw no reason why East Retford should not have repre- sentatives in that House, as organs of their interests and sentiments. In the case of Penryn, the first law authority in this country had declared, that unless proof of corruption was adduced against the majority of the electors of a borough, it did not warrant its disfranchisement. In the case of East Retford, the principal proofs of corruption and bribery had taken place so far back as 1812, and the proposed punishment, he thought disproportionate, in the case made out, by the evidence adduced at the bar of the House. This subject had already engrossed much attention it had proved a dangerous topic, and had been almost as fatal in breaking up cabinets as the Catholic question itself. He did not doubt that the House had the power of disfranchisement; but they ought to take care that that power should not be exercised in a harsh or in an unguarded manner. The hon. members for Blenchingly and Hertfordshire appeared to have entered into a sort of hostile partnership, for keeping up this question. The motions which they introduced were like a manifold writer—a polygraph—in which various motions were inserted among the notices, and kept up from the commencement to the close of the session. He thought it was high time to put an end to these discussions, and that the burgesses of East Retford should not be left without representatives in that House, at a time at which their interests required that they should be represented. On the motion for bringing up the petition being disposed of, he should move that a writ for a new election for members for the borough of East Retford be issued forthwith.

hoped, that the hon. member for Dungarvon would proceed to move the writ. The House were in that situation that much evil might arise from the renewal of these discussions, and no possible good was likely to be effected by them. He did not wonder, considering the immaculate places which the member for Blenchingly had hitherto represented, at his great sensibility to any suspicion of corruption; but if there were to be now a new election for Retford, he might feel pretty certain, that no wholesale bribery would be, in that place, ventured on. Every thing had been gained that could be gained. The House had recognized the desirableness of the introduction of the great towns into the representation, whenever opportunity should arise in which it could be ef- fected; whilst the hon. member for Hertford shire having, in this instance, carried his unfortunate amendment, and pledged so many members in its support, the sooner the whole thing could be got rid of the better.

said, that, in the case of Shoreham, a club of persons had been formed, constituting a majority of the voters, who, it had been proved, had, received bribes for their votes. On the occasion of that disfranchisement, "the right of voting had been thrown open to the Rape of Barber; which, he thought was a better mode of disposing of the franchise, than that of transferring it altogether to a strange place. He objected to the irregularity of urging the motion for the writ issuing forthwith, as no notice had been previously given of it, and as many of those members were absent who took an interest in the subject.

adverted to the various proceedings in the case of the East Retford election. A strong case had been made out against the electors, which they were invited to repel; and which, if they could repel, ample opportunity had been afforded them for doing so. The corruption which had been proved against them was such as could leave no doubt of the mal-practices of the borough; and he hoped that all the evidence which had been given in support of the charges, would not be set at nought and that they would not hastily proceed in the adoption of any course upon a subject which had undergone so long and laborious an investigation.

said, he would not now enter into the case of East Retford. He rose simply for the purpose, of submitting to his hon. friend, whether, it would be consistent with the usual course of proceeding in that House, to press, the motion for issuing a new writ forthwith. The present case was different from that of moving a new writ in ordinary cases; and as his hon. friend had given notice of presenting this petition last evening, but had not given notice of his intention to follow it up with a motion that a would should issue forthwith, he would suggest his hon. friend, that although he might think it fair, yet the effect upon the, minds of others would be, that a proceeding so much at variance with the customary mode of conducting business in that. House, would not be quite fair.

expressed his willingness, to, support the motion for a new writ He was induced to do so, from a consideration of the length of time that had elapsed since the alleged offences had been committed. Most of those offences had taken place in the year 1812, and he was not disposed to visit the present electors with punishment for offences which their ancestors had so long ago committed. He had not hitherto interfered in the dispute, on one side or the other; but he should certainly now vote for the writ issuing forthwith. The hon. members for Blenchingly and Hertfordshire might continue their sparring match on this question, as they had done for the two last sessions; but he was unwilling that a representation which had slept so long, should remain in a state of suspended animation any longer. He did not see why the House of Commons should continue any longer mutilated in one of its members. For his own part, he had determined, for reasons which satisfied himself, and which those who heard him, might, perhaps, understand, not to vote for the disfranchisement of places, on account of charges brought forward on the score of bribery. He looked at the great inconvenience and injustice to voters, against whom no charges of improper conduct had been preferred; and, looking at the question in this point of view, as well as in reference to the distance of time at which the alleged offences were committed, and to the greater fairness with which further proceedings on the subject might be continued, if the borough was represented, and had an organ in that House, he would support the motion that the writ should issue forthwith.

complained of the unfairness of pressing such a motion at the present moment.

rose and said, that notwithstanding the formal notice which his hon. friend, the member for Dungarvon had given, of his intention to present this petition, it had occasioned him much surprise when he had intimated, at the close of his speech, an intention to move, at once, for a new writ to be issued conformably to the prayer of the petitioners. The hon. member and others had seized upon this occasion for reviewing the whole case of East Retford; but he (Mr. Tennyson) would not permit himself to he drawn into that discussion, however he might feel tempted to correct the erroneous statements and recollections of his hon. friends, since he had postponed the main question until the 5th May, for the express purpose of avoiding such a debate at the present period. At the same time, it was his duty to state shortly the character of the petition now before the House—to develop the falsehood of its allegations, and expose the parties from whom it proceeded. He felt called upon to do this, because the petition appeared to have disposed some hon. members to agree to the issue of the writ. In the first place, the petitioners alleged, that there was no evidence against them of a more recent date than the payments made in 1814, on account of the election-money of 1812. Now, what would the House think of the effrontery of these parties, when he stated, that of the eighty-one freemen who had signed the petition—all who were voters in 1820—the last election at which head-money could be paid—had, to the entire satisfaction of the House, been individually proved guilty of participating in the corruption of 1818, and some of them also in that of 1820, except eight persons:—of those eight persons, three were admitted as freemen between the elections of 1818 and 1820—but he must observe that at the time of the examination, he (Mr. Tennyson) had not discovered (as he since had) the pay-list for the latter year; and two were non-resident in 1818, to which year the pay-list produced, alone applied; the remaining three, he admitted to be untouched by any evidence before the House. At the commencement of these signatures there was a formidable array of aldermen;—eight persons signed themselves as such. There was alderman George Thornton, the corrupt agent in 1826; alderman Hudson and alderman Danber, who were the senior and junior bailiffs and returning officers at the last election, and both of whom received the election money in 1818; next came Mr. alderman Clarke, who stated at the bar, that he had received forty guineas, as election money for 1818, and twenty guineas for 1820. Then appeared Mr. alderman Appleby, who had likewise admitted at the bar of the House, that he had received his election-money in 1818 and 1820—forty guineas each time. How, he begged to ask, could these gentlemen dare to state to the House tats they did, that there was no evidence against them more recent than that which applied to the election of 1812? And what sort of a foundation did such a petition afford to the proposed motion for issuing the writ! He saw also the name of Mr. William Elvidge, one of the present bailiffs, and who would be a returning officer upon the election to ensue, if that motion should succeed; yet he (Mr. Elvidge) received the election-money in 1818. There were other names; Hudson, Buxton, Banks, Grant—who had all admitted at the bar that, in 1818 and 1820, they received the head-money. Was it possible, then, that this petition could have any weight? As to the statement of the hon. member for Dungarvon that the corruption of a majority of the voters had not been proved, he would appeal to the general recollection of the House; but he would not now be dragged into a restatement of the evidence which, in the last session, produced so decisive a conviction, that the whole body, with a very limited number of exceptions, was corrupt. An hon. member had said, the House had been sleeping over this subject. His hon. friend might have slept, and judging from his present impressions with regard to this case, he thought he must have done so; but he was satisfied that no one else had slept over it during the last session. He (Mr. Tennyson) well knew that he had not had much sleep during the stormy debates which had taken place upon it. Notwithstanding what had just been said, he thought the House would not feel disposed to impute blame to him on the ground of neglect. He had introduced the measure originally in 1827. The bill was read a second time, and then the session closed upon it. At the very commencement of the last session, he had again brought in the bill, which was constantly under discussion from the first days of the session down to the last hours of it. This was not sleeping. Now, with regard to the present session. Considering the important and engrossing character of the deliberations in which, since parliament met in February, this House had been constantly engaged with regard to a measure now in progress through the other House of parliament, he was confident honorable members would feel, that it would have been bad taste and bad judgment in him to have intruded this question of East Retford, which although one of considerable importance, was undoubtedly, very subordinate in point of interest to that other question to which he had referred. If, therefore, he had introduced it at an earlier period, it must have been generally unpalatable, and would not have received the attention it demanded. Even yet the mind of the House was so absorbed by the great measure now approaching to its completion, that so far from feeling that he merited any charge of undue delay, he was conscious only of having yielded to a general wish when he postponed the consideration of the subject of East Retford until the 5th of May, on which day he pledged himself to bring it forward. His hon. friend, the member for Hull (Mr. Sykes) had said, that the member for Hertfordshire and himself (Mr. Tennyson) were engaged in a sham fight upon this question. Now, although nothing, he was sure, would disturb the good feeling which personally subsisted between him and his hon. friend (Mr. N. Calvert), yet he could assure the hon. member for Hull, that the fight to which he had alluded, was on his (Mr. Tennyson's) part, no sham fight, but that on the 5th May, whatever course other gentlemen might be pleased to pursue, he should go straight forward, and again seriously and strenuously endeavor to persuade the House to adopt the view he had originally taken, by disfranchising altogether the borough of East Retford and bestowing two representatives upon the town of Birmingham.

observed, that, with a single exception, there was not one untainted witness to prove the existence of bribery and corruption in East Retford. If there were any chance that the measure which might be introduced on the subject, could go through both Houses in the course of the present session, he would concur in the propriety of not moving the new writ now. For himself, he had invariably voted against the disfranchisement of the borough; conceiving that, although bribery and corruption to a certain extent had been proved to exist in it, it had not been proved to be so universal as to justify so strong a measure.

begged to make one remark. The petitioners complained of the hardships which they suffered, in not being represented in parliament at this particular time. He did not know to what they alluded; unless he could guess at it from another petition, which they had presented on the important subject which had engrossed the attention of the House in the present session. But, it was rather extraordinary that those who had violated the duties of electors should petition against a measure which they declared violated the constitution. A circumstance had struck him, which he thought ought to make some impression on the House. The petitioners contended, that the right of representation should be retained for this place in Nottinghamshire. Now, on a late occasion, it would seem, that there was not a man in Nottinghamshire capable of being returned for a place in that county; and it was found necessary to go for a representative to Leeds, which town, he and others had always said ought to be represented. They had always contended, that Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds ought to be represented. Yet, when a representative was required for Newark, he was brought from one of those unrepresented places which he had mentioned.

hoped the hon. member for Dungarvon would not press his motion at present. He admitted, that the evidence which had been given on the subject before the House was unquestionable; but he was sure that, in any other place, and on oath, it would break down.

defended himself from the charge of endeavoring to take the House by surprise. Nothing could be farther from his intention. He complained strongly of the delay that had already occurred, and said he had little hope, that any measure would be adopted during the present session. The motion which he proposed making he was willing, however, to put off till after the holidays.

Ordered to lie on the table.

after adverting to the ineffectual efforts of a late right hon. gentleman on this subject, eulogized the courtesy, patience, and perseverance which had been manifested in the conduct of the question by the noble earl, who was at present the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He had been requested by the claimants to express their grateful sense of that conduct on the part of the noble earl, to which they were indebted for the restoration of their property.

was glad to hear that the parties to whom the hon. gentleman had alluded were satisfied. There was one class of persons, however, who would not be satisfied; and that was, the Spanish Claimants on the British government; whose claims were, by the convention of 1823, transferred to Spain. He was apprehensive, that this circumstance might occasion the re-opening of the question.

observed, that the same remark had been made on a former occasion by the hon. member for Taunton. The hon. gentleman appeared to have Mistaken the article in the convention to which he had alluded. It was only to the effect, that if Spain did not fulfill the agreement made With her, which was a compromise, the parties claiming should be allowed to prefer their full demand.

The bill was read a second time.

objected to the bill, that it gave the making of the laws for the government of the colony to the governor. Now, he thought that to invest one man with such a power, without some restrictions being put upon the nature of the laws to be framed by him, would be exceedingly dangerous. He would therefore propose as an amendment, that the words "such laws and ordinances not being repugnant to the of England" be introduced into the bill.

agreed in the general principle upon which amendment the hon. gentleman was founded; but in a new colony, it might be necessary to arm the executive with some extraordinary powers. It would be his duty, however, and one which he should attend to with peculiar pleasure, to see that the rights of British subjects were respected, both there and in all the other colonies.

wished to know whether, in New South Wales, the provisions of a bill recently passed had been carried into effect, relative to the council and the establishment of grand and petit juries? He wished also to know, what was the amount of expense incurred to this country by the colony.

said, it was the intention of government to establish a council, and grand and petit juries; big of what class of persons that council was to con- sist he could not at present state. As to the expense of me new colony, he assured the House that it was conducted on the lowest possible scale.

observed, that according; to the existing law, those who administered the law in New South Wales were, in fact, at issue with the head of the colonial department of this country. In answer to what had been said by the hon. member, he must observe, that there was no governor, be he ever so arbitrary—there was no officer, be his power ever so much beyond any thing contemplated by government—who would condemn a man Without trial by jury; or trying him, would condemn him without hearing his witnesses.

assured the House, that the bill was so lame and ineffective, that the right hon. Secretary would be obliged to come down, early in the next session to amend it. Upon this ground, he should not press his amendment.

The bill then went through the committee.

said, he would offer no further opposition to the bill, as he was satisfied the subject must soon be brought before the House again. He regretted that this proposition for abridging its duration had not been assented to; and he hoped that, notwithstanding the passing of the present bill, government would avail itself of the information it expected to receive from that colony, through the medium of the thief justice and other functionaries of the island, and again bring the subject before the House.

hoped the hon. member would pledge himself to, move for a committee of inquiry during the next session; as, from the means he possessed of obtaining information, he was satisfied government would be made acquainted with circumstances which would induce them to act with justice to all parties.

said, he had no hesitation in pledging herself, that he would move for a committee of inquiry the course of the next session.

The report was agreed to; after which the House adjourned.