presented a Petition, signed by 7,000 or 8,000 Journeyman Bakers employed in London, Southwark, Westminster, and in different other places within ten miles of the Metropolis, praying that the House would adopt some measure to prevent the necessity of their pursuing their worldly avocations on the Lord's Day.

observed, that this Petition, coming as it did from a large body of Christians, who felt themselves called on to pray for relief from a Christian legis- lature, deserved serious attention. The custom of breaking and profaning the Sabbath was a greatly-increasing evil, and when individuals came to the House and called on the Legislature to enable them to keep that day holy, he thought that their Petition should be complied with. While he was touching on this subject, he could not avoid adverting to the admonitory letter which had recently been sent forth by a right rev. Prelate, (the Bishop of London) and which, did that right rev. personage infinite credit. Whatever odium might be attempted to be cast on that right rev. Prelate, or whatever taunts might be levelled at him by certain individuals, on account of his having written that letter, still he was of opinion that the thanks of every real friend to religion in the community was due to the right rev. Prelate for his exertions on this occasion. He remembered some years ago that a similar petition was presented from another class of persons—he meant the fishmongers—who complained that they were also obliged to work on the Sabbath. That petition, he was sorry to say, was treated with ridicule; but he trusted that the Petition now presented would be received in a different manner.

supported the prayer of the petition; and hoped that the hon. member for Westminster would move for a committee to inquire into the subject.

said,he entertained a different opinion. No inquiry nor consideration was necessary, nor could the House afford any remedy to the alleged evil. To legislate on it would be most useless, and he hoped the House would be better employed than in making the attempt. The master bakers had the remedy in their own hands. They might, if they pleased, shut up their shops on Sunday.

presented a similar petition from seven or eight hundred Master-bakers of London and the parts adjacent, praying for the repeal of the existing law, by which they were compelled to bake dinners within certain hours on a Sunday, and were thus prevented from attending divine service.

wished to ask the hon. Members who were pressing these petitions on the House, whether the measure they proposed, of absolutely preventing Bakers from baking dinners on a Sunday, would not be more injurious to those who were, by the present custom, enabled to send their humble provisions to be baked on Sundays, than it could be beneficial to the Bakers? Not only would these poor people be put to much inconvenience, but they would, by being obliged to stay at home to cook their own dinners, be prevented from going to church, as they were now accustomed to do. So that, even the measure now proposed was meant in favour of religion, it was one of the most short-sighted measures that could have been imagined. It reminded him of an attempt, made in a similar spirit, to prevent the barbers from shaving on a Sunday morning, by which, if successful, the advantage of hundreds would have been sacrificed for the ease of one.

addressed the House in behalf of Sir Jonah Barrington, whose case he described as one of very considerable hardship and severity. The hon. Member read several letters from Mr. Lamb (now Lord Melbourne) to Sir Jonah Barrington to shew that Mr. Lamb, when Secretary of Ireland, knew of the testimony which could be adduced against Sir Jonah. The first letter, he said, he would read was as follows, and was dated

could not see very clearly what he had to do with the conduct of his predecessor in office, even if the hon. member for Colchester had made out any case against that predecessor. But the hon. Member had made out no case against Lord Melbourne. Instead of it being true that Lord Melbourne had been conversant with the evidence of Mr. Pineau, the fact was directly the reverse. Part of Mr. Pineau's evidence had, indeed, been taken in March 1828: but that was a very unimportant part, relating merely to fees and to the practice of the court. It was not until the month of May that that part of Mr. Pineau's evi- dence was taken by which Sir Jonah Barrington's dealings with the money of the suitors was established, and the most important parts of Mr. Pineau's evidence were not taken until Lord Melbourne had left office. He would not waste the time of the House with going through the whole of the hon. Member's statement. He thought the House would, after this, see the utter fallacy of that statement. As to the argument respecting Sir Jonah Barrington's patent, it might be a very good one, if he (Lord F. L. Gower) had made the absence of Sir Jonah from the country any part of the ground on which he preferred these charges against that judge. But he had not. He thought the letter of his learned friend,—a private and confidential letter, be it remembered,—which had been produced, contained nothing which was not creditable to his learned friend, who at the time he wrote it was not in office. He was totally at a loss to discover, in the speech of the hon. member for Colchester, any single reason for taking up any more of the time of the House in discussing this question.

could not understand why a private and confidential letter, written from one friend to another, should have been dragged forward on this occasion. He wished to state, that inquiry originated in consequence of representations made by the mercantile interest of Cork, as to the mode of conducting business in the Admiralty Court. Certainly, in the investigation which ensued, it had been established that Sir Jonah Barrington had made an improper use of the suitors' money, and after that fact it was impossible for the Government to proceed otherwise than it had done.

thought, nothing could be more unjust than to attribute any thing improper to the noble Lord, who had conducted this business. This was not—how could it be, or how could any one say it was—a party question, or that party feelings were in any way mixed up in it? All that could be said upon it, and it did not lie in Sir Jonah Barrington's mouth to say it, was, that the proceedings had been carried on too slowly and with too much lenity. Allow him, as a member of the Irish bar, to protest against the production of that confidential letter which had been read by the hon. member for Colchester. He agreed that the contents of that letter were creditable to the hon. and learned Gentleman who wrote it; but why had it been produced? Did it prove any thing with regard to this case? No, it did not. He had read the reports of the commissioners and the select committee. If he had found any thing in them creditable to Sir Jonah Barrington, he should have been glad to have brought it forward, but he had found nothing. He heartily pitied, but he could not vindicate him.

could assure the hon. Member that he did not object to the production of that letter. When Gentlemen considered the distressing situation of the individual in whose possession the letter was, how could any one object to the production of it, if that individual fancied it could do him any good? When he first joined the profession, Sir Jonah Barrington was at the head of his circuit. Sir Jonah had always treated him with a degree of kindness and friendship which he could not forget—which made him rejoice that he was not called upon to take any very active part in these distressing, but, he must add, just and necessary proceedings.

said, he had a Petition to present from Sir Jonah Barrington. It expressed the petitioner's regret that his counsel at the Bar should have confined himself, in his speech to constitutional grounds; and prayed that he might be allowed to offer evidence at the bar. The Speaker decided that the petition could not be received till the question before the House was disposed of.

said, he had a question to put to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) opposite. An address for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington had been agreed to, and a noble Lord was now on his way to the other House to request the concurrence of their Lordships to it. Suppose both Houses sanctioned the address, then the Crown would have, on deliberation, to determine whether the request contained in the address should be granted. The question, therefore, which he had to ask, and he asked it merely for information, arose out of the very delicate matter which had last night been communicated to the House. Would his Majesty exercise the royal consideration with respect to this address; or was it intended that the persons who were to be appointed in consequence of the message of last night, should exercise the royal deliberation as well as the performance of the mechanical office of signing public documents?

said, that the hon. Member appeared to him to mistake altogether the object of the message of last night. His Majesty was perfectly capable of exercising discretion and deliberation, and the message of last night merely stated that bodily indisposition made it inconvenient and painful for his Majesty to sign with his own hand those public instruments which required his sign manual. No Minister would presume to attach his Majesty's signature to any document upon which the pleasure of the Crown had not been taken; much less to an instrument for the removal of a Judge. His Majesty's pleasure would be taken upon this, as it was taken upon every other case; for he had the satisfaction of assuring the House, that his Majesty was at that moment as competent to exercise his mental faculties as he had ever been at any other period of his life.

presented the Petition from Sir Jonah Barrington; read and to be printed.

reported, in answer to the message to the Lords, desiring a conference with their Lordships respecting the address agreed to by the House for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington from his office as Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland, that their Lordships had agreed to the conference, and were then ready to meet the Commons.

reported, that the committee had had a conference with their Lordships; and had delivered the Address agreed to by the House, which their Lordships promised to take into consideration.

presented a Petition from the Lead Miners and others engaged in the manufacture of Lead, in the parishes of Alston and Allendale, Northumberland, complaining of the distress they suffered from the competition of foreign manufacturers of Lead, and praying for a higher protecting duty. The hon. Baronet entered into some details, showing the changes which had taken place in the duties on copper, tin, and lead, since 1825, when a new scale of protecting duty was arranged respecting them, different from the ad valorem duty before in use. The protecting duty on copper and tin was raised greatly beyond that on Lead. Since then, copper and tin had fallen in price about 15 per cent, while Lead had fallen nearly 50 per cent, having been reduced from 24l. per ton in 1824, to 12l. 10s., its present price. This reduction had been the result of the competition of the Lead produced in the Spanish mines, of which about 28,000 tons were produced annually. This was sold at 9l. per ton, which, with the freight and duty, made it 12l. 10s., to which price the British manufacturers were obliged to reduce their Lead, in order to prevent the loss of the home consumption. The petitioners prayed that the protecting duties might be raised 2l. per ton. This sum would make an increase of about 90,000l. a-year on the consumers of Lead in the United Kingdom, as the annual consumption was about 45,000 tons. The hon. Baronet contended, that by acceding to the prayer of this Petition, a stimulus would be given to a trade by which 80,000 persons were supported, who, if driven from this trade by foreign competition, could not, from their previous habits, be brought to work at other businesses, and must therefore become a burthen upon the country. The hon. Baronet added, that the petitioners were entitled to a protection something equal to that given to agriculturists by the Corn-laws, which would amount to from 20 to 30 per cent against the foreign grower; and, in conclusion, that it would be a much more cheap way of providing for the 80,000 persons engaged in this trade to grant this additional protecting duty, than to have to send them as settlers to Swan River, or others of our new colonies.

supported the prayer of the petition, and contended, that if these persons were put out of employment, they would be thrown back on the market for labour, and thus increase the difficulties of the working classes.

said, it was not his intention to follow the hon. Baronet into all the topics he had introduced, and this was the less necessary, as the question to which the petition referred was now under the consideration of the Government. The greatest attention must be paid to it before any decision was come to. He hoped, however, in the course of a week to have a better opportunity of addressing the House on the subject, and therefore he would forbear saying anything further at present.

hoped that nothing would be done to give advantages to Lead miners, beyond the regular course of trade; and protested against taxing the rest of the community to the amount of 90,000l. for the benefit of the owners of Lead-mines.

said, that the Lead-mines of this country not only supplied the home consumption, but sent some thousands of tons abroad; of course the price abroad must be settled by foreign competition, but as long as the miner supplied the home consumption, it was all that he could claim or pretend to; and, indeed, unless they could shut up the Spanish mines altogether, the price in foreign countries must be regulated by competition.

said, that the root of all the mischief was in the high protecting duty on corn, which in one way or another amounted to from forty to fifty per cent; and it was obvious, that whatever raised the cost price of labour must materially injure the manufactures of the country.

complained that the Lead ore had never been sufficiently protected like other ores, and that, in consequence of this want of protection, the export trade had dwindled down to 5,000 tons annually.

said, he did not see that the petitioners suffered any peculiar hardship, although he regretted their distress. They had a monopoly of the home market, and were able to send some thousand tons abroad; and if the price had fallen, the protection had risen with the fall. Lead, too, was not a mineral on which he was disposed to allow much protection, because it did not enter into many of the articles of exportation to other countries.

said, that in the last six years the country had exported 59,000 tons, being an average of 10,000 tons a year. His hon. friend said, the quantity produced was 45,000 tons a-year; and, therefore, he could sec that nearly one-fifth was sent out of the country. The price of that quantity was, of course, regulated by the price in the foreign market; and the price at which it could there be sold, as we had more than we required, regulated the price at home; no relief, therefore, could be obtained by a protecting duty, and the only way in which the Lead owners could hope for relief was, by persuading the Government to lower the price of labour, and so put the English in the same state as the Spanish labourer.

entreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pause before he yielded to the representations of the petitioners on this subject; because, by increasing the duty from 10s. to 25s. per ton we had prevented foreign ore being imported into this country, and had lost all the profits arising from the smelting and working up. In 1828 the quantity imported for this purpose was 4,620 tons; since the duty had been altered it had fallen to 1,100 tons. He hoped, therefore, that the duty would be reduced rather than increased, so that the country might have the benefit of charging other countries for the profit of its own labour.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Third and Fourth Clauses of the 10th of Geo. 2nd, c. 28, which empowered the Lord Chamberlain to prohibit the acting of any New Play or Entertainment on the Stage. The hon. Member said, that the Bill, of which he wished to repeal some of the Clauses was passed in Sir Robert Walpole's administration, and was then opposed by the Earl of Chesterfield, in a speech that was a model of eloquence, and an ornament of our language. The Act was also severely satirized by Dr. Johnson, and he believed it had at all times been condemned. The part of it to which he chiefly objected was that which gave power to the Lord Chamberlain to license Plays and Dramatic Writings. He did not think it necessary, in bringing the subject under the notice of the House, to go into the origin of the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction; it was sufficient for his purpose to acknowledge that this officer had exercised such an authority long before the Act was passed. It was exercised without any rule, very arbitrarily, and very often with great caprice. He admitted that it was readily submitted to by the actors; but, considering what was their original condition, that was not to be wondered at. They were persons put out of the pale of the Constitution, and submitted without opposition to the Chamberlain, whose wand waved over them pleno jure. The present law had a great vice in its constitution. It was passed at a period of great political excitement, and was intended only to remedy a temporary evil. But like other laws passed under similar circumstances, it became a general restriction, and having once got into the Statute-book, there was a great difficulty in getting rid of it. He might, perhaps, be allowed to compare it in this respect to the Six Acts, which were passed in a state of temporary ferment; and as the Attorney General had announced his intention to bring in a bill to repeal one of them, he thought he might with great propriety follow so good an example. The Act conferred, too, he might observe, a most unconstitutional power on the Lord Chamberlain, quite as bad as that conferred by the Six Acts. He should be able to show by example, both in former and in modern times, that this power had been exercised also in a most unconstitutional manner. He would beg leave to allude to the circumstances under which the Act was passed. Sir Robert Walpole, during the latter part of his administration, was exposed to many severe attacks, and in particular he was attacked by pieces produced in the theatre. Just at that time a play called the Golden Rump was sent in manuscript to Sir Ft. Walpole, by the manager of one of the theatres, in which he was most severely handled. He was much irritated; he called it sedition; and, rising in his place in the House of Commons, he read some of the strongest passages; the Members were all excited; the bill was immediately brought in, and it was passed, almost by acclamation. This was the origin of the Act. This bill was passed through the House of Commons, though it established a power unknown to the Constitution—a power greater than was possessed by the King—a power that was an infringement on the liberty of the subject and on the liberty of the press, imposing shackles on our literature, and giving a monopoly of theatrical property to an officer of the Crown: this bill, that was equally condemned by general principles, and by its practical results—was passed through the House of Commons without as much discussion as was usually given to a Turnpike Act. By this law not only no new play could be performed without a license, a song could not be sung on the stage, nor a new passage, no, not even a word, could be introduced into a play, without the permission of the Lord Chamberlain, or the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy. For granting this license the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy exacted a fee of two guineas; while the power to exact this fee made the Deputy very vigilant, so that nothing whatever, neither- a play, nor a song, nor an addition to a play, could be sung or acted, without the payment. The Deputy Licenser had even extended his power to prevent a lecture on Astronomy being delivered in a theatre without a license, or rather without paying him his fee. The hon. Member quoted the permission which had been given by the Deputy Licenser to deliver such a Lecture marked at bottom with the words, "paid two guineas," to confirm his statement. The practice of exacting a fee was perhaps not authorized by the law; but the managers of the theatres submitted to it, and the reason was this.—In consequence of the extensive powers of the Lord Chamberlain, it was impossible for the managers to escape his censure—they were continually liable to forfeit their patent privileges, and this made them submit to the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy's exactions. As a specimen of the power of the Deputy, he would mention, that a few years ago a Clown was prevented from adding the words "roast beef." The most innocent or trifling additions by a Grimaldi might subject the manager to forfeit his privileges. It became necessary, therefore, for all performers strictly to follow the directions of Hamlet—" Let not your Clowns speak more than is set down for them." The slightest neglect or omission on their part might subject them to censure; and he believed, that there was not one of the Patentees of the great theatres who was not liable to forfeit his license fifty times in the course of a season. Under such circumstances they would naturally submit to pay any fee; and if the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy were to appoint a Deputy's Deputy, he might also exact a fee. He was aware that the master of the Revels formerly did exact a fee, but the Act under which the Lord Chamberlain exercised his power gave him no authority to exact any fee whatever. By selecting him, the Act placed the power in the hands of a person of distinction, who was to be responsible for its proper exercise, and who was never expected to make use of it as a means of levying a tax on the managers of theatres. He, however; thinking it too much trouble to read the blotted manuscripts intended for the stage, deputed his power to an inferior officer, who exacted the fee without any authority whatever. The fee Mr. Colman exacted, however, he was bound to say, was not greater than was exacted by his predecessors. What he contended for in principle was, that the ordinary laws of the realm were sufficient to repress the licentiousness of the stage without the power of licensing stage-performances. If any thing blasphemous, seditious, or libellous, were produced on the stage, it might be punished as a libel. The Act, which he wished to modify only, imposed fetters on the stage without producing any good effect. But it was said that a printed libel had not the same effect as a scenic representation; that the mind was more readily affected through the medium of the eye than through that of the ear, and transmitted a more powerful and lasting impression.

"Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,

Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus."

But supposing this true—supposing that the theatre might be made the means of promoting party politics and personal attacks—he must still contend that the Common Law would be sufficient to repress this licentiousness. In order to meet this objection, however, he should be ready, if he obtained leave to bring in the Bill, to agree to vest that power in Commissioners or Magistrates which was now exercised by the Lord Chamberlain. If such a power were deposited any where, it ought not to be in an officer of the Household, but in some responsible person, who should not delegate his authority to others, to be used as a means of levying fees. He would illustrate the effects of this authority by example, and in order not to wound the feelings of any person, he would go back a little from our own time. A play, for example, of Mr. Gay's—"Polly "was prohibited, as was well known, not on account of any immorality it contained, but on account of its political tendency. Another case was Thomson's play of " Sophonisba"—a play in which there was nothing objectionable; for of that poet it had been justly said, that he never wrote "one line which dying he would wish to blot;" yet that play was objected to, and a license refused, be- cause some of the sentiments, in his poem of "Liberty," had given offence to the Minister of that day. A farce of Foote's, also, was suppressed, because it contained some satirical allusions to that moral lady, the Duchess of Kingston, who was in favour with the then Lord Chamberlain. He would then quote some modern examples of the same interference. Mr. Col man, the present Licenser, on one occasion took under his protection the character of that profession to which the gallant Members of the House belonged. A character called "Rakeall," who was represented as an army officer, somewhat of a swindler, and a good deal of a coward, was ordered to be suppressed, because it reflected on a high class of society, and was derogatory to the character of officers. He was sure the right hon. and gallant Secretary did not need any such protection for his profession from Mr. Colman. He had several specimens before him of Mr. Colman's pruning, who seemed, for example, not to like that lovers should speak of their mistresses as angels. Passages of that kind he considered to be very indecorous, and directed them to be struck out. The hon. Member read a passage, which contained the words "My angels divine," and the Licenser wrote "Blot out the angels." This was an excess of nicety in the author of "Broad Grins." Angelic and heavenly were words to which the Licenser seemed to have a great antipathy, and he warned certain managers that he should strike them out whenever he met them. In another instance Mr. Colman objected to the word "thighs" being used three times, and directed that it should be cut out. He objected to a servant describing her mistress's dressing case as united "in matrimony with her master's arm-chair. The hon. Member quoted other specimens of the Licenser's fastidious pruning, and said that he had taken Royalty under his peculiar care, and wishing not to frighten heirs apparent, he ordered the following correction;—A play was presented to him, in which were the words "all the fatigues, cares, and tediousness of Royalty," and the Licenser's directions were "strike out the words and tediousness.'" The only effective opposition which he expected was from those who thought that if the Motion were carried, it would produce an injurious effect on the Minor Theatres; by exposing them to prosecutions from the patentees of the regular Theatres. But that was a consequence which he did not apprehend. The hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving "for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the third and fourth clauses of Act 10 Geo. 2nd., c. 28, which empowers the Lord Chamberlain to prohibit the acting of any new play or entertainment on the stage."

observed, that as he had been connected for a considerable period with one of the great theatres, he wished to say a few words on the present occasion, although he was extremely reluctant to do that when the press of business was so urgent. The hon. Member was misinformed when he stated that compromises took place between the patentees of the large, and the owners of the minor theatres. No such thing occurred, and each of them stood upon his own rights. He could also assure him that the Patent Theatres had no wish respecting his Motion one way or the other. He was sorry not to see in his place, the Paymaster of the Forces, for he would be able to corroborate that statement. The Act of 10th Geo. 2nd, commonly and properly called the Playhouse Act, was opposed at the time only by the celebrated Lord Chesterfield, who had found a successor in the hon. member for Maldon. The speech of that noble Lord was certainly an able one; but if he remembered correctly, it dealt more in exaggeration than most speeches delivered in the other House. Nothing less was prognosticated by him from passing the bill, than the downfall of the stage, a prediction which certainly had not been verified. The hon. member for Maldon had fallen into one error. He stated, that a Clown was prosecuted for calling out "Roast Beef;" but the fact was, that the prosecution was instituted under a later Act than the one under discussion, for playing in a theatre unlicensed, except for singing and dancing, which the Royalty, where this took place, was. His hon. friend did not seem to be aware that if he repealed the 10th Geo. 2nd, he would not effect his object, for there were other Acts which regulated theatres. He would not go at any length into precedents, to show that plays had long been licensed, and that fees were paid before the license was passed; but perhaps a few statements on the point might not be considered uncalled-for, Gibber tells us, that when George 1st granted a patent to judge of plays to Sir Richard Steele, the Master of the Revels still claimed his customary fee of 2l. and as the fee was only 2l. 2s. at present, even the hon. member for Aberdeen must admit, taking the change in the value of money into consideration, that the increase had not been too great. Gibber gave several instances of the payment of these fees, although he at first resisted them on the ground of his patent. His authority was strong in favour of the right to exact fees. The Playhouse Act certainly mentioned no payments of that kind, and their defence must therefore rest upon custom previous to the passing of the Act. All which that law required was, that a dramatic work should be laid before the Lord Chamberlain fourteen days previous to its intended performance, and it imposed no other penalty than one for performing the piece before it had been sent, or for afterwards keeping in anything that the licenser had prohibited as immoral or improper. How the fee came to be transferred from the Master of the Revels to the Licenser he was not aware, but the former office was only abolished by Mr. Burke's bill. The censorship of the stage, however, had always existed, from the earliest times. Lord Chesterfield prognosticated that if the stage were put under the control of the Lord Chamberlain it would be used for party purposes. That certainly might have been fairly anticipated at the time, and that it had not happened might perhaps be attributed, in some degree, to his Lordship's speech. Since the passing of that Act, the stage had never been used by any party; but previous to that period, at the lime of Dryden, it was perpetually used as the instrument of both parties. "The Duke of Guise," "Amboyna," and Shadwell's "Lancashire Witches," were all party plays. As far therefore as experience went, the Act might be said, in this respect, to have had a beneficial effect. It was asked, why restrain the stage any more than the press? It should be remembered, that what was written one day in a pamphlet or newspaper, might be answered in another on the next day, and that writing was addressed to those who, from being able to read, might be supposed to exercise some degree of reason upon what was brought before them; but a play was addressed immediately to the passions of the multitude, and in a time of popular excitement, might so work upon their feelings, as to inflame them to commit acts immediately endangering the public peace. With respect to the Motion he would only say, that if it were the pleasure of the House to give leave to bring in the Bill prayed for, he should not object to it; but Parliament would do well to pause before it consented to rescind an Act which had been in force many years without inflicting any injury on the liberty of the subject, while it had certainly been of much benefit to morality.

concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Looking at the state of the stage before and after the passing of the Act, there was nothing to induce the House to remove the censorship. He confessed he had not the confidence which the hon. Mover had in the good taste of the public; and was by no means satisfied that, but for the Censorship, immoral and blasphemous dramas would not be received with applause; neither did he believe that the common law would be found sufficient to repress the licentiousness of the stage. he was the more induced to entertain these opinions from the manner in which the horrid murder committed by Thurtell, with all its dreadful details, was represented on a minor stage, almost immediately after its occurrence. The hon. member for Maldon had alluded to Lord Chesterfield's speech. There was one part of that speech to which he begged the particular attention of the hon. Member, namely, that part of it in which Lord Chesterfield had objected to bringing in the bill at so late a period of the Session. Lord Chesterfield had predicted that the passing of the Act in question would, in its consequences, be injurious to the liberty of the Press. The result, however, had shown that the noble Lord was entirely mistaken on that point. The Deputy Licenser, Mr. Colman, had been charged by the hon. Gentleman with fastidiousness; but was the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the dramatic taste of the people of England was so pure that it might be left without control? And what was the substitute for that authority recommended by the hon. Gentleman? A committee of Magistrates—of Police—or at best, county Magistrates! For all these reasons, but especially because he objected to bringing in such a bill as the present at so late a period of the Session as the 25th of May, he must oppose the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

could not understand why the stage was not to be supposed to have become sufficiently purified to be left without Censorship. In all other branches of literature a purification of taste had taken place. Of this the celebrated novel of Tom Jones was a proof. No such work would be tolerated in the present day.

having intimated that he would not object to the hon. Member for Maldon's bringing in a bill at as early a period in the next Session as he might think proper,—the Motion was negatived without a division.

said, that he rose to second the Motion of his hon. friend with the greatest pleasure, from the perfect concurrence which he felt in his views. The principal difficulty he experienced in arguing the point was, to anticipate by what arguments the adoption of the Resolutions could be opposed. The principles they enunciated were become so much axioms in the science of politics, as to have been long since placed, in this country at least, beyond dispute. They affirmed the importance of separating the legislative and executive from the judicial functions; the importance of giving independence to judges, and a national character to the higher branch of the legislature of a free colony. Upon the first point, he should content himself with the authorities of Paley and Blackstone; the former having said, "The first maxim of a free state is, that the laws be made by one set of men, and administered by another; in other words, that the legislative and judicial characters should be kept distinct." The words of Blackstone were equally impressive:—"Nothing is more to be avoided in a free constitution, than uniting the provinces of a Judge and Minister of State." This much-reprobated union of incompatible characters prevailed in the greatest degree in Canada. As the House had heard from his hon. friend, the same person advised in the morning in the Executive Council, that certain laws should be proposed, voted upon them in the afternoon in the Legislative Council, and administered them in the evening on the bench. Nor was that merely a theoretical evil,—the greatest practical evils had already resulted from it—the Judgeshad been converted into active political partizans;—they talked in the legis- tature of the way in which they meant to interpret the laws upon the bench; and all confidence in the purity of the administration of justice, in cases where the government was a party, had been destroyed. Nor had less mischief arisen from the practice which prevailed in that colony,—so different from that which was intended by the framers of its constitution,—of filling the Legislative Councils, the second branch of the Legislature with a majority of placemen, unconnected by ties of birth and property with the interests of the colony, and therefore inspiring no confidence whatever in the independence of their deliberations. All the advantage which could be expected from a constitution formed upon the British model of an equipoise of powers had been lost. The government had, in the main, consisted of two jarring powers—the House of Assembly and the Governor; the Legislative Council being generally considered merely as the convenient organ by which he expressed his will. And here he must express a slight difference of opinion from his hon. friend, who represented that as uniformly the case. Would to heaven it were so! Then fewer obstacles would be thrown in the way of the wise and benevolent intentions of the present Governor, and more of the recommendations of the Canada Committee would, by this time, have been carried into effect. He was afraid, however, that the unwise course pursued for ten years by a former administration, had contrived to raise up a little faction of official personages in the Council, who had too often succeeded in representing themselves as the real English party in the Colony, and who resisted the wishes, and shackled the judgment even of the Governor, when directed to the reform of abuses, of which they were the authors and by which they profited. They reminded him of that little faction in Ireland, which used to play the same part, under the assumption of the same title, and which succeeded but too well in deceiving the judgment, and defeating the benevolence of the English Government. He might notice another point of similarity to that misgoverned country. All offices of trust were reserved for the professors of the Established Religion, who formed a small minority of the inhabitants; and though four-fifths of the population were of French origin, as they professed the Catholic faith, only seven French names out of the twenty-seven appeared upon the lists of the Legislative Council. If independence and a character of nationality were not to be given to the Legislative Council, it had better be abolished altogether. Without these attributes, it would only be an useless clog to the wheels of government; supplying an additional chance of difficulty and collision. As it was constituted, every dispute between the two houses, was a dispute between the colony and the mother country. Such a system he was confident, would not be defended by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. What objection, then, could be made to the propositions before the House? The right hon. Gentleman might say, perhaps, that he was already proceeding upon the principles which they enunciate; that they were therefore unnecessary, and that it appeared like a reflection upon him to call upon the House to affirm them. This argument would be well enough, if the measures he was pursuing in Canada were of that rapid and decisive character as to sweep away at once all the abuses complained of, and practically to declare to the colony, that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the principles of the Resolutions. But his proceedings were gradual unaccompanied by any general declarations of the principles on which they were conducted, unfitted to heal the wounds which had been so long rankling, and to appease the feelings of dissatisfaction which had been so long and so justly excited. Besides, the Canadians wanted to have a pledge, not only from the Ministers of the day, but from Parliament itself, which should shut the door against a return, by any future Minister, to the exploded system, and restore confidence to the colony, by a public and authentic declaration. It would require all that could be done in that way to make palatable to the colony the measure which the right hon. Secretary had brought into the House, avowedly for the purpose of conciliation, but which was unfortunately in the teeth of a recent resolution of the popular branch of the Canadian Legislature. The Canadians wanted that the Judges should not be dependent on the Crown; and to make them independent of the Canadians was the object of what the right hon. Gentleman expected to be a healing measure. He expressed, in conclusion, his hearty concurrence in the Resolutions proposed by his hon. friend.

addressed the House, in vindication of the conduct of his Majes- ty's Government. He began by complimenting the hon. Gentleman by whom the Resolutions were moved, on the moderation of the tone in which he brought them forward, and the manner in which he pressed them upon the adoption of the House. It had been contended on the other side, he said, that the recommendation of the committee was not acted on by the Government; but he thought the most decisive answer to that would be found in the papers laid upon the Table of the House. From them it could not but be apparent, that those recommendations had been fully acted upon, so far as circumstances al- lowed, and where insufficiency of information delayed the Government, it had had recourse to the Governor to supply that want, and was then waiting for further information from him. As a proof that his Majesty's Government at home was not influenced by any undue desire to fill the Legislative Council with persons holding office at the pleasure of the Crown, he should just mention the fact, that three vacancies had recently occurred in the Legislative Assembly, and those vacancies had been filled up with the names of three gentlemen, not one of whom held office undertheCrown—gentlemen recommended by the Governor as persons who, from their rank and station, their characters and abilities were well qualified for the honours and the privileges appertaining to a seat in that Assembly; and he begged to offer the fullest assurances to the House that, in future, vacancies would be filled up in a similar manner. He fully admitted that the Judges, with the exception of the Chief Justice, ought to be excepted from the list of the Legislative Council, and he was enabled to state, that recently, gentlemen appointed to the Bench resigned their places in the Legislative Council. Again, it was rather hard to censure the manner in which seats in that Assembly were filled, without making allowance for the difficulty of finding an aristocracy in a Colony settled under such circumstances as that of Lower Canada, or, indeed, in any colony at all. Besides, that difficulty arose out of causes that now, he hoped, had passed away. There had been a period when the feelings and conduct of the Government at home had been guided by considerations which he hoped hereafter would have no influence. He alluded to the differences on religious matters, which, until very recently, produced important effects upon all the political proceedings of this country. Those feelings naturally spread themselves outwards towards our Colonies. There were besides those impediments to improvement of the institutions of that colony, the difficulty which arose from the population of the colony being made up both of French and English. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the appointment of Judges during good behaviour deserved the highest praise, as a general principle, and ought to be adhered to wherever practicable; but he much doubted the advantage of carrying that principle into full operation in Canada. He must be allowed to say, that all his experience respecting that colony and others led him to that conclusion. There was extreme difficulty in getting Judges for our colonies—men whose fitness could be regarded as certain. The Government was, accordingly, often compelled to send out persons scarcely qualified for those situations; and if, upon trial, it was found they were unfit, it was highly important that the power of removing them should be vested in the Crown. In the mother country the case was different. There it was easy to secure the services of Judges well qualified, and the independence of such persons was highly to be desired but in the colonies the case was altogether different. In order to show that the Legislative Council was not so dependent upon the Government as had been alleged, he instanced the case of the Supply Bill last year, and another case, in both of which considerable opposition was raised to the measures of the Government, and the Council was divided into the supporters and the opponents of the Executive. He should oppose the Resolutions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, for he thought the situation of the colony did not call for any such expression of opinion on the part of the House; he should oppose them too, as conveying an implied censure upon the Government. The second Resolution went to stigmatise, most unjustly, the Legislative Council; and as to the third, he must say, that his Majesty's Government had lost no opportunity of improving the judicial body in that colony. He con- eluded by moving the previous question.

did not by any means agree in the conclusion to which the- right hon. Secretary had come on this subject. On the contrary, the whole tenor of his speech went to support the Resolutions. The only point on which the right hon. Gentleman differed from his hon. friend who brought forward the subject, related to the dependence of the Judges on the Crown; but that question did not enter into the Resolutions. Upon the main point adverted to, there was no difference of opinion. His hon. friend contended, that the Judges ought not to hold places in the Legislative Council and in the Executive at the same time; and the right hon. Gentleman admitted this was highly improper—but he objected to the Resolutions, as tending to throw a stigma on the Government. For himself he must say, that the line of conduct pursued by the right hon. Gentleman towards this colony since he came into office was by no means deserving of censure—on the contrary, the despatch which had been laid on the Table, did great credit to his judgment; he did not blame the Government for its positive acts, but for its omissions; there had been too much delay in carrying into effect the recommendations of the Canada Committee. The people of Canada could not be satisfied for ever with expectations. Something ought to be done, and first the recommendation of the committee ought to be complied with, and the legislature put in that position in which, according to every principle of a free constitution, it ought to rest. The right hon. Secretary said, it was not in the power of the Government to remove those holding office under the Crown from the Legislative Councils, because their nomination was for life; but the Government had the power of removing those persons from the situations they held in the Executive, which was the most important consideration of the two. Let the Governor assure those who held office and also places in the Council, that the permanent possession of a seat in the Council must render them incapable of holding office under the Crown, and then the matter might be speedily and safely arranged. When the right hon. Secretary said, that the recommendation of the committee, with respect to the Judges, could not be carried into effect because the Judges could not be deprived of their places, the holding of which was unconstitutional he acted rather too strictly according to the letter of the Constitution, and too little in accordance with its spirit It was the principle of our Constitution and he wished to see it acted on for Canada, that the people should govern themselves, and that the Legislature should not resist the unanimous wishes of the people. With regard to the resolutions casting a slur on the Legislative Councils, he did not think that their language would bear such an interpretation. For his own part, he wished to say nothing harsh or severe of the persons composing the Legislative Councils, he was not sufficiently acquainted with their proceedings to characterize their conduct strongly, but from what he knew of them he had not formed a very favourable opinion of their temper or spirit. He had not heard one reason against the principle of the resolutions—not one reason to convince him that it would not be expedient to agree to them, as the recorded opinions of that House; and viewing them in that light, he meant to give them his most hearty support.

did not wish to prolong a discussion on which so little substantial difference seemed to have arisen. It was his intention to do no more than express his satisfaction at the statement just made by the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies. As a member of the Canada Committee, he begged to remind the House, that when the Committee recommended that Judges should not hold seats in the Legislative Council, it intended that the principle should be brought progressively into operation; and not that those Judges, now holding seats, should be immediately removed. That principle had been fully recognised by his Majesty's Government. The right hon. Secretary said, he concurred in the recommendation of the Committee, and he must congratulate Canada upon that declaration, as it was a pledge that his Majesty's Government meant to act on the recommendations of the Committee. He felt himself pledged to the resolutions proposed, because they embodied the principles of the Report agreed to by the Committee; but he did not wish those resolutions to be passed, because he thought with the right hon. Gentleman, that they conveyed a censure on the Government which it did not deserve. He should be sorry to see those resolutions passed, because, although they expressed the unanimous feelings of the House, and the opinion of Government as to Canada, yet he felt himself called upon to vote against them on the grounds stated by the right hon. Secretary. The second resolution was, he thought, in its language decidedly objectionable.

thought, the way to preserve the important line of coast which we possessed in Canada was, not by fortifications, but by conciliating the people. He thought the people of that colony entitled to all the advantages of a connection with this country, and all the benefits of local Governments combined—they ought to have a free and independent Constitution. Their Government was formed upon the model of the British Constitution, and means should be taken to assimilate it to that of this country, by connecting the Legislative Council with the people of the colony. Now, it was impossible that the people of Canada could look with confidence to a Council composed of persons in the service of the Crown, and removable at pleasure. Notwithstanding what might be said to the contrary, he would maintain that those Resolutions were founded upon the Report of the Canada Committee, and for that as well as other reasons they should have his support. He thought it most desirable that the House should adopt them.

conceived, that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance given by Ministers. When any reasonable doubt could be entertained of their professions, it would be time enough to call in the authority of the House; he therefore recommended that, for the present, the Resolutions should be postponed; They would, he feared, mar the good effects of the measures of Government in Canada.

thought, that the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Resolutions proposed by his hon. friend, demanded some observation. He thought it would be difficult for any person to object to these Resolutions who did not object to the principle; and accordingly, the right hon. Secretary did not object, either to the principle or the Resolutions; but he objected to the time when they were brought forward. The principle contained in them involved nothing less than the existence of a free constitution in Canada. The sooner the House distinctly declared its opinion on that subject the better, and every moment that was delayed was improperly lost. The House was at length called upon to act in the true spirit of conciliation towards the Canadas, and he did hope, that it would proceed to a settlement of the differences in Canada, in a satisfactory manner. But where was the utility of proceeding according to the plan of the Government? How could the House expect any good or great results to flow from what the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had promised to do, if it left the constitution of the Legislative Council as at present? That Council was the mere tool of Government. Suppose a bill should pass the House of Assembly, and be objected to in the Legislative Council, as long as the majority of the members of that council held places under the Crown, the objections to such a bill would be considered as coming, not from a body of independent individuals representing the interests of the inhabitants of the colony, but from the Governor himself, and that would bring into discussion the question of English connexion, and English Government. All the difficulties, then, which must result from the seat of government being removed to a distance would be increased; and if the House did not adopt measures to alter the character of the Legislative Council, and to remove that impression which its existing constitution made on the inhabitants of Canada, great inconvenience, and effects still more to be deplored, must follow. The right hon. Secretary had spoken of the great difficulty of making the Judges in the colonies independent of the government. Their small salaries gave rise in part to this. It was further said, that they might mix themselves up in the party politics, and party proceedings, of the colony; and therefore, that it was necessary for the Government to retain the power of removing them, when it thought fit. But these dangers existed already. The dependence of the Judges on the Government, combined with their possession of seats in the Legislative Council, detracted from the purity of principle which should distinguish the judicial character; and these Judges were more likely to mix themselves up with party politics at present, and to exhibit a particular bias in such party cases, as might come before them, than they would be if the nature of their appointment were changed. He thought that his hon. friend would do right to persist in his Resolutions. There had been two long years of delay, expectation, and suspense. He hoped that the Legislature would then come to a determination upon the question, so that the people of Canada might know what the Government and Parliament intended to do. This was not a case regarding a foreign nation or a foreign connexion; but one respecting a portion of the subjects of this country, many of whom had not, many generations back, gone to settle there; a country where liberty was enjoyed to a greater extent, and with greater advantages than even in England. The report to which allusion had been already made, the report presented to the Congress of the United States, put that matter in a favourable point of view for the Canadas. We were accustomed to speak of the United States as enjoying the greatest freedom in the world; but in that report the people of Canada were held up to the citizens of the United States, as objects of emulation and rivalship; a comparison was there drawn between the condition of the people respectively, in the two countries; and, both as regarded commerce and taxation, the comparison was greatly in favour of the Canadas. His hon. friend was blamed when he first brought the question of Canada before Parliament. But now that the matter had been investigated by a committee; and a concurrence in its views obtained from the Government, now that the measures adopted had been the means of producing great benefit in that colony, encouraging the people of Canada to place the greatest confidence in this country, after all that had occurred, it was but justice to his lion, friend opposite, to give him credit for the exertions, that were originally blamed. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Resolutions to a division, and he should have his cordial support.

thought, that the thanks of the House were due to his hon. friend, for having brought forward his Resolutions, and to his right hon. friend, for the manner in which he had shown his willingness to carry the Resolutions of the Committee into effect. It was essential that those Resolutions should be followed up, in order to show that there was no intention of having one government at home and another abroad; and he trusted that they should never again hear it contended that the Colonies were not to enjoy the principles of our Constitution, He main- tained, that it was one great principle of that Constitution, to keep those possessed of the judicial function severed from the legislative body. Three measures, however, which had been touched upon that night, were deserving of eulogy, viz. the relaxation of the commercial policy of this country with regard to the Colony, the appointment of the Committee of that House, and the appointment of Sir James Kemp. With regard to the Resolutions of the hon. Gentleman, he was glad that he had introduced them, though for himself he was satisfied with the declarations that had been made by his right hon. friend on the subject; for he could not entertain a doubt that those declarations contained a pledge with respect to future Governments; and he should be glad to know who that Secretary of State would be, who should hereafter come forward and avow that he was prepared to deviate from those declarations. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman should think it right to withdraw his Motion, he for one was prepared to accede to such a course; but if he thought it his duty to persevere, he, on the other hand, would certainly vote for the Motion; and he might observe, that it would perhaps have been more convenient, if the Government had itself last Session proposed some such measure, [cries of "Question, Question."]

said, he would take that, opportunity of expressing a hope that no more time should be lost, for every moment that was lost reduced the chance of doing good. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, however, he thought that it was but justice to say, that he seemed to have done every thing that the time would permit. To pass the Resolutions would be unfair towards the Government; he regretted that they had been proposed, and he hoped that they would not be adopted.

said [amidst many marks of impatience in the House] he hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division, for the purpose of satisfying the people of Canada that there was a party in that House that took an interest in their welfare. He said this, because he knew that the eyes of the people of Canada were turned on that House. Some hon. Members might not take that interest which he and others did in this matter, but as he held in his hand an address from the inhabitants of Canada, complaining that nothing had been done towards satisfying them, he thought that the House was bound to give this subject its most serious attention. He resisted the idea that Government had done any thing; on the contrary, it had lost two years in carrying into effect the recommendation of the Committee. In addition to all their other grievances, he thought that this country did wrong in pressing upon Canada a dominant Church. The Canadians, however, were roused to a sense of the injustice that had been done them, and he trusted that they would never quit the agitation of the subject, till they obtained their rights.

suggested to the House, whether it would not be better to take such a course as would induce the people of Canada to look, not to any particular individuals who might happen to be in office, but to the people of England as represented in that House. He therefore trusted that his hon. friend would persist in his Motion, not for the purpose of holding out to Canada that there was a party ready to take their case under its protection, but to show them that there was a principle in Parliament, and a general feeling also, that the grievances of the Canadians ought not to be less considered in that House than the grievances of the people of England.

said, he had been asked, whether he did not think that the Judges ought to be independent of the Crown? This was a difficult question to answer in general, as much depended on the nature of society, on the state of the Colony, and on the nature of the inducements held out to men to accept judicial situations. The great point to be aimed at was, a pure and impartial administration of justice in the Colony. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolutions that had been proposed to the House, had supported them in a manner which indicated that it was necessary to force his right hon. friend to adopt the recommendation of the Committee; but it had already been pointed out by his right hon. friend, that he had not only adopted the principle, but had actually carried it into practice, by seizing the opportunity afforded by three vacancies to appoint the successors in accordance with the suggestion of the Committee. As the Resolutions were meant to apply a stimulus to the Government, which his right hon. friend had shown that the Government did not need; that was, he thought, a sufficient reason why the House, which must, under such circumstances, wish to avoid the appearance of censuring the Government, should not adopt the Resolutions. There were, however, two other reasons. First, as the Resolutions referred to the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, the House ought to proceed by addressing the Crown to abstain from exercising that prerogative, and not by coming to the proposed Resolutions. The Act regulating the Canadas gave the power to the Crown, and if the House wished to restrain that power, it would be proper to proceed by a legislative measure. To the Resolutions of that House the other House of Parliament could not be a party; and therefore, what was intended to alter the prerogative should be done by a measure in which the whole Legislature could concur. Another reason was, that the Crown had exercised its prerogative, and had appointed a Council, and in that Council were several persons dependent on the Government, as well as Judges; and a Resolution of that House, condemning the formation of that Council, would not add to its respect in the Canadas. He thought it would not be wise, therefore, for the House of Commons to come to such a Resolution. He desired to see the Colonies prosperous; and he was convinced they would long be of use to the mother-country, by remaining connected with her by the ties of affection; and it was only by those ties, which he wished to see strengthened, that we could secure their assistance and good-will.

in moving that the Petition from the Tobacco Manufacturers of London, Westminster, and Southwark, praying for Repayment of the Duty which had been paid on Stock prior to July 5, 1825, and presented on February 17, be referred to a Committee, observed, that he made that Motion from a conviction impressed on his mind, as well as on the minds of the petitioners, that such a course would be advantageous. The petitioners before brought forward their case, and he regretted to state, that in their opinion it was not attended to in that quarter to which they naturally had recourse. In order to make the case of the petitioners intelligible, it might be necessary for him to state, that they were manufacturers of an article, the first cost of which bore no proportion to the duty. The duty on Tobacco, in fact, was equal to 1,600 per cent on the prime cost. Under these circumstances, it was quite evident that there must be at all times a great anxiety on the part of the manufacturers of Tobacco, to know whether any alteration was intended to be made in the duty. Accordingly, early in the year 1825, applications were made to the Government, to ascertain that point, and the Tobacco manufacturers were informed that it was not the intention of the Government to make any alteration. Owing to these assurances, the manufacturers were induced to lay in their stocks, paying duty to the amount of 4s. per pound; but, by some neglect, the duty of 1s. in the pound, the last duty laid on Tobacco, was not renewed, and the duty payable by law amounted only to 3s. per pound; being 25 per cent less than the duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it was the intention of the Government to continue. On the 2nd of August 1825, it was discovered that, by an omission of the annual Act of Parliament, the Government had been improperly receiving 4s. in the pound duty subsequent to the 5th of July; the duty payable by law being 1s. less than it was the preceding year. The Government was, of course, bound to return the excess of duty received subsequent to the 5th of July; and it did so, but very large sums were lost by those who purchased their stocks previous to the 5th of July, on the assurance that no alteration was contemplated. The loss certainly fell on but a few persons, but it was very hard on those few. One of the petitioners, whom he knew, lost a very large sum of money by these means. Representations had been made by the manufacturers to his Majesty's Government on the subject; but they had not been attended to. It was not necessary for him to enter further into the particulars of this case, as he thought that he had sufficiently stated the grounds on which he asked the House to sanction the appoint- ment of a Select Committee. The case of the petitioners had not been sufficiently and effectually investigated, and the only way in which it could be was by the appointment of a Select Committee. He had no doubt that, from the hands of such a committee, the petitioners would obtain that justice they had so often claimed, but which hitherto they had been so unfortunate as not to obtain at the hands of his Majesty's Government. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved "That the said Petition be referred to a Select Committee, to examine the matter thereof, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."

said, he was far from thinking that a Select Committee was necessary in this case, and he hoped that he should satisfy the House, that the question lay in so narrow a compass, and the facts were so plain and simple, that it might come to a decision at once, without the intervention of a committee, as to whether the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted. As his hon. friend had stated, in the year 1825, by an accident, the duty on Tobacco, which it was intended to continue at 4s. was fixed at 3s. per lb.; and the statement of the petitioners was, that as they were induced to lay in a stock, by the assurance of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that as they had paid the full duty of 4s. on the stock in hand, twenty-five per cent should be returned to them. The petitioners, in consequence of this supposed claim, applied to Viscount Goderich, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Representations had also been made to his right hon. friend near him, when he held the office; similar representations were, he believed, made to Mr. Canning; and repeated applications had been made to himself. The question had been so often discussed, that he had replied to the petitioners, that it was not thought necessary to disturb the decision already come to by the Treasury. In giving that answer, no disrespect whatever was intended to the petitioners, but a decision having been come to, after full deliberation, he should not have been justified in departing from that decision, confirmed as it was by the views of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. It might be well to consider a little on what principle the petition claimed the return of the duty paid by them on the stocks which they had on hand previous to the 5th of July 1825. It had usually been considered proper, that when a duty was lowered, the manufacturer should have the surplus duty on the stock in hand returned to him, or be allowed sufficient time to get rid of it. In the year 1819, when the duty on tobacco was increased from 3s. 2d. per lb. to 4s. no charge was made on the manufacturers for the stock in hand. They had the advantage of buying it at 3s. 2d. to sell at 4s. and now when the duty was reduced from 4s. to 3s. what claim had they that the difference should be returned to them? But there was even a stronger case against them. The duty of 4s. ceased on the 5th of July, and the error was not discovered until the month of August. Up to the month of August, therefore, the petitioners were selling this Tobacco to the public under the impression that the duty was 4s. per lb. Every pound sold to the public previous to the 2nd of August, was charged as if the duty were 4s. per lb.; but yet, when the mistake was discovered, the manufacturers were returned the whole of the duty which had been erroneously received. The sum returned, was between 59,000l. and 60,000l., although the manufacturers had received in retail, the whole sum charged in the interval between the reduction of the duty, and the discovery of the mistake. The manufacturers charged the public the full duty of 4s. and recovered back what they had paid above 3s. Under those circumstances, the House would come to the conclusion, he hoped, that the petitioners had no just ground for the claim they had made, and would agree with him, that there was no ground for referring a question so simple to a committee. In his opinion, the claim of the petitioners was not entitled to any further consideration than it had already received.

said, that he was not a little surprised at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had met this Motion. He alleged, as a reason for doing injustice in 1825, that no additional charge had been made on the manufacturers for the stock in hand, when the duty was raised from 3s. 2d. to 4s. in 1819. What had the manufacturers of 1825 to do with the manufacturers of 1819? They were not the same persons. The case of the manufacturers of 1825 was this; upon the express assurance of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no al- teration would take place, they laid in large stocks; and subsequently, contrary to the assurances on which they acted, the duty was reduced 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the excess of duty paid between the 5th of July and the 2nd of August, had been returned. That duty was received contrary to law, and the Government was bound to return it, so that the right hon. Gentleman must not take any credit for the return of that duty. Nor was the sum returned all profit to the manufacturers. They were bound to make allowances to retail dealers all over the country, to whom they had retailed tobacco subsequent to the 8th of July, and before the mistake was discovered. He would undertake to prove, that between 50,000l. and 60,000l. had been lost by the manufacturers. Tobacco required only three days to manufacture it, but snuff took nearly six months. During the whole time, therefore, that the snuff manufactured from tobacco, purchased under the circumstances he had stated, was in a state of preparation, the manufacturer was losing 25 per cent. He did not. propose that this House should vote an allowance to the parties who had suffered this loss, but if the House granted a committee, he had no doubt that the opinion of that committee would be, that Government was bound to make good the actual loss suffered by the petitioners. The situation in life of these petitioners, and their commercial respectability, certainly made him desirous of taking the opinion of the House on the subject.

opposed the Bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read a third time that day six months.

argued in favour of the Bill. It was only intended to carry into complete execution the principle adopted by that House of admitting Catholics to the offices of the State as well as Protestants.

opposed the Bill, as giving the whole power of the Corporation of Galway into the hands of Catholics.

objected to the Bill, that it robbed the corporation of a portion of its privileges. The Charter of that town was violated by the Act of George 1st, and this Bill, instead of restoring it, was a further violation of the charter. He would vote against it.