said—Sir, in the absence of my noble friend, the Secretary for Ireland, I cannot permit this Motion to be put without offering a few observations. I am much surprised to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman should bring it forward as a matter of course, and that he should call upon the House for these documents without laying down the grounds upon which they should be granted.—This Motion, Sir, has come upon me without notice; I was altogether unprepared for it; still I must raise my voice against it, for it would tend to convert this House into a Court of Appeal, in all criminal cases, from the decision of Juries in Ireland, and consequently, if this is to be tolerated, there are no cases which might not, upon the simple motion of a Member, be brought up to this Court, as if it were to a Court of Review. Now my attention has been drawn to this by a notice I have seen upon the books of the House of Commons, stating that the hon. and learned Gentleman will move for the depositions of certain witnesses, and for a copy of the Judge's notes who tried the ease respecting which he moved, and several others. To me, Sir, this appears to be the most monstrous thing that was ever attempted. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us, that on no one evening—on no one moment would he be absent from his place, or from this House; but, Sir, there was a very important evening on which he was not only not in his place, but not in this House, and this, Sir, was the evening on which the hon. member for Mallow gave notice that he would move for certain papers respecting those persons who were tried for the Doneraile conspiracy. Now, Sir, to all who have lived in Ireland—to all who have observed what has taken place there for many months past, it must have been a matter of notoriety that this was a question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman stood pledged; and it was on occasion on which I fully and anxiously expected to meet the learned Gentleman face to face, because he had made the strongest allegations against my personal character (and highly as I do, and I trust ever shall, regard my personal character) because he had done that which affects me still more nearly, he had brought a charge against the pure administration of justice in Ireland. I had, therefore, a right to expect he would be in his place to bring my conduct, or, as he had threatened, to drag me before this House—I looked for him, but he was not to be found. Why is it, however, that I introduce this now? To tell the hon. Gentleman that if he had been present, he would have heard a discussion upon the propriety of moving for the notes of a Judge. And here, be it remarked, the objection was not made on the part of the Government, for it had nothing to fear and nothing to conceal; but it was objected to the proposition by an hon. friend of mine, and I cannot refrain from now expressing my surprise that such a proposition should be made by a lawyer of thirty years' standing; it was objected, Sir, by my hon. friend, that al- though cases so strong might occasionally arise as to induce the House to violate the principle, yet that there was no instance whatsoever in which a Judge's notes had been produced before us, and that such a proceeding could never be justified, except upon the strongest grounds. Now, this becomes personally interesting to me, and I will tell the House why it becomes so. I am not, Sir, in the habit of entertaining suspicions of the conduct of hon. Members of this House; but when I clearly see a man meditating a retreat, and if he at the same time happens to be a lawyer, applying to his object all the cunning and dexterity supposed peculiar to his profession, I curiously watch every stone he lays down to construct the bridge on which he intends to run away. But now, Sir, I have at length driven the hon. Member by my taunts, again and again repeated, to take something like a decided course. I have compelled him, for the first time, to take courage in this House, and he has told you—"I will bring forward my threatened Motion about the Doneraile Trials if the House will grant me these documents for which I ask; but if not, I will let the matter fall to the ground"—and then, after twenty-four hours' deliberation, what does he do? He moves for documents so contrary to all the principles and practice of conducting the business of this House, that, however anxious we may be to comply with his Motion, we cannot grant them without a violation of all those rules which should guide us as lawyers and Members of Parliament. Thus it will appear, the learned Gentleman has laid down two steps for his escape. He has given notice of a motion upon the subject; and he has told you he cannot go on without certain documents, which, if you grant not, his motion must fall to the ground. Now, Sir, his allegations depend upon facts that are public and published in documents which are before the House, and all of which I admit. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that I acted on information that I ought not to have followed, and that I allowed witnesses to swear to certain things which I knew to be false. Sir, I did hold a brief not containing things which it ought to have contained; and witnesses did swear things that I had no reason to expect. And, admitting this, I confidently appeal to the House, if it were likely that I should abuse the high office with which I had been intrusted for the purpose of producing the conviction of innocent men?—The learned Gentleman has declared that he has two distinct charges to make against me. First, that I have wielded the powers of my office for the protection of the guilty. The next and deeper charge is, that I, in concert with others, as honourable and high-minded gentlemen as ever belonged to the legal profession, formed a league to produce the conviction of innocent men, while even the conspirators were in possession of documents to prove the perjury of the witnesses we had to bring forward on the part of the Crown. These are the charges—and I admit the facts on which the hon. and learned Gentleman founds his allegations. I will not trouble him about documents; and more, I would suffer him, unheeded and unanswered, to make any assertions respecting me he pleased, if my own character alone were implicated. I would not trouble the House with any defence, for there is something here that tells me there is not a second Gentleman present who would believe it possible that I could be guilty of the conduct attributed to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman.—He has unsparingly brought charges against me in taverns—in the streets—before the rabble—before those amongst whom I go, not a volunteer, but as a delegate of the Lord-lieutenant, with important and sacred duties to perform, which, I trust, I do perform faithfully, fearlessly, and, also I trust, notwithstanding the assertion of the learned Gentleman, mercifully. They are duties in which I can be swayed by no personal feeling, actuated by no improper motives. This, I maintain, for the character of public men, is public property. And if such be the case in this country, it is far more so in Ireland, with respect to those who are connected with the administration of justice. And I further trust, that, whenever the learned Gentleman shall find courage to bring forward his Motion, I shall be able to prove the utter falsehood of his daily and ordinary slanders.

said, the Motion he brought forward referred to an occasion upon which one of the King's subjects lost his life; and, continued he, I should have been ready to explain all the circumstances connected with the case, as well as my object in submitting the Motion to the House, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked me a question on the subject, instead of indulging the House with a tragical display. If he had asked, I would have told him that I wanted this document to throw light upon the Constabulary bill; and I would have told him that, in this case, a policeman was allowed to remain in gaol for six weeks, although it was known to his corps he was guilty, and yet not one of them came forward to give evidence upon the Coroner's Inquest. Sir, I believe all the parties, thus guilty, remain unpunished up to this day. I do not impugn the verdict, for the man was rightly acquitted; but I object to the system under which such things can be; and I will not be deterred from doing my duty fearlessly by any man, however he may be supported. In saying fearlessly, I allude not to that species of courage which is recognized in a court of honour, and of which I know nothing. There is blood upon this hand—I regret it deeply—and he knows it. He knows that I have a vow in Heaven, else he would not have ventured to address me in such language, or to use those taunts, which in this House he has safely resorted to.—He knows it, and there is not one man in the circle of our acquaintance but knows it also, and knows at the very same time, that but for that vow he dare not address me as he has done [cries of Order from all parts of the House.] I retract. He has attacked me for not being present at the time when the member for Mallow made his motion. The accident which prevented me from being present was, that the House had sat until four o'clock in the morning, and in consequence, I was not here in time for the motion. Let the hon. Member take advantage of that absence, and use it to enhance his triumph as much as he can—let him triumph in his declaration that he was anxious to meet me face to face; but the member for Mallow will support me in the statement that his motion was not intended to be directed against the conduct of the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a speech in anticipation of the motion of to-morrow, and then he talks of a retreat. I should like to know who is retreating now? He who promises to bring forward his motion tomorrow, or he who wishes to anticipate it by a speech to-night? The hon. Member says that a Judge's notes have never been called for. I mean to call for them. They are not such sacred things as to be forbidden. The Chief Justice of the King's Bench sends his notes of a trial to the Barons of the Exchequer, when he tries a case out of their Court, and the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas sends his notes in the same manner to any other Court. They are, in fact, regular legal documents, fit for the inspection of any public assembly, as much as any documents whatever. I know of no reason why they should be refused. I mean to apply for these notes, because it shall not be said I am looking for particular parts of the case, and that I do not look for authentic documents. I care not whether they are granted or not, as far as the case is concerned. If they are granted, I shall get the most authentic documents; if not, I must be content with getting as good information as I can. I have felt it to be my duty to arraign the proceedings in the Doneraile conspiracy, and if I had thought that this House was at leisure to have before entertained the matter, I should have brought it forward at an earlier period. What should I have brought forward? That conduct which put the lives of fourteen farmers—every one of whom was innocent—into jeopardy The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken if he believes that I arraign his individual conduct at Cork, but I accuse him of such conduct here as appeared to be affording countenance and authority to the conduct of the Magistrates there. The question I intend to bring before the House is, how far the Counsel for the Crown have a right to be in possession of evidence, which they know will tarnish the character of a witness for the Crown, and not to make the Judge and the jury acquainted with the fact. They ought to be permitted to have that information, for a conviction is not that which the Crown ought to go for, but the discovery of innocence or guilt. It is my intention, therefore, to raise an important legal question. If the Magistrates were wrong,' they should be warned not to repeat such conduct; if they were legally right, the practice ought to be altered, and and such a plan put an end to. The hon. Member then detailed some parts of the case, stating that the Magistrates had spies in their pay, who knew of all the circumstances of the intended crime, and neither prevented its being committed nor warned the persons who were to be the victims, and yet these very Magistrates were afterwards allowed to put the lives of these persons in jeopardy. He said that he only wanted to get a fair insight into the whole affair, and those who countenanced the Magistrates would deserve censure, while those who had not done so would be exonerated. He then noticed the Borris-o'-Kane trials, and said that the conduct of the Magistrates in that affair had been just the reverse of what it had been in the other instance. It was impossible they could be right in both. He was able to prove the facts at the Bar, and would do so if he were not prevented. This was the sixth or seventh time he had been taunted on this matter; he had submitted cheerfully and readily to the taunts, but he was not the less firm in his determination to bring the whole matter under the consideration of the House. His object was, to bring before the House the evil of having a system of Police, in which the men were armed with deadly weapons, and where the least resistance to their authority, however capriciously exercised, must be attended with death. In this country the officers, being only armed with staves, gave those who resisted them a beating, and they were afterwards punished for their resistance in a legal way. The hon. Member, in conclusion, withdrew his Motion.

said, that he thought this not an unfit time for him to draw the attention of the House, and of his right hon. and gallant friend opposite, to the case of Mr. Willis, who had intrusted him with a Petition. That gentleman had held the office of Judge in Upper Canada, and had been suspended and removed by the Governor, in consequence of an opinion he had expressed relative to the constitution and power of the Court of which he was a member. By the Act which established that Court, it was provided that it should consist of one Chief Justice, and two Puisne Judges. Soon after Mr. Willis joined the Court, the Chief Justice obtained from the Governor leave of absence from the colony, and accordingly quitted the country, leaving the duties of the court to be performed by the two Puisne Judges. In the course of the performance of his duty, it occurred to Mr. Willis to inquire into the legal constitution of the Court, and whether the Judges could legally carry on business without the presence of the Chief Justice. Whether the conclusion at which Mr. Willis arrived were correct or not, he meant to express no opinion—it was sufficient for him that there was a reasonable doubt on the subject; and he thought it would hardly be said by any hon. Member, that this was a case of no doubt, and that Mr. Willis's opinion was clearly wrong. Mr. Willis complained to the Governor of Upper Canada, that by the provisions of the Statute it was impossible for him to sit in Court, and act in his judicial capacity, without the presence of the Chief Justice. The Governor and Council replied, that such being his opinion, they certainly could not call on him to do so. In consequence of that, however, the business of the Court ceased, and the Governor shortly afterwards suspended him from his functions. He would not arraign the conduct of the Governor of Upper Canada for thus suspending Mr. Willis; but it could not be denied, that there was something irregular in the manner in which the Governor had proceeded. By the constitution of the Colonial government Mr. Willis could not be removed from his judicial situation without the joint authority of the Governor and Council; but in the present instance, the Governor announced his decision on the 26th of June, 1828, under his own authority; and on the 27th of June, the Council confirmed the previous act of the Governor. Upon this Mr. Willis returned to England, and applied to the office of the Secretary for the Colonies—an office held, he believed, at that time, by his right hon. friend; Mr. Willis was there told, that the matter was one which must be referred to the Privy Council, and it was accordingly sent before them. The members of the Privy Council came to a different conclusion from that to which Mr. Willis had arrived, and their opinion certainly exposed him to animadversion for his erroneous opinion; but when it was considered that the Statute said positively that the Court should consist of the Chief Justice and two Puisne Judges, it must be admitted that Mr. Willis's doubts upon the legality of his sitting without the Chief Justice were not entirely devoid of foundation. The question was one of the gravest importance to that Gentleman, for, if his opinion were right, he could not sit in Court without rendering himself liable to a prosecution for false imprisonment, or even for murder, if he pronounced sentence of death without sufficient authority, in consequence of the Court not being legally constituted. He stated that circumstance to show that it behaved the Judge to act with the greatest circumspection. He did not blame the government of Upper Canada for taking measures to ensure the regular administration of justice after Mr. Willis had refused to sit in Court. Nor did he complain of the decision of the Privy Council, for, with the lights they had, they could hardly be supposed to have come to a wrong conclusion. His object simply was, to bring the case of Mr. Willis under the consideration of the House, and under that of the Government to whom he must look for redress.

said, that the House would, he hoped, excuse him for trespassing on its attention for a short time, while he gave an explanation of this subject; for in his mind there was no circumstance of more importance than one which affected the conduct and treatment of a Judge. It appeared to him that the respect due to the judicial station and to the abilities and learning of men who were selected to undertake it was such, that the removal of any one of them from his high office rendered it proper that the circumstances occasioning it should be brought under the consideration of the House. He was happy that this Petition of Mr. Willis had been placed in the hands of the noble Lord opposite, whose character and conduct were so highly and so deservedly respected by the House, and who was able to give every effect to a petition thus intrusted to him. It might be proper for him to enter a little into the history of Mr. Willis. That gentleman had been recommended to his office by Sir C. Wetherell, at that time Attorney-General. Soon after he went out to his office as a Judge, in Upper Canada, the Chief Justice, who had been there for seventeen years, and was suffering much from ill health, asked leave of absence from the Governor, for the purpose of returning home. During the first Term that occurred after the departure of the Chief Justice, Mr. Willis regularly discharged his duties; but between the first and second Terms he came to the opinion that the Court was incompetent to sit unless all the three Judges were present, as the Statute said that the Chief Justice and two Puisne Judges should preside there. Mr. Willis intimated his intention, on the first day of the Term of making this opinion public. The other Puisne Judge differed from him on the subject, and proposed adjourning to the following day; but Mr. Willis said they could not sit as they were not a Court, and therefore they could not adjourn. He then wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and another letter to an individual in the same office. These letters he transferred to the Secretary of the Lieutenant-governor, and requested that they should be officially transmitted to England. That request was refused, as the Lieutenant-governor was not aware of their contents. Mr. Willis then communicated the contents; which were, that he could not sit in the Criminal Court, as that Court was not legally constituted without the presence of the Chief Justice, but that he would do whatever other business he might legally perform in the discharge of his office. He was required to state what business he thought he could legally perform, but he did not make the statement, and indeed declined any explanation on that subject; and he not only refused to sit in future, but he openly declared his opinion that the Court was incompetent to proceed with mutters of criminal justice, and that all the decisions given in the absence of the Chief Justice were illegal and void. It was impossible that the Governor could allow matters to go on in that state, and in consequence he suspended Mr. Willis from his situation as Judge. One circumstance particularly referred to by the noble Lord required explanation. The Governor certainly expressed his opinion as to the necessity for the suspension of Mr. Willis from his office on the 26th of June, whereas the formal document was dated on the 27th; but the House would not see so much importance in that circumstance as was at first supposed; for on a former day it had been intimated by the Secretary of the Lieutenant-governor, that the Governor and the Council were aware of the circumstances, and were about to take them into their consideration. Mr. Willis made a complaint to the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the conduct of the Governor, representing his dismissal as illegal and improper. Believing that to be a question of law, it appeared that the most proper course was to bring the subject under the consideration of his Majesty in Council. Mr. Willis objected to that course on the ground of expense. In order to obviate his objection, and to remove all difficulties, the Government had taken the expense on itself. The case was argued before the Privy Council, and among the members who that day composed the Court, nine in number, were the Lord Chief Baron, the Vice-chancellor, and Sir Christopher Robinson. Whatever was the decision, it had the support and authority of these persons of high station and distinguished ability in the profession of the law. Mr. Willis's complaint amounted to this, that his removal was unwarranted, illegal, and ought to be void; and the decision of the Council was, that it was not unwarranted, not illegal, and that it ought not to be void. He thought he had now stated enough to put the House in possession of the facts of the case, and to make them agree with him, that what the Government had done had been directly called for by the circumstances of the case.

in rising, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his Motion respecting the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, enlarged upon the importance of the subject, and claimed the indulgence of the House while he briefly stated the grounds on which he sought to rest his Motion. In the year 1823 he brought forward a motion upon the same subject, which, unfortunately, did not then receive the attention to which he thought it entitled. The present time, however, would prove, he trusted, more propitious. Few who had attended to the state of Ireland but had made up their minds as to the causes of its distress; and with the view of impressing his own opinions upon the House did he then address them. He would not go back antecedently to the period of the Union, but rather confine himself to the time which had elapsed since then. Comparing the time when his former motion was brought forward with the present, he could not help congratulating the House on having gotten rid of one great impediment to the progress of salutary legislation in Ireland. When the former motion was under discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that the time might not come when that Officer and his establishment should be withdrawn from Ireland; his objection was, that the time had not then come, and since then it was gratifying to think that a fortunate change had taken place, which made it probable that the House might think that the office of Lord-lieutenant might now be abolished without inconvenience. The Irish expenditure had been so often before the House, that he felt unwilling to go through details respecting it, though he might be permitted to say, that an expense of between one and two hundred thousand a-year might be saved; but important as he thought financial concerns—the saving was, in his estimation, quite a minor matter,—the objections which he had to urge to the continuance of such an office were of so much more importance. He might, however, be permitted to observe, that the office had already cost the country many millions of money, and that the objections to it in a financial point of view concurred with those he should make on other principles. Since the Union, for example, a sum of ten millions and a half had been expended on the Charitable Institutions of Ireland, and no doubt intended to have been expended for the public good, being an amount seven or eight times greater than at any period before the Union; so that the office of Lord-lieutenant, and the shadow of a Court, tended nothing to preserve the people from pauperism, but it tended to this—it tended to keep up party spirit, for it was administered solely by one party and tended to preserve its power, and it tended to excite and maintain those feelings of rancour and hostility which it should be the object of all the friends of that country and of this to see at an end. He could not but observe with regret that the Union, so far from being beneficial to Ireland, had been disadvantageous, by placing greater resources in the hands of a predominant faction. Had the expenditure of Ireland been placed, in the year 1800, under the direction of the English Treasury, there could not be a doubt that it would have managed that expenditure infinitely better, and not have allowed the public money to be converted into an instrument to foment and maintain a spirit of party, under the influence of which no country could be happy. When a committee of that House, with the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, at the head of it, recommended that great reductions should be made in the expenditure of Ireland, and when these recommendations had been so little attended to in the Estimates laid upon the Table, to what could he attribute this fact, but to the local influence of the Irish Government, which was too strong even for the Government of this country. The continuance of the office of Lord-lieutenant in Ireland could only have the effect of supporting private influence and local interests, and of defeating the main purposes of the Union, When that was brought about, all public men were agreed that the object was not alone to unite the two countries in name, but to blend them into one complete and perfect whole, conferring upon Ireland all that was good in the English system; and it was looked upon by the King, at that time, as the happiest event of his reign, having for its object to consolidate the interest of both countries, and assimilate them to each other. It was expected that immediately after the Union, peace would prevail in Ireland: had that expectation been realized? It had been treated as a province—it had been treated as a Colony, and its Government had been disgraced by all the vices and all the abuses of a Colonial Government—all the vices and all the abuses of delegated authority; such had, in his opinion, been amongst the chief causes of the evils of Ireland; they had in that country every one of the disadvantages of delegated power, and Parliament must remove that source of evil, or it would do no good. From the earliest period of the connection between the two countries, instead of assimilating the habits of the people, the frame of their institutions, or the nature of their Government—instead of consolidating and identifying their institutions, there had been a continual attempt made to preserve every contrast and every dissimilar institution. The Union was to remedy that, and promote similarity; but there had been, ever since the Union, a constant endeavour to render the two countries as different as possible, and to place them as remote from each other as might be in the scale of social existence. All their institutions were kept separate. Bills were passed for each, and there was a uniform maintenance of all possible distinctions. If there had been no Lord-lieutenant that could not have been done—such efforts could not have been made to separate, when the object ought to have been to blend. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had done something towards extending the benefits of the English system to Ireland; but he could proceed only a very little way, for the separate Court and the separate Government, and the separate law institutions under different judicial chiefs, checked his well-meant endeavours and impeded his progress. All governors of colonies and viceroys proceeded to their destinations with a crowd of friends and relations, upon whom they bestowed every place of confidence and emolument. Must not such practices disgust and alienate the people, who were the sufferers by it? There could be no peace or union so long as all the evils of a colonia system were preserved instead of those which the blessings of identity with a sister country promised. It was well known that to the Orange party all places of value were given, except such as might be reserved for the immediate followers of the Viceroy. Out of 2,800 public offices in Ireland only 264 were held by Catholics. Let the Members of that House but look at Canada, and they would there see a perfect picture of what was going on in Ireland. He could not see any reason why the affairs of Ireland should not be conducted in a similar manner to those of Scotland. He did not mean to say that it could be done at once, but at all events, an approximation might be commenced. Irishmen must feel themselves degraded, because, though they were nominally acknowledged as a part of the United Kingdom, they were, in fact, no more so than Jamaica, as far as their government went. The Lord-lieutenant, or Governor-general, was appointed in the one case by the King in Council, and was under the control of the Colonial Secretary. In the other case he was appointed in the same manner, but under the control of the Secretary for the Home Department. The hon. Member then went on to contend that this deputed power led to abuses which could never exist if the country were governed as Scotland, or any other part of the United kingdom. Under such circumstances it was impossible that the people could feel independent, for they had not been treated with that equality which their situation and importance required. If the Lord-lieutenancy of Ireland ought to be kept up, so ought the Parliament of that country. It was inconsistent with all principles of freedom that so arbitrary a Government should be suffered to exist. A late Act of the Irish Government was sufficient to evince the character that universally belonged to it; he alluded to the proclamation that had been issued for putting down a political society. Such a course appeared to him to be beneath any free Government, and could not have taken place if the institutions of the two countries had not been separated. In the Act of Union he found no reference to the keeping-up of the Lord-lieutenancy, and he, therefore, might try by the motion which he was about to submit to remove the present degrading stigma from the Irish people, and to give to them the reality of those promises which the Union had held out. The Irish were now happily placed on an equality as to their religious opinions, and they ought to have equality of rights in every other respect. At present they were degraded and felt their degradation—let them be released from that mark of dependence a colonial government, and they would soon be imbued with the sense of independence. Ireland was not less warm or less eager for the advantages of a good government than any other nation, and would well know how to appreciate the boon, which lie thought it was high time to grant. In what he was saying he did not intend to cast any blame on the Government here or on the Government there; the fault was in the system itself, and not in the individuals who administered it. There certainly were instances of persons who so exercised their delegated authority as to excite the praise and universal concurrence of those over whom they presided. This was the case with respect to the Governor of Canada, Sir J. Kempt—against whom he had never heard a word uttered; but that was, he was afraid only a solitary instance, and if they would but, on the other hand, look to New South Wales, Van Dieman's Land, and the Canadas, in former times, they would find examples enough of dissatisfaction. His remedy, therefore, was to remove the cause; and he would venture to say that if Ireland were once set free from the burthen of a separate and a bad government it would speedily rise, both in civilization and prosperity, to a much higher grade than it had ever before reached. The strength of England depended on the union of Ireland, and Ireland could not be cordially united with England unless she were trusted as an integral part of the dominions. At present the Government of that country was in a continued state of vacillation. One Viceroy never followed the policy of his predecessor in such a manner as to give confidence to the people that anything was fixed and could be depended upon. When Ireland possessed her separate establishments, a separate Parliament, when she had a separate military force, a Secretary at War, a separate artillery and commissariat, it was consistent enough that she should have a Lord-lieutenant, but since the Union that had ceased to be the case. The war business of that country, the Customs, the Excise, the Post, the Stamps, had all been removed to London; and the Lord-lieutenant, with his Secretary, was therefore remaining behind with no real business to transact, for of himself he could do no- thing; he had always to wait for instructions from the Secretary of State in London. In fact, the Lord-lieutenant had little more to do than to pass some accounts laid before him by the Vice-treasurer of Ireland (an office, by the way, which he thought wholly unnecessary, and ought to have been abolished if the Government showed a due regard to economy), and the nominal execution of some orders which might be as well done under the direction of a Secretary for Ireland resident in London. The whole, or nearly the whole business of the departments to which he had referred, was now centred in the Treasury here. The business of the Council office was, he observed, but trifling, and might without inconvenience be as well performed here. It was true that the Viceroy held a Court in Dublin, but he should be glad to know of what importance that was to the people of Ireland. It might be of some service to a few little great men, who were anxious to make a great show at the Castle; but, in his opinion, its real effect was to destroy that natural society which otherwise would be found in Dublin. If the Court were removed, he believed that many landed proprietors would reside in Dublin, as many did in Edinburgh, which could not take place as long as they were exposed to the annoyances of the mobs and bustle of state parties. The presence of a Court was no doubt a benefit to a certain number of haberdashers, and tailors, and Court-dress makers, but was their advantage to be purchased at such a price to the country and to their fellow-subjects in other parts of that kingdom? The fears of those who thought that Dublin would be injured by the removal of the Court were, he thought, quite vain and idle. From the situation of Dublin—it being the centre of communication between this country and the whole of Ireland—the seat of the law courts—possessing a fine harbour—it must always be the metropolis, and an increasing metropolis too, of that country. When he last brought this subject before the House, he was met by a statement of the evils which the removal of the legislature had brought upon Dublin—that grass was growing in the streets, and that a great portion of its houses were gone to ruin. He had since made inquiries into the fact, and he would state the result. So far then from its being true that Dublin had decreased since the Union, it had increased in the number of houses and inhabitants. From the year 1800 to 1822, (the year before that in which he first introduced this subject) the increase of the number of houses was 3,463—from 16,401 in 1800 to 19,864 in 1822—being nearly a fifth. The population was at the former period 223,000, having increased between that and 1822 to the extent of 40,000 or 50,000. The increase in the shipping was also great. In 1800 the number of ships was 2,575; in 1822, it was 3,400; and at present it was 4,000. The tonnage had also increased by 113,000 tons. It was suggested that this increase of shipping might have been occasioned at the expense of the out-ports; but this was not the case, for the out-ports had increased at the same time. In 1800, the number of vessels in all Ireland was 4,800; in 1822,7,900; and last year 11,700. The tonnage in 1800 was 664,000; in 1822, it was 953,000; and in the last year, 1,470,000, being an increase of upwards of 500,000 tons in the last seven years. It was impossible, then, to assert with any justice that Ireland had deteriorated since the Union. The exports in the year 1790 were, exclusive of those to England (as we understood,) in official value, 3,450,137l. In 1820,7,160,000l., they having been more than doubled within that time. His hon. friend below him suggested, that a similar increase had taken place in other respects. If this were the case, then they had every right to expect that a still greater augmentation would take place were that country to be relieved from the unnecessary pressure which the establishment of a delegated government inflicted upon her, and which was kept with evident disadvantage to her interests as well as to the interests of the whole United Kingdom. The hon. Member then entered into an examination of the business done in the office of the Secretary for Ireland, which he said was divided into twelve departments, the management or direction of the whole of which might, he contended, with the exception of one department, be removed to London, and be performed by an Irish Secretary resident here. His chief business was correspondence with London, the whole of which would cease when the Secretary came to reside in London. His next business was connected with the Customs and Excise, which were already transferred here. The country correspondence being dependant on the Secretary, would of course be removed with him. He also received petitions and memorials relating to law cases, but as he did not decide on them it would be better that they should at once be transmitted to the officers who did decide them. In one word all his business might be as well, or better performed in London, except that perhaps which relates to the local police, but surely there could be no difficulty in the management and super intendance of that and other local matters, without the costly and cumbrous machinery of a Lord-lieutenant and his court—for such a purpose. There was one other point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House, and that was the prerogative of mercy exercised by the Lord-lieutenant. The House was told on a former occasion, that it would be impossible to conduct that important branch of internal government—the extension of mercy in criminal cases—if the proposed change were carried into effect. He had ascertained how that objection could be overcome, and he found no insurmountable difficulty. If there were any, he should be glad that some right hon. Gentleman would explain in what it consisted—for he was unable to perceive it. He would ask how criminal cases were managed in Scotland, and whether an assimilation to the practice of that country might not take place? If the government were to pay proper attention to judicial appointments in Ireland, he had no hesitation in asserting that the Judges there might, as in England, be trusted with the recommendation of cases for the consideration of the Crown. He was not aware how the present Secretary of State for the Home Department decided upon the various cases submitted to him, but he knew of no difference between a case tried in Westmoreland or Cumber- land, and one tried in Ireland. Formerly, when a journey to Dublin took ten days, there might be a plea for the maintenance of a local jurisdiction, but thanks to the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Parnell), who first brought road-making under the serious attention of the House, and to whom not merely Irishmen, but Scotchmen and Englishmen were so much indebted—thanks to him, Dublin was now brought within a thirty-six hours journey. In point of fact, Dublin was nearer to London than Edinburgh; so that any objections on the score of distance would equally apply to Scotland. But how could any objections of this kind be offered, when the decision of criminal cases here was often suffered to lie over for two or three months? He was persuaded, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not place that objection in the van of his arguments. With respect to the feeling of the people of Ireland, he was quite satisfied that the higher nobility, as well as the lower, and j the landed proprietors generally, would like to see the present system altered; that the mass of the people would approve of being raised from a colonial condition, to become an intregral part of the United Kingdom, governed by the same King, and forming, in the same manner as the English and the Scotch, one united people—which however that might be now, nominally, was not in reality the case,—the Irish differing in opinion, and in their feelings, as much from the rest of the inhabitants of the empire, as if they did not belong to it. His only difficulty was, to select the way in which he should bring this subject before the House. He might have moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee, to consider the expediency of making some change in the form of government in Ireland. That, however, was not the shape in which he intended to submit his Motion, which was as follows:—"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to consider whether the office of Viceroy were any longer necessary in Ireland, or whether it could be dispensed with consistently with the advantage of that country, and the general interests of the United Kingdom," This Motion, he should observe, did not prescribe any particular lime for carrying the contemplated object into effect, but left it to the discretion of Government to select the most convenient opportunity for introducing a change of system.

commenced by adverting to the different line of argument, on which the hon. Member had rested a similar motion in the Session of 1823, from that which he had thought proper to adopt upon the present occasion. His proposition had been then grounded on the existence of the Catholic disabilities; but it was now recommended on account of the political circumstances of the country, as well as by economical considerations. Yet he was entirely at a loss to discover the proofs by which the hon. Gentleman established his assumptions. He had asserted, that the defects and abuses existing in the charitable institutions of Ireland would have been remedied, but for the continuance of the office of Lord-lieutenant since the Union, but he had not supplied the House with one proof of his assertion. As to the estimates to which the hon. Member had alluded, he requested the House to suspend its judgment till he should have an opportunity of explaining the whole of the reductions contemplated, and the reasons why they were carried no further. It was not judicious, in his opinion, to debate the present subject so soon after the settlement of the Catholic Question, involving as it did, a great difference of opinion amongst the wise and moderate of all parties in Ireland. He did not pretend to say, that it was a question which the House might not with propriety take into consideration, and still less was he inclined to affirm, that the hon. Member had adduced arguments which deserved to be treated with inattention or disrespect. He was not, however, prepared to assent to his inference, that the subversion of the executive power in Dublin, and its resurrection at the Home-office, shorn of its usual attributes, would be productive of benefit to Ireland. The hon. Member had, moreover, shown his ignorance of the habits and feelings of the Irish public when he appealed to their national pride, assuming that it was violated by submitting to what he termed the degradation of a colonial government. In reality no such prejudice had been ever for a moment entertained by Irishmen of any class whatever. The court of the Lord-lieutenant had not merited the stigma which the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to affix to it, by stating that it was surrounded by numerous needy dependents, who received profitable promotion, and cherished at the same time a rooted jealousy and dislike of the native inhabitants and whatever might be considered peculiarly Irish. Such an observation applied to the courtiers who accompanied King John when a guest in Ireland, but his own personal experience of two vice-regal courts of the present day Jed him to form a contrary conclusion. The argument that the Irish establishment tended to prevent an assimilation between the habits of the people with those of England was, in his judgment, equally destitute of foundation. What had been urged respecting a late arbitrary act of power on the part of the Lord-lieutenant only tended to convince him the more of the utility of that office. As to the vice-regal influence on the administration of the Criminal-law, it would not be difficult to prove by details, with which the hon. member for Limerick was well acquainted, that a most beneficial effect was thereby practically exercised on the working system as compared with that of England. He could himself bear testimony to the success of the exertions of two Viceroys continually directed to this subject. It was not in his power to devise, nor had the hon. member for Aberdeen suggested, any mode of removing the difficulties which opposed themselves to the adoption of his advice. He was never more convinced of the advantage that accrued from oral communication between the executive government and legal advisers who were acquainted with the habits and feelings of the people, than he had been by the results and proceedings of the late trials in Ireland, and the loss of this advantage could not be compensated by correspondence with the Secretary for the Home-department, however the modern rapidity of communication might facilitate and recommend such a mode of intercourse. He readily admitted the great improvements which had been made in this respect, for which he was as grateful as any man to the hon. Baronet already alluded to: but even with the certainty of receiving an answer to a letter in four days, he did not think that written communications could supersede the necessity of having an officer on the spot to decide. It might do very well amongst sailors, one of whom on being told he might, as a great indulgence, have two days to take leave of his wife and family, replied—"I always do those things by letter," but it would not do in deciding the delicate questions connected with the administration of justice. The general advance of the prosperity of Dublin since the Union, it was admitted, had been demonstrated; but was it not rather illogical to conclude, that the system under which that prosperity had been created ought to be changed? In fact, no case had been made out which could induce the House to adopt the proposed resolution, and the discussion of the subject at present was both impolitic and inconvenient. The hon. Member had assumed that the higher classes would universally repair to the metropolis, and form a court of their own in the event of the vice-regal establishment being withdrawn. This inference, however, he had no doubt would be disclaimed by the gentlemen of Ireland, and he was equally sure that the Irish court tended to effect a much more beneficial communication between the upper ranks of Irish society than could be otherwise attained.

had heard nothing from his noble friend that could create any rational idea that the question was not fit for parliamentary discussion. The proposition was not for the abolition of the office of the Lord-lieutenant, but merely for an address to the Crown to consider whether the present system of local government in Ireland was necessary to be continued. The hon. member for Aberdeen had made out a case to warrant an inquiry, first, upon the ground of good government; and, secondly, upon that of economy. He did not believe that his Motion would be unpopular in Ireland, not even in Dublin, except with those immediately in connexion with the expenditure of the Castle. The time was not distant when Government would be obliged to come down to the House with some such proposition, and it was fitting to hasten its motions. The early tendency had been to localize everything in Ireland, but the present tendency was to assimilate the two countries. Nothing could be more injurious to Ireland than the system of constant shifting and changing in the government. Chief Secretary had followed Chief Secretary, and every one seemed to have been selected with the view of contrasting him with his predecessor. Let the House look at the long list of Chief Secretaries since the Union, and ask themselves how it was possible that a permanent system of government could be carried on in Ireland? On the average, every Chief Secretary had remained in office about nineteen months. Another ground of his objection to the present system was, that just as a Lord-lieutenant had earned a character in Ireland, and could therefore be of some service to it, he was recalled, and another appointed, who had all that labour to go through. These circumstances naturally led to misgovernment; and the fact was, that a small body of gentlemen, known in Dublin by the name of the Castle Government, but not known in this country at all, assumed all authority, and, in consequence of their knowledge of parties in Ireland, had it at any time in their power to create or to continue distractions in that country. Nobody in Ireland believed that the Lord-lieutenant or the Chief Secretary, or the Home Secretary, had any real influence in the government. Right or wrong, the belief was, that the authority of government was exercised exclusively by a small coterie at the Castle. What was the result of such a system? Injurious under any circumstances. Let it be supposed that the Lord-lieutenant and the Chief Secretary were perfectly identified in opinion with the Home-office, what was the Irish Government but a useless and expensive piece of machinery? On the other hand, let it be supposed that the Lord-lieutenant had strong political opinions of his own, that he was an honourable, upright, unbending man, and not on the best terms with the Home Secretary, what must be the necessary result of their collision but mischief? The noble Lord seemed to attach much importance to the influence of a Court in Ireland. He (Mr. Spring Rice) was not one of those who wished to divest the monarchical rank of its dignity; but he was averse to the mimic splendour of the vice-regal throne; and he was sure that society in Ireland derived no physical or moral advantage from the existence of a Court in Dublin. He believed that the moral character of the Irish people depended upon higher principles than those which pertained to the establishment of a Court; principles which, as they did not rise with that establishment, he trusted in God would not fall when the time arrived—and he would be bold enough to prophesy it was not far distant—when that Court should be removed. As to the prosperity of Dublin, it must necessarily increase with the improvement of the government. Had it been found necessary to establish a Court at Edinburgh for the moral improvement of the people? And, without undervaluing the society of Dublin, he would ask if the society of Edinburgh was to be despised in comparison? The fact was, that the tendency of Dublin was every day more and more commercial? It was an outwork of Liverpool, to which it was united by that flying bridge, a steam-boat. So highly did he think of the value to Ireland of steam-boats, that much as he valued the Lord-lieutenant of that country, he valued a single steam-boat more than a whole wilderness of Lord-lieutenants. The only argument which the noble Lord had advanced against the motion was the old argument of 1822; namely, the effect which the existing government in Ireland had on the administration of criminal justice in Ireland. If, for the better administration of criminal justice in Ireland, it was desirable to support a Lord-lieutenant in Ireland, why was it not desirable, for the better administration of criminal justice in Scotland, to introduce a Lord-lieutenant into Scotland? Reference from Courts of Law to Government ought to be deprecated rather than encouraged. The practice had already diminished in Ireland; and in every future year it would become less. On these grounds he entirely concurred in the motion of his hon. friend. It did not pledge any one who voted for it to the abolition of the office; it only pledged him to the opinion that it was a fitting case for the Government to exercise its deliberation upon. Whatever might be the present decision of the House, he was persuaded the time was not far distant when it would be in favour of the Motion.

adverting to the statements which had been made by the hon. member for Aberdeen respecting the amount of buildings, shipping, &c. in Dublin, observed, that although, since the Union, the prosperity of Dublin had increased only a fifth, the population, and, he believed, the wealth of Ireland had doubled. Much of the prosperity of Dublin was undoubtedly to be attributed to the increased expenditure which the Court occasioned. The inhabitants of Dublin had not petitioned against the proposition of the hon. member for Aber- deen, because they did not think the House would entertain it for a moment. There might be some exceptions; but he was fully persuaded that no circumstance could be calculated to produce greater exasperation of feeling, or increase the sense which, he was sorry to say, was growing in Ireland, that her interests were not properly regarded hero, than the withdrawing of the Lord-lieutenant from that country. He believed that there was in no part of the United Kingdom so much distress as among the little retail dealers of Dublin, and that distress would be much increased were it not for the expenditure of the Court. Under those impressions he must oppose the Motion; and he hoped the time was far distant when the Government would make a similar proposition.

said, he would shortly state the grounds on which he agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. As to the benefit which the people of Dublin derived from the expenditure of 30 or 40,000l. a year among them, that must be very insignificant; and as to the administration of criminal justice, how was the law administered in Scotland? No condemned person could be executed in Scotland without a previous reference to the Home Department; nor could he be executed until forty days after his condemnation. Why was not such a law as applicable to Ireland as to Scotland? He considered the residence of a Lord-lieutenant in Ireland as a positive evil. It deprived the Irish of the advantage of having Lord-lieutenants of Counties; the principle being, that a deputy could not have a deputy. He was convinced that the feelings of Ireland were misrepresented when it was said they were hostile to the abolition of the office of Lord-lieutenant. He had reason to know the contrary. He would undertake to say, that most of the intelligent classes in Ireland were favourable to the abolition. He had heard the speech of the noble Lord with satisfaction, for it indicated a disposition on the part of his Majesty's Government to get rid of the office.

was surprised to hear it said that the people of Ireland were favourable to the abolition of the office of Lord-lieutenant. He was in Ireland three weeks ago, and was frequently present when the proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen was discussed, and he had never heard a single individual who did not express himself decidedly hostile to it. He was convinced, that if the people of Ireland believed there was any serious intention to abolish the office, petitions would pour in against the measure from every county, and almost from every parish. He conceived that the abolition of the office of Lord-lieutenant would have the effect of greatly increasing absenteeism. Whoever had not visited Ireland could not be aware how much the presence of a Court in that country diminished the number of absentees and the duration of their absence. He opposed the Motion because he was convinced that it would have a most injurious effect in this respect to remove the Court and the Lord-lieutenant from Ireland. The morals and behaviour of all classes were improved by mingling together; and Ireland would, he believed, be injured, and many tradesmen utterly ruined if a proposition were to be carried which would deprive her of all splendour, and banish from her few remaining gentlemen.

said, that it was perhaps doubtful whether this office ought to be abolished; but, for himself, he had nearly made up his mind that it ought. Nothing was, in his opinion, more useful than unity of government, particularly in governing a country difficult to be governed—and such was Ireland. Besides, the peculiar advantages of a monarchical government was always supposed to consist in its steadiness; which, it was contended, more than compensated for the great difference existing between its expense as compared with that of a republic; although, in fact, the trappings of Royalty cost more than all the establishments of a republic. But in Ireland they had only the trappings, and not a single advantage of a monarchical form of government, since they had that perpetual change which was considered so destructive. Besides, there was no more reason for supporting a separate local government in Ireland than in any one of the northern counties of England, for the communication between them was just as easy; and if Lord-lieutenants of Counties were established, as in this country, all the difficulties urged against the measure might be met, except that respecting the administration of justice. As the hon. member for Aberdeen, too, had so clearly stated, there would be a great saving effected by the adoption of his suggestion. If he thought the removal of the Lord-lieutenant would be injurious to Ireland, the anxiety to economise would have no weight with him; but thinking, on the contrary, that the measure would be productive of good, he should support the Motion.

said, that he was induced to offer a few observations to the House upon this subject in consequence of the great interest which he took in all questions which were connected with the condition of Ireland. In reply to the observation of the noble Lord, that there was a continual change in the system of governing Ireland, owing to the frequent change of its Lord-lieutenants, he would merely say, that the system of government in Ireland did not depend upon the individual who was Lord-lieutenant, but on the administration in England to which he owed his appointment. The vacillation observable in the policy pursued by the different Secretaries of State for Ireland was not attributable to the individual character of the different noblemen who had acted as viceroys, but to the system adopted by the administration in England. That vacillation was now at an end, for a new system had recently been adopted with respect to Ireland, which would be beneficial, he trusted, not merely to that country but to the empire at large. It had been stated by the hon. member for Limerick, that the government of the Viceroy was of no importance, for that, although there were a Lord-lieutenant and a Chief Secretary, the authority was not in their hands, but in the hands of a nameless body to which he alluded, but which he said was too contemptible to be named, and could not be known to the House. If the hon. Gentleman would point out to the House how that body could be removed he would cordially give him his support, or if the hon. Gentleman could prove that the existence of this body was the necessary and unavoldable accompaniment of a Lord-lieutenant, he would admit that he had made out a case for the removal of the vice-regal government. Another objection to the office, made by the hon. Gentleman, was founded on the supposition, that if the Lord-lieutenant concur in the views of the Government, his presence was not necessary in Ireland—they could do as well without him. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman in that opinion. The viceregal government in Ireland was, in his opinion, very advantageous to that country, the time might come when this machinery could be dispensed with, but hitherto it had been essentially necessary, and positively useful; certainly the time had not yet arrived when it could be laid aside without considerable injury. Another supposition put by the hon. member for Limerick was, that if the policy of the Lord-lieutenant, differed from the policy of the Government, the office could not possibly be of any use to it, nor of any benefit to Ireland. In that opinion he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, but that must be a very weak government indeed which would allow such a state of things to continue. Even if the Lord-lieutenant were right in his opinions relative to the policy to be pursued in Ireland, and the government wrong, the government must be very weak which did not remove the Lord-lieutenant: and for this reason, that where responsibility is, there must always be the chief authority. A government ought not to allow its character and its responsibility to be compromised by an individual acting under it, but in contradiction to its own views. In another point he thought that the hon. member for Limerick had treated the interests of the metropolis of his country very lightly; he had mentioned Dublin as a mere outwork of Liverpool. Now he could not consent to look upon Dublin in that subordinate point of view. He confessed that he was inclined to think that the residence of the Lord-lieutenant in Dublin was of great advantage to that metropolis, and also of no slight service to the country in general. There was but one argument against it which appeared to him to be deserving of any weight, and that was founded upon economy, a consideration which the hon. member for Northamptonshire was inclined to throw overboard in his mode of treating this question. He admitted that a saving to the public would accrue from the removal of the Viceregal Court from Dublin; but he thought that that saving would be a minor consideration, unless it could be distinctly made out that Ireland would receive no detriment in any other respect from having such a measure carried immediately into effect. Having thus gone through all the points directly bearing on the question, he did not deem it necessary to trouble the House with any more remarks relative to the government of Ireland; but he should not consider that he was doing his duty if he sat down without adverting to some observations made by the hon. member for Aberdeen with regard to the Colonies. The hon. Member said, that the inhabitants of the Colonies felt themselves degraded by being placed under a delegated authority. It did not appear to him that the inhabitants of the Colonies could feel any degradation whatever on that account; they were, in every respect, his Majesty's subjects, although living remote from the scat of Government. He could not conceive that they could entertain such a feeling, at any rate he did not consider them in a state of degradation. He believed that the inhabitants of the Colonies had just as strong a claim to the consideration of his Majesty's Government, and of that House, as any other portion of the people of this Empire. He should consider it as great a dereliction of duty to omit furthering the interests of the inhabitants of the Colonies as if he were to neglect the interests of his own constituents. He must also beg leave to remark, that he could not understand upon what principle the hon. Gentleman could suppose that the connection between the mother country and the Colonies could be continued, unless they were under a delegated Government. He could not understand how they could have any communication with this country, if some delegated authority, by whatever name it might be called, were not established in the Colonies. Such an authority was established by the State for the purpose of promoting the benefit of the Colonies, and if it were abused, reference could be made to the Government at home; and that authority, whatever might be its name, would be made responsible for its misconduct. Notwithstanding the imputations which the hon. member for Aberdeen had thought fit to cast upon colonial governors in general, he was happy to find that hon. Member disposed to do justice, at least, to one of them, he meant an hon. and gallant friend of his, the Governor-general of the Canadas. It was no more than justice to that officer to state, that he had discharged every part of his duty with zeal and ability; and in the instance of that very Governor, the delegated authority which the hon. Gentleman so much objected to, and thought so degrading to the colonists, had afforded the most useful assistance to his Majesty's Government in promoting those measures which had been recommended by a committee of that House, which it was his intention steadily to pursue, and which would, he hoped, remedy the defects which had grown up in the system of government in Canada, and tend to the general contentment and prosperity of its inhabitants.

remarked, that if it were known in Ireland that it was seriously intended to bring this motion forward, the House would have heard of it in a very different way from the sentiments uttered by the hon. Member who opposed the question. He submitted, that it was not wise to legislate for a country against the feelings of the inhabitants, and the Irish were universally opposed to this; and with good reason; for it would assuredly increase absenteeism. He was not, and had no right to be, the eulogist of past governments; but he hoped that, under the improved feeling, a person of high rank filling the office of Lord-lieutenant would have an influence over factions which it would be in vain to expect from a government of clerks. He would strenuously oppose the motion.

said, that from what he had heard, he believed the motion was entitled to his humble support, and to the consideration of the House. No substantial or satisfactory arguments had been used to show why the office of viceroy of Ireland should not be abolished; and in the speeches of the noble Lord and the right hon. Secretary, he had been pleased to observe that they had placed the question before the House simply as one of time; they raised no objection upon principle. But he asked, Why was it not time now? There was nothing to justify the continuance of the office on principle; and if, as was universally acknowledged, a great saving could be effected by the abolition, was it not their duty, as Members of Parliament, to press it on the consideration of the Ministry? He thought the time had arrived. The proceedings of the last thirty years had been founded upon a system of assimilation. First, the parliaments of the two countries had been assimilated; and then in succession various Boards; and, to complete the system, it was only necessary to assimilate the government of the two kingdoms; so that an English cabinet might take the power from the hands of a Lord-lieutenant, who was sometimes with and sometimes against it, and administer the English constitution in Ireland as it was administered in England. He contended that it was folly to talk of the Irish people being attached to that form of government. They had suffered too much oppression under it, and witnessed too much corruption; and, in his opinion, the people never would believe that they were well governed, or that pure justice was conceded to them, until this form of government was abolished. The change would injure no one; for he thought that the presence of a court in Dublin, instead of alluring, kept many persons from it, who, unable to mix with their fellows at the Castle, were unwilling to approach the capital at all.

denied that there had been expressions of public opinion in Ireland upon this subject. As a county member, he felt himself bound to say that he should be sorry to see the office of Lord-lieutenant abolished without some more cogent reasons for the abolition than any he had heard that night; and he should, therefore, in the absence of any direct instruction from his constituents, whose opinions on the subject were to be regarded, deem himself bound to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Montrose.

also opposed the motion, because he was satisfied that, if the office of Lord-lieutenant were abolished, some person, under some other name, must be sent to Ireland, in order to fulfil those duties which were required of the Government, and which could not be efficiently performed by any officer in this country.

said, the arguments of the hon. member for Montrose were unanswerable, and he had no doubt they had produced a very considerable effect on the understanding of all the members of that House. For his part, the very reason given by some persons for opposing the motion was the reason which induced him to support it. It was because Ireland was no longer to be considered a colony, but an integral part of the empire, that he desired to see the distinction of a Lord-lieutenant abolished. Ireland was now an integral portion of the empire; and he should vote for her being considered so by the abolition of this useless and expensive office. The government of Ireland had ever been a most corrupt one, celebrated for jobbing and chicanery, and therefore the sooner some alteration was made in it the better. He knew of no alteration that could be more beneficial than the abolition of the office of the Lord-lieutenant.

said, that he should be unwilling to allow this question to go to a vote, without expressing his entire concurrence with the statement which had been made by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In declaring that it was his intention to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, he begged leave to exempt himself and the government of Ireland, with which he had formerly the honour of being connected, from the accusations which his hon. friend (sir Joseph Yorke) had made, of general corruption in those who formed the administration of that country. For his own part, he could confidently state, that he knew nothing of any such corruption; and he could appeal to all those who were in any way acquainted with the government of Ireland to say, whether the corruption of which the hon. Member had spoken, had any existence, except in his own imagination? From his former connexion with that government, and from the knowledge which his present situation had enabled him to acquire concerning it, he could conscientiously say, that no government had ever a greater desire to promote the interests of a people than the government of Ireland. After these preliminary remarks, he begged leave to make a few observations upon the question then under discussion. In the first place, it appeared to him that the hon. member for Limerick had argued it upon grounds to which his right hon. friend had perhaps offered a sufficient reply. That hon. Member appeared to draw a nice distinction as to the effects of the motion. He contended that it did not call upon the House at once to abolish the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but merely recommended the propriety of taking the subject into consideration, and of addressing the Crown to ascertain whether it might not with propriety be abolished. He did not admit that distinction. He knew that there were different modes of shaping a motion, in order to attract and to gain over some particular votes; but he was very much mistaken indeed, if the present motion had not been so framed, rather to catch a few votes of persons professing different opinions, than to gain general concurrence. This was rendered evident, by the supporters of the Motion throwing a sort of ambiguity over its object, which was well calculated to secure the votes of those who did not wish the office to be immediately abolished. The hon. member for Limerick had mentioned the embarrassments which, he said, arose from the state of the government in Ireland. He did not concur with the hon. Gentleman in his opinion; he knew, on the contrary, that his opinion was most erroneous; and that hon. Gentleman had failed to prove the existence of the evils to which he alluded, and of which he said the people of Ireland had a right to complain. For his own part, he could assert that no such evils existed, but if they did, would they be remedied by removing that authority which at present secured some control over them? But, supposing the office of Lord-lieutenant to be abolished, what was the system proposed as a substitute for it? The only one he had heard of was that of his hon. friend behind him, to appoint a secretary of state for Ireland, who should reside in this country. But how could such an officer living in this country attend to the affairs of Ireland? How could he obtain that information which he must possess, to discharge the functions of his office properly? He could have no means of obtaining any such information; and he put it to the House, whether it were not more probable that the system, which formerly prevailed in Ireland, and to the ill effects of which no one could be insensible, would revive under such a change, and would lead again to all those evils which the legislature had ever been most anxious to check, than that the abolition of the office of Lord-lieutenant should lead to the improvement of Ireland. The hon. member for Limerick under-valued the importance of the office on one principal circumstance, and he was surprised that he should do so at that moment. Last session, a measure was carried through Parliament, which, it could not be denied, had been very conducive to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. That measure was still in its infancy, and consequently required the protecting care of some official organ of the Government residing upon the spot. That official organ, at present, was the Lord-lieutenant, and under his administration the best effects had hitherto resulted from that measure. How unwise, therefore, would it be, to afford any interruption to the progress and general diffusion of the good which had already manifested itself, by any change in the administration, more especially such a change as that proposed by the present Motion. He thought that it was incumbent upon the House not to add to those changes already made, another change which might give rise to feelings of dissatisfaction in the minds of the Irish. The hon. member for Limerick had also told the House, that one of the main grounds of complaint against the Lord-lieutenancy of Ireland was, that the Lord-lieutenants had been frequently changed. Was it likely, however, if that office were abolished, and the duties were to be executed by a Secretary of State for Ireland, that he would be less frequently removed than had been the Lord-lieutenants of Ireland? He believed not, and if the House looked for an example to our own history, it would find that there had been no less than nine Secretaries of State for the Home Department since the year 1800. If the frequent changes, therefore, of the Lord-lieutenants of Ireland were made the ground for abolishing the office altogether, some other remedy must be adopted than the appointment of a Secretary of State for Ireland to supply his place. He would not detain the House by entering more largely into the subject, which had perhaps already been sufficiently argued: he would merely say, however, that the House ought, in deference to the feelings of the people of Ireland, who were interested in retaining the administration of an officer of the Crown, of such rank as the Lord-lieutenant, and of keeping amongst them gentlemen of such wealth as those who are generally appointed to fill that office, out of deference to the people of Ireland, the House ought to reject the Motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen. It was evident from the speech of every Irish Member who had spoken on this subject, that the measure would be very unpopular in Ireland. The hon. member for Limerick had even thought it necessary to defend himself as well as he could from the unpopularity which he knew would attach to him, on account of the part he took in this debate. Then the hon. member for Queen's County came forward, animated by a species of chivalry, to support the hon. member for Limerick, and to share with him the unpopularity which he seemed to expect would attach to him for the opinions he had expressed upon this subject. From whence could such a dread of unpopularity arise, but from the conviction that the general feeling of the people of Ireland was in favour of the continuance of the office of Lord-lieutenant. Under these circumstances he should certainly feel it to be his duty to oppose the Motion.

in reply, said, that he had not heard a single argument from any member of his Majesty's Government, which did not go to support the Motion. All the difference between him and them was, as to the point of time at which the change was to take place. They were told the people of Dublin would not like the change; but was that House to consider the feelings of the people of Dublin, when opposed to those of the rest of Ireland, and the whole of the empire? The great argument urged against his proposition was, that it would make more absentees than at present; but in his opinion the office of Lord-lieutenant was the cause of absenteeism, and it was to put an end to a faction, and destroy a source of mismanagement, which drove liberal men out of the country, that he called on the House to give its assent to the Motion.

said, he rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for a Committee of Inquiry into the state of the Colony of Newfoundland. He would not trouble the House if he did not feel the subject to be of considerable importance, and worthy of the serious consideration of Parliament. There was, he believed, no one of our Colonies of which the condition was so little known as that of Newfoundland, though the Members of that House legislated for it. The few Acts of Parliament brought into that House for the regulation of its affairs, were concocted at the Colonial Office, proposed by some individual connected with the Colonial Department, and passed into laws by those majorities which the Ministers could always command. They were introduced probably at a late hour, and hurried through the House without explanation or remark. Under such circumstances he had a right to claim the attention of the House while he stated the complaints of the inhabitants of Newfoundland. They complained, and he thought they had a right to complain, of the line of policy which had been pursued by the Government of this country towards that colony fore long series of years. It was one of the oldest colonies in our possession, and though of that importance which should entitle it to a well regulated and proper administration of its affairs, they had for a long period been conducted in a manner which was any thing but calculated to promote the prosperity of that island. Newfoundland had been long regarded as a fief of the Admiralty, and a naval officer was from time to time sent out there to administer its affairs. He was allowed to remain but a short time, and was recalled to make room for some other naval officer; and in consequence of this species of management, though no one of our colonial settlements possessed greater natural advantages than Newfoundland, yet there was not one that had made so little progress in population, in wealth, and he might add in civilization. In fact, the resources, the wealth, and the population of the colony had latterly declined; and if the House looked to the state of our fisheries there, it would find that we had been less successful than the French and the Americans. These were some of the reasons which induced him to bring the state of the colony under the consideration of Parliament. He wished to satisfy the House, that the system of policy pursued towards this island for many years past, had been calculated to retard its improvement, and cripple its resources. The Government for many years had treated Newfoundland as a moveable fishery; the governors and other official individuals sent out had been left there but a short period, and the few Acts of Parliament passed for the colony had been calculated to diminish its prosperity as a settlement, with a view to make the Newfoundland trade a nursery for seamen. Notwithstanding, however, that the policy of our Government had been directed to prevent persons from settling permanently in Newfoundland, a large population had grown up there, amounting to upwards of 90,000 persons, and consisting of Irishmen, Scotchmen, individuals from this country, and their descendants. In accordance with the policy he had mentioned, the naval governors generally received instructions, in some instances to compel parties who were desirous to settle there permanently, to return to this country; and in others, to prevent them from erecting buildings for the purpose of taking up their residence there. In this manner individuals had been prevented from settling in Newfoundland. Such a system of policy had not been adopted towards any other colony in our possession in that quarter of the globe, and why it had been pursued towards Newfoundland no man could probably tell. He wished to persuade the House to institute an inquiry, in order that justice might be done to the people of that island, who had many and well-founded reasons to complain. Of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Murray), he made no complaint. Since he came into office it had been his anxious desire to promote the welfare and improvement of all our colonial possessions; and it was probably only necessary to suggest to him measures calculated to effect beneficial results, to secure the adoption of them. Being convinced of the sentiments entertained by that right hon. Gentleman, he was anxious to direct his views towards Newfoundland, for the purpose of promoting its agricultural and commercial prosperity, by the introduction of a good and well-regulated system of Government; and he could assure that right hon. Gentleman, that he would reap a rich harvest of gratitude for all the care and attention he might bestow on this subject. Notwithstanding the unfavourable circumstances which he had already adverted to, this colony had risen rapidly of late years; but there was still an immense field for improvement. With a surface of square miles equal to that of England, and with a population of only 90,000 souls, the island of Newfoundland, though very fertile, had not hitherto raised agricultural produce sufficient for the maintenance of its inhabitants; and it had been indebted to foreign supplies for almost the whole of what the people required for their subsistence. The consequence was, that they were rendered wholly dependent upon the fisheries, which afforded only a casual means of support; and when they happened to fail, as they frequently did, the people were reduced to the greatest possible distress. The right hon. Secretary must be aware that in the course of the last year an official despatch was received from the governor of Newfoundland, representing the great distress, to which the population in the northern district of that island had been reduced, in consequence of the failure of their fishery; and the Governor, with that humanity which ever distinguished him, immediately directed that a supply of money should be forwarded out of the public treasury, to procure provisions for those distressed individuals. It was to prevent the recurrence of such misfortunes, and to save the expenditure thus required to relieve the distress of the population under such visitations, that he was desirous of directing the attention of his Majesty's Ministers to the improvement and encouragement of the agricultural and other resources of the colony. His Majesty's Government had, he believed, latterly instructed the Governors to depart from the system of not permitting settlements there, and had sent out orders, if not to encourage, at least not to oppose and impede, as heretofore, the agricultural improvement of that country. But Government must do much more than that; it must not only abandon the former absurd and unjust policy of obstructing the progress of agriculture in Newfoundland, it must also afford to it legislative support and encouragement, by adopting a regular and proper system of laws for the administration of its affairs. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the last Session of Parliament, the Acts relating to the government of Newfoundland, namely, the 5th George 4th, c. 51, and c. 67, for the regulation of the fisheries, and the administration of justice, then expired. They were enacted in 1824, for a period of five years; they were merely intended as an experiment in the first instance; and the people of Newfoundland had just reason to complain that they were renewed last Session by a short bill, for another period of three years and a half, without any satisfactory explanation from his Majesty's Government as to their previous operation, though they had already undergone a trial of five years. When his Majesty's Ministers proposed the renewal of these bills for a further period of three years and a half, they should have been prepared to furnish the House with their reasons for doing so. The answer which the Government then gave to his complaint was, that instructions had been sent out to the Governor of Newfoundland to procure the opinions of the law officers there as to the operation of those laws; and the reply of the Governor was, that they had not as yet been enabled to form a decisive opinion on the subject. There were three Judges and an Attorney-general resident there, and it was rather strange, that after five years experience of those laws, they could not give a decisive opinion as to their practical operation: that circumstance alone was sufficient to justify inquiry. In the Session of 1828 he had given notice of his intention to submit a motion to the House, similar to that which he was about to propose. It was then his intention to bring under the consideration of the House, in the Session of 1829, the various circumstances connected with the government and condition of the colony, unless the Government should take up the subject, and institute that inquiry for which the people of the island were desirous. In the interval, before the commencement of that Session, the people of St. John's transmitted to him a complete statement of their views as to the operation of these laws. Previous to the question coming on last Session, he had inquired at the Colonial Office whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take up those Acts in the course of the Session, with a view to their re-enactment or modification, or whether he was disposed to consent to the appointment of a committee of the House, in the first instance, to institute an inquiry into the subject. The latter appeared the best mode of proceeding, as the House, before it legislated for this colony, should be afforded the means of judging in what manner legislation could be best applied. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that he was not then prepared, by the information he had received from the local authorities in the island, to say whether any alteration could be advantageously made in these Acts; and accordingly, at a late period of the Session, the right hon. Secretary introduced a short bill into this House to continue them for a further period of three years and a half. He opposed that bill, with a view to procure an inquiry into what had been the practical effects of those laws; objecting to the motion, that if those laws were continued, the affairs of the colony would again be neglected, and no steps taken to encourage its agricultural and commercial resources. The right hon. Gentleman proposed the re-enactment of those Acts without inquiry, because the official authorities in the colony were not prepared to give an opinion as to the operation of those laws, though they had been in existence for five years. But these persons might not be-better prepared in 1832, when those Acts would again expire, and the right hon. Gentleman would then probably come down with a similar statement to the House; and in that way Newfoundland would be legislated for by bills prepared in the Colonial Office, without parliamentary inquiry, and without the rights of the people of the colony being at all attended to. Against such a system of legislation he protested. Newfoundland was the only one of our colonies in North America that did not possess a local legislature of its own; and it was without the power of making a road, or even beginning the slightest improvement, except it were done by the Government. Some time back he had moved for certain papers, to shew what steps had been taken by his Majesty's Government, to ascertain the operation of the present laws in that colony. Amongst those papers was a correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Newfoundland; and in that correspondence, Sir Thomas Cochrane, the governor, referred to communications he had received from the Judges in Newfoundland on the subject. When the right hon. Gentleman last Session proposed the renewal of those Acts, he did so upon the ground that it was necessary to have further time to ascertain the opinions of the Judges in Newfoundland as to their operation; but in the correspondence of Sir Thomas Cochrane, he spoke of some accompanying letters from the Judges on the subject. It was of great consequence that those letters should be produced, that the House might know why those learned persons, who had administered the laws for five years, were not prepared to make such a statement as would enable the House to judge in what manner they had operated. In justification of the course which he thought it his duty to pursue, and in corroboration of his opinions in reference to this colony, he would read to the House an extract of a letter from the present Chief Justice of New South Wales, Mr. Forbes, who formerly presided in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. In the representations made by that learned person to the Colonial Office, as to the improvements which ought to be effected in the administration of the affairs of Newfoundland, and in the sentiments which he expressed as to the introduction of a better system of law there, he entirely concurred, and they would be found to bear out most fully the Statements which he had made to the House on this subject. That Judge said, "As a general remedy, whatever tends to revive the fisheries must also have the effect of relieving the people. It were desirable, that, with a view of opening some auxiliary employment to the inhabitants of Newfoundland, every restraint upon the cultivation of the soil should be removed, and every encouragement given to the breeding of sheep, cattle, and other live stock. The necessity of cultivating the soil as an auxiliary to the fishery is not disputed, nor is there any existing law which prohibits it, but there is none to encourage it, and there is still maintained in the island an ancient opinion, that it is against the policy of Government—as if that could be called policy which, in a country overstocked with people, and distressed for food, would prohibit so plain a dictate of natural law as that of raising subsistence from the earth. This cannot be, and is not the policy of the British Government, and nothing is wanting but a fair apprehension of the case to induce its enlightened rulers, not only to remove every shadow of obstruction for the cultivation of the soil, but to encourage and protect it by every means in their power. To preserve the transient fishery has been found impracticable, to attempt to revive it would be to shut our senses against the light of reason and the lessons of experience. As a broad proposition, it may be maintained, that if the fishery were to be taken up as it is de facto, and a system adapted to the present state of things, openly avowed and directly pursued by the local authorities, Newfound land would become, what it ought to be, a prosperous settlement, subsisting itself by internal resources, drawing its manufactured supplies from the mother country, and repaying her care by a valuable trade and a numerous race of seamen, trained to her service, and ready to attend her first call in defence of theempire."—Such was the language of Mr. Chief Justice Forbes, and no individual was better qualified than that learned gentleman to give an opinion. He did not mean to enter into a statistical account of Newfoundland, but to prove the importance of the trade of the island, he would merely state, that 851 vessels had entered the ports of Newfoundland in 1827, and that 400 registered vessels were employed in. the fishery alone. There were probably also between 3,000 and 4,000 boats, employing on the whole about 10,000 sea- men. The importance of removing any thing that impeded the improvement of such a colony was manifest. That colony was, besides, one which imposed no tax on the people of this country in the shape of protection for produce, like the West Indies or Canada. The fish, which formed their chief article of export, were sent, to the markets of the south of Europe, and to the West Indies, and but little came here for our consumption. The colony was, therefore, no burthen to us; its trade was deserving of protection, for it employed a large quantity of British capital. He did not know that he was called on to point out the precise measures which the Government ought to adopt, further than to affirm, that it ought to inquire in the first instance; but he thought measures might be taken to procure a more favourable admission for the produce of Newfoundland into foreign markets. Salt fish paid an import duty of 100 per cent in most of the countries of the south of Europe, and in some of them still higher duties were levied. Now he thought Government might procure a reduction of these duties, which would be equally advantageous to the people of those countries, and to the inhabitants of Newfoundland. He knew, for example, that the Neapolitan Minister, M. de Medici, was well disposed to make such a reduction had the matter been pressed when the duties on Italian produce were lowered in this country. The colonists had now to complain also of the conduct of Government with respect to the limits within which the French were permitted to fish. The portion of the coast to which they were permitted to have free access for that purpose was the best portion of it, and the liberty they enjoyed was conceded by the Treaty of Paris, made on the restoration of the Bourbons. The people of Newfoundland did not want to exclude the French, but there wore doubts whether the right thus claimed by them were permissive only, or exclusive. The fish were migratory, and they had abandoned what were formerly the best stations belonging to the British, and were now found in great abundance on the French grounds, to which, though they were conceded to them by us, they would not allow our people to have access. The Chamber of Commerce of St. John's, Newfoundland, made a report on August 5th, 1829, on this subject, and in that the Chamber said, "that in the course of last autumn it took occasion to inquire whether his excellency the Governor would sustain British vessels in fishing upon that part of the coast commonly denominated the French coast, or if he would order their removal? In reply, his excellency caused the Society to be informed, that he was not prepared to protect any British vessels in fishing on the coast in question: at the same time his excellency had no instruction to direct their removal; but recommended that before the fishery be resumed, the parties proposing to do so should previously communicate with his Majesty's Government. In concordance with the recommendation of his excellency, the Chamber prepared a petition which was addressed to the right hon. Sir George Murray, and forwarded to him, through the Governor, so long ago as the 6th of January last; but up to the present time no answer has been returned, and the Chamber remains ignorant of the intentions of his Majesty's Government on this important point." In consequence of not receiving an answer, the Chamber sent him a copy of the petition. He wrote to the right hon. Gentleman to know what were the views of the Government with respect to that Treaty, and the answer, though most courteous and proper in every other respect, surprised him exceedingly by the declaration that the Government did not know what construction to put upon the 14th Article of the Treaty. The government of Newfoundland thought the right of the French was only permissive, and that was his opinion. What then made the Government at home hesitate so much about it, when the settlement of it was of so much importance? Whichever way the question were decided, it ought undoubtedly to be promptly settled; and were the government of the United States in the place of our Government, it would soon bring the question to a conclusion. Again, the inhabitants of Newfoundland had to complain that their interests were sacrificed by the convention concluded with America in 1818, and sacrificed in spite of their earnest prayers, that the Government would not give up, as it did, our most valuable fishing-grounds to the Americans. But the American commissioners were better informed than the British; and so were able better to protect the interests of America than the interests of Newfoundland were protected. The consequence of the concessions then made had been a vast increase in the American fishing vessels, which now far outnumbered those belonging to this country and its Colonies. They had last year 1,800 vessels employed, and we had only 1,200. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman, or the present Government for this; but he insisted that these circumstances gave the inhabitants of Newfoundland a strong claim on the Government now to have their case investigated, and every relief given them which was in the power of the Government to bestow. The competition which our fisheries had to sustain was very unequal also, for both the French and Americans gave large bounties to encourage their fisheries. Last year the French government gave no less than three million francs as bounties, and this sum was annually allowed by it for the same purpose. Up to 1824 Newfoundland had more than paid its own expenses, and had contributed in twelve years 89,000l. to the Treasury of this country. Since that time, a part of its expenses had fallen on the mother country. Having entered into these topics, very briefly, however, and he wished the people of Newfoundland had a better advocate than he was, he would conclude by expressing a hope that the effect of the Motion would at least be to induce Government to bestow a little more attention upon that unfortunate and neglected colony, particularly as a new rival had lately sprung up in that quarter—the Danes were now carrying on their fisheries with so much spirit, that they had already driven us out of the market of the north of Spain. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Island of Newfoundland."

was of opinion, that the hon. Member had not made out a case that rendered it necessary for a committee of that House to inquire into the state of Newfoundland. The original policy of the Government was to make that colony a nursery for seamen. That system, however, had been altered, and colonization, though it was never encouraged, had gone on to a considerable extent. The consequence was, that there was now a population of 80,000 or 90,000 souls. The old system having been abandoned, they could not return to it, and all they could do was, to give to this nucleus of population every possible support, and that he contended was done. The hon. Member had made it a matter of accusation against Government that he (Sir G. Murray) had last year come down to the House with a short bill to continue the enactments of 1824. But what was the reason of that? Why, the Governor had been consulted on the subject, and his opinion was, that those laws had not been long enough in operation to enable him to judge of their efficacy, and therefore it was proposed to continue them for some time longer. For thus acting he could see no ground of censure, though the hon. Member had imputed blame to the Government. Neither did he see in these circumstances any ground for inquiry, or any means of successfully inquiring. Of whom were they to ask as to the operation of these laws? The Judges said they were not prepared to give any opinion. In accordance with the declaration which he had made last year, he now repeated, that whenever information was received that these laws did not work well, or whenever a mode of amending them was pointed out, he would attend to the suggestions given. The hon. Gentleman had observed that Government ought to endeavour to introduce the products of Newfoundland into foreign countries on the best possible terms. He admitted the fact; but he could not see the necessity of appointing a committee on that ground, unless it was meant to be contended, and to be proved, that the Government did not obtain such terms from other countries as it ought—an inference the correctness of which he denied. The hon. Member had referred to the treaty of Ghent as disadvantageous to this country, with reference to the Newfoundland fishery. He would ask, was it fit that a committee should be appointed to criticize the treaty of Ghent? And what good, he demanded, could be derived from such an investigation? He had touched generally on the topics introduced by the hon. Member, and so far as he could perceive, the hon. Member had not established any sufficient ground for the appointment of a committee. The hon. Member had said, that in the government of this colony Ministers were influenced by persons more anxious about their own interests than the general interests of the country. All he would say in answer to that was, that if the hon. Member, or any other individual, could state any thing that was likely to promote the prosperity of that colony, he would be happy to adopt it. In conclusion, he expressed his intention of opposing the Motion, because he was convinced that no good whatever would result from a committee of that House inquiring into the, best means of regulating the colony of Newfoundland.

was of opinion, that the hon. member for Worcester had made out a case that required the immediate and serious attention of the Government. The Colonial Department was called on to decide upon some plan for the improvement of the colony, which could no longer be regarded, as a mere fishing station. If it were considered in the light of a colony, it became the duty of Government to do every thing in its power to assist it. It appeared to him that the disputes about the right of fishing on the coast of Labrador ought to be immediately set at rest. If the hon. member for Worcester could, however, get an assurance from Government that it meant, without delay, to procure some explanation from the American government on this subject, he would advise him to leave the business in the hands of Ministers. If he could bring Government to declare that these complaints should be investigated,—that they should not be laid on the shelf like an old musty record,—he would advise the hon. Member not to press his Motion.

could not coincide in the advice which had been given to the hon. member for Worcester, not to press his Motion. He thought that if a committee were appointed, it would be attended with beneficial effects. He could not see why there should be so much delay in arranging the concerns of 80,000 persons at Newfoundland, and it was notorious that no attempt had been made to redress the grievances of that colony. This alone was a sufficient ground, if there were no other for demanding a committee, and he had no doubt that its labours, if one were appointed, would be satisfactory to the colonists.

charged the Colonial Department with negligence in its conduct towards this colony; and contended that, the labours of a committee could alone remedy the evils occasioned by that negligence. If a committee were appointed, it might investigate many important points, and especially how it happened that Newfoundland had lost its fisheries; and how it happened that the fishermen, when that took place, were left twelve months without an answer to the application they then made to Government to know if they might go elsewhere to fish; he submitted that a committee was the only proper means to obtain that and much more necessary and important information. Here were 80,000 inhabitants, who, as the member for Worcester stated, had not the power of making a road. Was it possible that those persons could be satisfied under the rule of one man? That was a subject that required serious consideration. Those persons should surely have some power over the management of their own affairs. The hon. member for Worcester said, that the Gentlemen who sat on this side of the House were enemies to the Colonies. That was not the fact. He (Mr. Hume) was friendly to the Colonies, but he did not desire to see them conducted on principles of extravagance and misrule. He wished to see Englishmen, when they lived in the Colonies, enjoying all the freedom they enjoyed at home. But the present system proceeded on a principle the very reverse of that. He hoped that the hon. Member would not withdraw his Motion; if he divided the House with only six supporters now, he was sure that he would have a greater number next year, and he trusted therefore that the hon. Member would persevere.

in explanation, said, that the Governor of that colony had been put in possession of the fullest information, on the point alluded to by the hon. member for Montrose by his predecessor, the late Secretary for the Colonial Department.

thought, that the Newfoundland fishery admitted of great extension. Those individuals whom he had the honour to represent, depended almost entirely on the manufacture of ropes, lines, and other things used in the fisheries, and it was of great importance to them, and to other persons residing in different places, employed in a similar manner, that the utmost encouragement should be given to the fisheries.

in reply, observed, that the answer of the right hon. and gallant General was directed entirely against the form of his Motion. He had not said a word in answer to the case which he had made out. A committee of the House would, if not in this Session, at least in the next, be able to lay before Parliament such information as would enable it to adopt measures for the improvement of the Newfoundland fishery. He would persist, notwithstanding the advice of the hon. member for Rochester, in pressing his Motion, unless he received an assurance from Ministers, that in the next year they would institute an inquiry which would enable the house to Legislate on the subject.

observed, that in the last Session, a bill had come down from the other House, for effecting an alteration in the existing system of the Court of Chancery. That bill disappeared almost immediately. He now understood that another bill which had been in the present Session introduced into the other House, was also about to be withdrawn. In this situation of uncertainty, those who in that House wished to make some reform in the law knew not how to shape their course. He therefore begged leave to ask, if one Chancellor of his Majesty's Government could inform him whether the measure introduced by another Chancellor was likely to proceed?

said, he knew nothing whatever of the rumour to which the learned Gentleman alluded.

—Oh! then, I suppose I am to consider the report as utterly groundless.

represented the work to be of great public utility, and described the opposition of the noble Lord as the result of a rivalry between him, the proprietor of the town of Tullamore, and a Mr. Lambert, the proprietor of the town of Kilbeggan.

defended the loan, as made solely with a view to the public advantage, and denied that there was any jobbing in the transaction, or in any other with which the Government was connected.