moved for a Return of the number of persons killed and wounded in Ireland in the various contests with the police.

said, it was impossible that any such return could be made. The number of killed might be known, but there were no means of ascertaining the number of wounded.

expressed his surprise to find, that the lives of the people were of so little value in Ireland that the Government could give no satisfactory account of the results of the contests in which they were sacrificed.

said, that the number of killed in the affrays, between the constabulary force armed on one side, and the people also armed on the other, were ascertained by the return of the Coroner, who inquired into the cause of death; but it must be known to every man that no account was taken of the number of wounded. He begged at the same time to express his opinion, that the constabulary force was most efficient as a body, and he believed, most sincerely, that to their good conduct and meritorious exertions, the preservation of the peace of Ireland was mainly to be attributed.

presented a Petition from Cocker-mouth, praying for Reform, and declaring that Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot were necessary for the salvation of the country. The petitioners also said, and he thought their words prophetic, that vengeance would speedily fall on the heads of those who lent themselves to the oppression of the people. The Government was as imbecile as it was mischievous, for it had put into the mouth of one of the most popular Sovereigns who had ever sat on the Throne, a Speech which could have no other effect than to make him disliked by his subjects. What else, however, could they expect when there was insanity at the helm? He said insanity, and he was justified in saying it, because the Premier, but one year before his elevation, declared that he should be mad if he thought himself capable of filling the situation of Prime Minister of this country. He had since accepted that situation, and, therefore, he (Mr. O'Connell) felt he was at liberty to say that insanity ruled over the destinies of the nation.

, although one of the most ardent friends of liberty, felt himself called on to protest against the sentiments of the hon. member for Waterford, and to deprecate the use of expressions which he considered abominable, and language which he must characterise as most offensive. As one of those who had always proved themselves the friends of liberty both in and out of that House, he deprecated the use of such language; and hoped the hon. Member would refrain from using it in future.

said, that if his Majesty's Ministers were thought to be unworthy of the confidence of the House and the country, it was in the power of the Members to express that opinion, and effect their removal; but he thought that it would be derogatory to the character of Parliament to take any notice of language such as that now addressed to them.

justified the expression he had used. What else was it but adopting the Duke of Wellington's own words?

repeated his hope that the hon. Member would, for the future, preserve a greater temperance of language, although he might feel as strongly as he liked.

was much surprised, that the hon. member for Waterford, if he felt so strongly averse from the language of the Speech from the Throne, had not recorded that feeling more effectually, by taking the sense of the House on the subject when that Speech was under its consideration the other night, and when he had the opportunity of ascertaining the feelings of the Members in one of the most numerous assemblies ever congregated on such an occasion. He protested against a declaration such as they had heard from the hon. Member, so immediately after he had given his assent to an Address in reply to the Speech which he so heavily condemned. He did not, however, protest so much against the language of the hon. Member, nor was he disposed to read him a friendly lecture, like the member for Northumberland (Mr. Beaumont); but he protested against such attacks being directed against the members of his Majesty's Government, at a moment when there was not one of the persons attacked in the House to reply to them.

, on the part of all those who dissented from the terms of the Speech from the Throne, protested on his part against the conclusion of the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty, that they or the House were at all pledged to the principles of the Speech, because they allowed the Address to pass without opposition. Even the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, had expressly declared that the House was not pledged to the terms of the Speech by agreeing to the formality of an Address, He believed, indeed, that the language of that Speech, and the declaration respecting Reform, which followed it, had armed new opponents against the Ministry, and that many of the greatest friends of the Government were disposed to withdraw from it their support. What confidence, indeed, could the country have in such a Government? What could be expected from a Ministry which left the destinies of Ireland in the hands of an individual? For that they were so was plain, from the admissions made in that House. That hon. Member had been charged with an attempt to produce a rebellion, and he had replied with a modesty, peculiar to himself, and which he had no doubt was perfectly well founded—"No, I did not excite the people to rebellion; I prevented a rebellion." The Government, however, which left in the power of an individual the means of exciting or preventing a rebellion was unworthy of the confidence of the House or of the country. He trusted that the hon. Secretary would learn more accurately what took place in the House before he again reproved hon. Members for inconsistency.

said, that so far from being open to the censure contained in the speech of the hon. Secretary, he had actually seconded the Amendment to the Address moved by the noble member for Woodstock.

said, that his observations applied not to the fact of the hon. Member having spoken against the Address, and seconded the Amendment, of which he was aware, but to the fact that he had not ventured to take the sense of the House on that Amendment.

said, that he came up to town with a strong disposition to look with favour on the acts of the Government during the present crisis, but the declaration respecting reform had totally changed his opinions. The Duke of Wellington, Prince of Waterloo, had, like his brother Minister, Prince Polignac, issued his Ordinances against Reform, and was determined to abide the issue, in spite of the opinions of the people.

, in moving for a Return of the Expenses of the Management of the Crown Lands, and an Account of the number of Leases granted, Fines paid, and Sales made, whether privately or by public auction, since the year 1786, begged at the same time to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was to understand that the announcement in his Majesty's Speech respecting the relinquishment of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, applied to those of Cornwall and Lancaster?

said, that his Majesty's resignation of the hereditary revenues of the Crown did not comprise those of Cornwall and Lancaster, because those of Cornwall never became the property of the Crown, unless when there was no Heir-apparent of the Throne; and the revenues of Lancaster had been, from a very early period, subject to peculiar regulations, totally independent of its authority.

said, he had a Resolution to submit to the House, but as he had not had an opportunity of communicating its purport to the Tight hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel), he should take leave to ropose it to the House, and leave it open to any objection, on the subject of want of notice, which might be made against it. The Resolution was to this effect:—"That every Member of that House be forth with directed to make a return, to the best of his knowledge and belief, of the number of Voters in the City or Borough which he represents, and whether they are all partially, or in what proportion, residents of the place he represents—whether he himself holds any office, civil, military, or otherwise—whether there are any and what duties attached to such place or office, and what are their nature and extent."

said, he required no notice on the subject of such a Motion, as he was at once prepared to give it a decided negative.

asked, if the hon. Member had any objection to divide his Motion into parts. If not, he was prepared to support the latter part of it, although he could not consent to entail on the Members of that House the onerous and impracticable task demanded in the first part.

also observed, that the returning officers of Boroughs and Cities were the only persons possessed of the information which the hon. Member required by the first part of the Motion. In many places a contest had not taken place for years, and how, in such a case, was the Member to obtain information with respect to the residency or number of the voters?

withdrew the Motion, with the understanding that he would renew it in another shape.

wished, before the House went into a Committee of Supply, to put a question to the right hon. Secretary of State. Although his Majesty's Speech abstained from all allusion to the topic, the right hon. Gentleman could not deny the existence of the greatest distress throughout the country; a distress, indeed, so deep and extensive, that unless means were taken to mitigate it, the most serious and alarming consequences might ensue. He was anxious to ascertain whether or not it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to propose the appointment of a Select Committee, to take the national distress into considera- tion, and to endeavour to devise some plan for its alleviation. It was a subject which demanded the immediate notice of his Majesty's Government, and he should be happy to learn what steps Ministers meant to take respecting it. He regretted to see a passage in his Majesty's Speech which alluded to additional coercive measures; and he sincerely trusted that no such measures would be proposed.

rose to answer the question which the hon. Gentleman had put to him. It was not his intention to propose the appointment of a committee to take into consideration the general distress of the country. As to the specific measures which his Majesty's Ministers intended to adopt, he hoped that their whole policy would show the disposition which they entertained to advance the prosperity of the country; although it could not be expected that he should now enumerate the precise measures that they might take. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that any part of his Majesty's Speech alluded to measures of coercion. What his Majesty stated was, that he would exert all the existing means which the law and the constitution had placed at his disposal.

expressed his regret that no committee to take the distress of the country into consideration was to be proposed by his Majesty's Government, and his hope that some hon. Member would step forward and make the proposition himself. If, however, the question were not taken up by abler hands, he should consider it his indispensable duty to move for an investigation of the distress under which the whole country was suffering, particularly the labouring classes. He should not do his duty to his constituents were he not to take this step. The question now was, not simply whether they would have reformation or not—they had to choose between reformation and absolute perdition. He had that day heard of a circumstance which proved the great falling-off that had taken place, and that was inevitable, in the receipts of the revenue. In one district in which the assessed taxes had formerly produced 10,000l., there was a deficiency of 600l. Although it was his present intention to make the motion to which he had adverted, he would readily give way to any hon. Member better qualified for the undertaking; and he was, above all, particularly anxious that he might be relieved from the labour by his Majesty's Government, as a motion of that kind would come better from it than from any individual Member. One of the principal objects to which he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House, would be the repeal of the duty on houses and windows; a duty which pressed most heavily on a large and valuable portion of the community.

requested the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state the order in which he meant to take the Estimates in the Committee of Supply.

said that it was his intention to go regularly through them, as in the last Session. It was his intention to submit to the House the propositions respecting the Civil List on Friday next, so that the Committee of Supply would not be required to sit until the Monday after.

gave notice, that on Monday week, on the Motion for going into the Committee of Supply, he would move certain Resolutions respecting the mode in which Parliament and the country had been led into an expenditure of 600,000l. on the Rideau Canal, by which a sum, to that amount, might be in future saved to the country.

wished to say, that he differed in toto from his hon. and learned friend the member for Waterford, on the question of the repeal of the Union. In the part of Ireland from which he came, the general feeling was decidedly against such a repeal; and he was confident that every independent, educated, and upright person in Ireland was equally opposed to that hon. and learned Gentleman's project. As to the distress which existed among the people of Ireland, that would, he believed, be best remedied by an advance of money to carry on public works. The question was put, that the Speaker leave the Chair, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply?

observed, that before the Speaker left the Chair, he wished to inform hon. Members that this was the period at which the Commons of England, if they had any complaint to make, or any grievance to represent, ought to make, or represent it. If their constituents had commissioned them for any such purpose, now was their time. In the execution of his own duty, and in compliance with the requests of his constituents, he now begged to ask his Majesty s Government whether —the whole country loudly demanding a relief from taxation—the Cabinet had made up their minds on that subject, as they had made up their minds on the subject of parliamentary reform? What he wanted was, an unequivocal answer—aye, or no. The next thing to having a request granted, was to put the person by whom it was made out of the misery of suspense. The people of England were at present looking most anxiously for the relief which they expected would be afforded them; and they would no longer be put off, as they had been heretofore, by promises of economy. Before, therefore, he could agree to vote away any of the public money, he must ask his Majesty's Ministers if it was their intention to alleviate the burthen of taxation which pressed so heavily upon the country; or if they were prepared to propose such a change in the present system of taxation as would remove the severity of the burden from the industrious to other classes. As to Parliamentary reform, it was quite unnecessary for him to ask Ministers what their intention was in that respect, after the declaration which had been made elsewhere, that the present system of representation was not only good, but the best that could possibly be imagined. He believed that the noble Duke at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, had declared at Manchester that they had no wish to retain their places, except while they were found to act in conformity to the wishes of the people. When, therefore, they found that they were not acting in conformity to the wishes of the people, he trusted that they would redeem that pledge. He hoped that the people would show their wishes by petitions to that House, and by all other legal means. He trusted, however, that the people would use no other but legal means. If he could make his voice heard from one end of the country to the other, he would exclaim to the people, "If you wish to obtain your rights, and to benefit the country, abstain from all acts of violence." From the use of all legal means of obtaining their object, the people ought not to allow themselves to be dissuaded. There were, unfortunately, in this country, a number of very ignorant, though perhaps well-meaning men, who, being alarmed themselves, endeavour to disseminate their terrors, and who, wishing to sustain the present system under all circumstances, depicted to others the evils and devastation to which they might be subject if they departed from it; as if any change must necessarily lead to occurrences similar to those which had taken place in other countries. He implored every real friend to his country to act himself, and to use all the influence which he might possess over others to induce them to act, in forwarding the great object of relieving the people by all lawful means; by petition and remonstrance, couched in bold but proper language. There were in that and the other House of Parliament so many individuals who were interested in the continuance of the present system, because it worked well as it respected them, that they adopted every possible means of insuring its continuance. It was not surprising that these place-holders should say to those over whom they possessed any influence, "Don't go to this meeting, or that assembly; Don't sign such a petition; Don't join in such a remonstrance." That, however, was not the advice which ought to be given to the people by persons who were not interested in the maintenance of the existing abuses. When he considered of what the Duke of Wellington had shown himself capable in other situations, he confessed that he was astonished at his present conduct. He must have received his political impressions from other countries. Austria, Russia, Prussia, must have pressed their opinions upon him. However, let his Majesty's Ministers now declare whether or not they intended to propose the reduction of the public burthens; aye, or no. He should be satisfied with either answer. But he wished unequivocally now to know what steps they intended to take, and he would state why. He confessed he had looked to them with hope and expectation. He spoke of it with regret; but weak as he was, he had been the dupe of the expressions of his Majesty's Government in the former Session. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had declared in the last week of the last Parliament, in answer to some very strong and pertinent observations from the hon. and learned member for Yorkshire, that he might rest perfectly satisfied as to the measures which his colleagues and himself meant to pursue; for that they should call on the people for support. Did the right hon. Gentleman or the Duke of Wellington mean to say that the people of England did not want reform—that they did not want reduction of taxation, or that they did want any interference in the affairs of Belgium? After that declaration, he (Mr. Hume) had hoped that he should hear in his Majesty's Speech some expression of due consideration for the sufferings of the people. Those sufferings were great; but they were wholly disregarded; they were set at nought. There was not even a paragraph in reference to them in his Majesty's Speech. He was apprehensive that some very insidious designs were on foot. So much confidence had he in the good sense of the working classes of the community, that he was very much afraid that the belief of the hon. member for Kent, that the outrages which had been committed there were not the work of the population of the country, was well founded. When he coupled this with the other proceedings of the noble Duke [loud laughter, and cries of hear, hear!]—Perhaps he was wrong in using the word "other." But he really had a poor opinion of those who were so easily led to laugh at a lapse of that kind; but who would, perhaps, let a good joke pass unnoticed. He really lamented to see, on all occasions, however serious, such a levity of manner in the House. It could not be necessary for him to say, that he did not think the Duke of Wellington had had anything to do with the fires in Kent. All these things, however, were making a deep impression in every part of the country. It behoved his Majesty's Government, if there were any means of remedying the evil, to use them. He now begged to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman, what his Majesty's Government meant to do? He had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, which he had not had the courtesy to answer. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would answer his present question; and that the answer would be, that the members of the Cabinet had made up their minds to relieve the sufferings of the people, by reducing the burthen of taxation.

expressed his surprise, that the hon. member for Middlesex should charge him with want of courtesy, in not answering his question yesterday. What he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say yesterday was, that he would put to him (Sir Robert Peel) this day, a question as to the probability of the occur- rence of war. He had intended, if the hon. Gentleman had this day repeated his question, to have answered—that a perfect confidence might be entertained that the same motives which had hitherto induced his Majesty's Government to pursue a pacific policy, would continue; and that his Majesty's Government would make every possible effort, consistently, of course, with the honour and permanent interests of England, to maintain peace with the whole world. His Majesty's Government was deeply interested in the preservation of the general tranquillity. His Majesty, in his Speech from the Throne, declared that "the assurances of a friendly disposition which he continued to receive from all foreign Powers, justified the expectation that he should be enabled to preserve for his people the blessings of peace." It was impossible for him, consistently with his duty, to say more on the subject than, that since that declaration from the Throne, nothing had occurred to change or diminish the expectation which his Majesty had been induced to entertain, "that he should be enabled to preserve for his people the blessings of peace." The hon. member for Middlesex now asked, and required a positive and decisive answer to the question, whether his Majesty's Government intended to propose any reduction of taxation? He was confident, that on reflection, the hon. Gentleman's experience would show him that the question was a very improper one. He must certainly decline giving any answer to the question, either affirmatively or negatively. But suppose he were to answer the question affirmatively, did not the hon. Member well know that such an answer must be followed up at once by enumerating the specific objects to which the intended reduction was to be applied? No inference whatever ought to be drawn from his declining to answer the question, except that to do so would be inconvenient to the public. He appealed to every Member, of parliamentary experience, if anything could be more prejudicial than for one of his Majesty's Ministers, at the commencement of a Session, to give any answer to such a question as that which the hon. Gentleman had put to him? The hon. Gentleman talked of some pledge which he (Sir Robert Peel) had given last Session of the disposition of his Majesty's Government to defer to public opinion. What he had stated last Session was this fact:—that his Majesty's Government had made such an extensive reduction in the patronage of the Crown, that no administration could rely upon the permanent possession of office unless they felt themselves supported by the confidence of Parliament and the country. But the hon. Gentleman must not conclude from that declaration that any vulgar or common opinion, though expressed by the hon. Gentleman, would at all influence him in the discharge of his duty. If the hon. Gentleman joined in the vulgar imputation on public men that they were unduly influenced by their wish to retain the paltry emoluments of office; if he thought it necessary to caution the people against listening to the advice of such persons because they were interested in giving that advice; he knew not by what test the hon. Gentleman was prepared to prove the truth of his insinuations, but he knew that they were most uncharitable, and most unjust. The only considerations which his Majesty's Government had in contemplation were, the welfare of the people, and their permanent interest. The people must judge of their motives by their measures. If the House and the country suspected the motives and condemned the measures of his Majesty's Ministers, no inherent power or influence they possessed could maintain them in the Administration. When the hon. Gentleman talked of the proceedings of misguided men, he would ask him if the language which had been used in that House by himself, now the representative of the metropolitan county, and therefore, perhaps, possessed of a degree of importance greater than he had before enjoyed; he would ask him whether the language which he had used in the course of the present Session was not calculated to produce excitement and inflammation? When the hon. Member characterised the whole population of the country, without exception, as being in a starving condition—as reduced to a state of actual famine; or when he declared that unless certain measures were adopted, the day of vengeance would come, might not the excitement and inflammation which the hon. Gentleman lamented be unintentionally aggravated by the unguarded language he employed?

protested against the practice of taunting hon. Members, when they remonstrated against the measures of Government, with a disposition to inflame and excite the people. He had never heard from his hon. friend any expressions which justified such taunts. What his hon. friend had said the other evening had been fully and satisfactorily explained, although it might suit the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of making an undue impression on the House, to state his own version of the matter. When his hon. friend talked of interested persons, he did not allude to such persons as the right hon. Gentleman, but to underlings, to tax-gatherers and others, who were, of course, all interested in the maintenance of the present system. It was to such persons that his hon. friend alluded; not to such persons as the right hon. Gentleman. He would do the right hon. Gentleman the justice to say, that he did not believe he was influenced by any love of paltry emolument or of place. He had already shown that he was superior to any such miserable considerations. But that had no influence on his opinion of the public conduct of his Majesty's Government; and he would say, that if they were not the most discreet and clever of Ministers, they were as bold as any that ever existed; not even excepting Prince Polignac. The Duke of Wellington had expressed his determination to resist every species of reform. He had gone so far as to tell the House of Lords that "if he were to form a Legislature, he would create one—not equal in excellence to the present, for that he could not expect to be able to do—but something as nearly of the same description as possible." The right hon. Gentleman, not to be behind-hand with his noble colleague, had told them that evening, forsooth, that his Majesty's Government were not prepared to say, that they had any intention of reducing the taxation of the country. If persons suffering distress felt disaffection, whose fault was it? Was it not the fault of those who drove them into cherishing that feeling, by resisting the signs of the times? The best friends of the Ministers were those who told them the real condition of the country; their worst enemies were those who blinded them to that condition. Was it possible that on so important a subject as the reduction of taxation, his Majesty's Government had not been able, in the course of so many months, to come to a decision? If any resolution had been formed, why not answer his hon. friend's question? Not having done so, they must expect to have every obstacle thrown in their way; and to find the public business impeded, if not altogether stopped.

rose to ask, whether the hon. member for Middlesex, who generally spoke with great courtesy of public men, intended to revoke the expression which he had used when he insinuated, or rather said, that the noble Duke was at the bottom of the burnings in Kent. He thought that it would be for the interest of the public for the House to come at once to a regular division on the conduct of Ministers, instead of wasting time in a Guerilla warfare on such discussions as the present. Such a division would bring on the tug of war, and the country would then know how far the Ministry was likely to enjoy the confidence of the present Parliament.

said, that he rose out of courtesy to the hon. Member who had just sat down, although he believed that he might appeal to the whole House that there was no necessity, after what he had formerly said, to reply at all to the hon. Member's question. He could assure the hon. Member that if he thought that either the Duke of Wellington, or any other of his Majesty's Ministers, were capable of such conduct, he should lose not a moment—nay, he should be foremost—in bringing that subject under the immediate consideration of Parliament.

said, that he rose with reluctance to prolong a discussion of so tedious and unsatisfactory a nature; but certain circumstances which had occurred in the debate, and certain expressions which had been used by his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, appeared to him to be of such a nature that they ought not to be passed over without notice. As far as his own experience went, he must say, that it was quite clear that we had not had, since the conclusion of the war, any period in which the essential interests of the country were moving more satisfactorily than they were moving a few months ago. He did not mean to say that they were moving with enormous profits and splendid results,—all he meant to say was, that the returns of our commerce, though moderate, were still satisfactory, When the great events which had recently occurred upon the Continent became known on this side of the Channel, they had a tendency to produce general excitement in one quarter and general apprehension in another—two causes, which had in some degree, but not to any great extent, been prejudicial to the interests of our commerce. From the year 1815 to the commencement of the year 1830, we had been in circumstances of difficulty from the manner in which we had tampered with the currency; during the last year we had been recovering from the fever into which our former measures had cast us and, with a little management and forbearance, he believed that out-recovery would soon be complete. If there was any one thing which every man who wished well to his country, and especially to the labouring classes, ought to avoid more than another, it was disturbing the general tranquillity by those outrageous and extravagant assertions which were now so rife among us, and which, with all due regard to his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, whose great services he was at at all times ready to acknowledge, he must say had been uttered by him with more than usual vehemence on the present occasion. If it were true that the majority of the Members of that House acted upon mere mercenary views, without any regard to public principle,— if it were true that the Majority of them were receiving large emoluments out of the public purse,—a fact which he for one did not believe,—the sooner those circumstances were clearly explained to the country, the better would it be for its interests. He therefore could not help expressing a hope, that the motion which the hon. member for Colchester intended to make in a few nights, calling for a return of the emoluments, civil and military, received by Members of that House, would be granted, in order that the extent of those emoluments might be distinctly known. It was, however, his opinion that a more extravagant, and if unfounded, a more mischievous misrepresentation than this, had never been propounded by any public man in any country. That public men holding public offices were to be paid by the country was a principle of our Constitution, which had always been applauded by the best Judges of Constitutional policy, both at home and abroad. Several of the most acute statesmen in America had expressed their approbation of our practice of allowing the great officers of Government to have seats in Parliament, and had lamented that a similar practice was not permitted in their own country. Unless his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, was prepared to say, that the great offices of State should be without emolument, and should, therefore, be monopolized by men of large fortune,—a practice most injurious in a mixed democracy like our own—the present system of allowing individuals who received salaries for filling efficient situations under the Crown, could not be dispensed with. The assertions of the hon. member for Middlesex on this subject might surprise those Gentlemen who were new Members of the House, but they would produce no effect upon those who, like him, had sat for five-and-twenty years in Parliament, and had witnessed the great reductions which had been made of late years in all our establishments. For his own part, he must say, that he was not aware that the great officers of State were at all over-paid. If they were, let his hon. friend, when the estimates came before the House, point out where the over-payment was; and he thought that he might appeal to his own past conduct in Parliament to show that he should not be backward in concurring in any reduction which could be fairly, and properly, and safely made. But in the present state of the public mind, which, in spite of the exemplary moderation exhibited by the Majority of the nation, was still a little excited, there was no occasion for public men to make use of inflammatory language, to promote a state of things which, if it arrived, would be productive of as much injury to themselves as it would be to the rest of the country. In a placard which he had seen posted up that day, he saw it stated, that out of the public money the Earl of Eldon received 50,000l. a year.

.—Does that originate with me? If not, why mention it?

—"My hon. friend does me gross injustice when he supposes that I am going to make my speech entirely about him. I was mentioning an exaggerated statement which I had seen in a placard out of doors, and was proceeding to correct it. My hon. friend gets up to correct and stop me, but I never knew him get up to remove an exaggeration, though I hold it to be as much the duty of a public man to remove exaggerations as it is to detail fairly the real grievances of his country. But to proceed. I saw in that same placard a list of other exaggerations, equally unfounded with that which I have just mentioned. Of that noble Lord, in his political character at least, it is pretty well known that I never have been an admirer: but yet I think it only common justice to state, that that noble Lord receives no more than a pension of 4,000l. a year as a retiring Chancellor; and I doubt whether any man, who recollects the laborious services of Lord Eldon for so many years, as a Judge, will say that such a retiring pension is too much. If it be, let it be brought fairly under our consideration, and not made the subject of the most unfounded exaggeration." Mr. Baring then proceeded to observe, that it was impossible to see such exaggerations without being sensible of the object for which they were made. Knowing that the Members of the House of Commons were good for nothing if they did not follow up the opinions of those hundreds and thousands of people out of doors, who, from the general spread of education, were able to judge of them, their proceedings, and their merits, he would proclaim at once the idleness of endeavouring to conceal from them anything which had a tendency to display the mode of expending the public money; but at the same time he would proclaim, as a general rule, the duty of public men showing up and disavowing the exaggerations which were abroad on such a subject. With regard to the question which had been put to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as to his intention to repeal any taxes, he would only say, that the best course which the House could adopt would, in his opinion, be that of going into the Committee of Supply, and there performing the business of the public. If in that committee the Minister should propose any grant which hon. Gentlemen might deem improper, then would be the time, and there would be the place, for objecting to it. Let hon. Gentlemen, therefore, consider in the first place, whether it were practicable to reduce the supplies; for if such a scheme were practicable, then they might properly think of reducing the amount of taxation. In conclusion, he admitted that distress of some kind must always be found in a large manufacturing country like our own, but he denied that at present it was anything like that which had generally prevailed in the country since the conclusion of the last peace. It was a gross exaggeration to describe the English as a starving people. Any difficulty by which the country was affected at present, had arisen from the ex- citement which prevailed on one hand, and from the apprehension which prevailed on the other. He was sorry, however, to be compelled to observe, that the course which had been pursued that evening was calculated to increase it materially.

complained, that the hon. member for Callington had read his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, a most unnecessary and uncalled-for lecture on the exaggerations which were abroad, and of which his hon. friend was perfectly guiltless. He contended that the exaggeration prevalent out of doors was a sufficient justification of any hon. Member, who calmly and dispassionately stated within the House the real grievances of the people. The language which had been used by the hon. member for Middlesex, both on the present and on a former night, was perfectly justifiable in the present state of the country. With respect to reform in Parliament, he must say, that it was resisted only by those who had an interest in maintaining the present abuses. By abuses he did not mean the high and extravagant salaries merely which were paid to some public officers, but the influence and patronage which were in the gift of some of them, and quite as valuable, if not more so, than money. He must also condemn in the strongest terms, the declarations contained in the King's Speech respecting Belgium, and avow his dissatisfaction with the explanations which the right hon. Secretary had that night given respecting what he called the pacific intentions of the British Government.

repeated his former declaration, that our interference with the Netherlands was not made with a view of exciting, but of preventing, war. His Majesty had declared in his Speech, that he entertained the expectation that he should be able to preserve for his people the blessings of peace; and he had already assured the House—and he would repeat the assurance—that nothing had occurred since the delivery of that Speech which induced him to think that that expectation would be disappointed. In reply to the observations of the hon. member for Worcester, which, he said, proceeded throughout upon the erroneous supposition that he had accused the Gentlemen opposite of throwing firebrands among the people, he should only say, that he had made no such accusation. On a former evening he had used the word "intentionally," where he intended to have said "unintentionally." On the present occasion he had laid particular emphasis on the word "unintentionally," when he said that an hon. Member was using language which was calculated—unintentionally on his part— to create great excitement and inflammation among the people. He repeated his assertion that such language had been used. He asked whether it was consistent with truth to call the people of England a starving population? There might be partial distress in the country; some distress there always must be, from the very nature of things; but it was a gross exaggeration to say that the people of England were starving. He acquitted the hon. Member, as freely as the hon. Member acquitted the Duke of Wellington, of all intention to do mischief; but when he said, that, in his opinion, the Government ought to be displaced, there was a better and a milder way of saying it than by using such a phrase as "the day of vengeance will come." When the hon. Member was talking of a misguided and easily excited people, it was better to avoid using such language.

wished to take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman a question. Had any report been received from the commission appointed last Session to inquire into the finances and expenditure of the Colonies?

said, that the commissioners had not yet completed their work, though they had made considerable progress in it. The result of their labours would, however, be shortly placed before the public.

moved that a Supply be granted to his Majesty.

said, that though he had refrained from opposing the motion for the Speaker's leaving the Chair, it had not been because he was satisfied with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That statement had not convinced him that the Government did not intend to go to war. The right hon. Secretary had not told them whether it would be necessary for this country to have recourse to arms. With regard to the observations which the right hon. Secretary had thought proper to apply to him, he must say, he considered that he had great reason to complain of them. Much more reason had he to complain of the speech of the hon. member for Callington (Mr. Baring). That hon. Member had charged him with making exaggerated statements. What were those statements? When had he made such? Why did not the hon. Member point them out? He complained, too, of the right hon. Secretary for having raked up an expression which he had used in the warmth of debate the other night, or rather morning (for it was past two o'clock, he believed), which expression he had immediately explained. Was this the liberality of the right hon. Secretary? But this was the way in which it was sought to blind the House and the country, to the importance and the necessity of the main question,—which question was, whether there should or should not be a reduction of the burthens of the people. Had he ever made, and been obliged afterwards to recant, such exaggerated statements as the hon. member for Callington made respecting the Bishop of London one night last Session, which he came down and recanted the next night? If he had ever made exaggerated statements, and he had been told of having done so, he had always explained his error, as he always should be happy to do for the future; but, he repeated, he had never been guilty of such exaggerations as the hon. member for Callington had, and that hon. Member, therefore, had no right to charge him with making exaggerated statements, and not explaining them. He would say, that to misrepresent him in this manner was calculated to produce dangerous consequences. He was not surprised at this misrepresentation from the hon. member for Callington, because, generally, when that hon. Member spoke upon any question, he (Mr. Hume) was always in doubt, at the conclusion of the hon. Member's speech, which way the hon. Member had meant to argue, and on which side he meant to vote. He called upon the hon. member for Callington to state what he had ever said that was calculated to inflame the minds of the people? Surely the hon. Member could not have been in the House when he had spoken, for he had then solemnly deprecated all acts of violence on the part of the people, and had declared that such acts were calculated, not to advance their interests, but to furnish new grounds for disregarding their wishes. Was it a fit return for that to hold him up as an incendiary? But the hon. member for Callington had not only complained of his exaggerating the distress of the country, but had almost declared that there was no distress at all among the people. The hon. Member had certainly said, that the country was better off now than it had ever been before during the last fifteen years, and this was about the most incorrect statement that could be made. It might, however, be very well for the hon. member for Callington, with a good rent-roll, and no want of money right and left, to suppose that there was not much distress in the country. But his complaint was, that words had been put into his mouth which he never used, and that the proceedings in former debates had been this evening revived for the purpose of censuring him. The rules of the House forbade this practice, and therefore the right hon. Secretary had been disorderly and irregular. So, also, had the hon. member for Callington been, in alluding to what he had said on a former night; and when he alluded to any,thing that had fallen from him that evening, he challenged the hon. Member to point out the expressions which were calculated to inflame the people. He had been misrepresented on more than one occasion. The other night, the hon. Alderman (Mr. Ald. Waithman) below him, having got "a bee in his bonnet," incorrectly attributed to him what he had never said, [Cries of "Question."] Now, if during this Session he ever heard that word "Question" called, for the purpose of interrupting an hon. Member in debate, he gave fair warning that he would move that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and if only a few Members would stand by him, he would put a stop to that indecent custom. Nothing could be more indecent and unbecoming than for a set of men, who were utterly unworthy of places in the House, to come down there [Cries of "hear, hear!"] yes, pardon him, their conduct justified him in calling them "unworthy," —to come down there to interrupt the Representatives of the people in the discharge of their duty. He did not mean to say that this cry came from Gentlemen connected with the Admiralty, but he had well remarked the corner from which the cry of "Question" constantly came, and he was determined, if the practice were persevered in, to bring the persons guilty of it before the Speaker by complaint. Yes, he would. Let them stay away if they pleased: he did not wish for their presence: but if they did come, let them conduct themselves like grave senators. The hon. member for Callington had told them that he had never heard of Members of Parliament being influenced by money, places, pensions, or sinecures. Good God! Where had the hon. member for Callington lived all his life? If the hon. Member thought that the system was all right, let him change his place in the House; let him take his situation behind the Treasury bench; but let them not have an enemy in their own quarters, and in their own camp. He did not like a snake in the grass. As to what the right hon. Secretary had said upon the same subject, he had only to remind the House, that in what he had said about clinging to the emoluments of office, he had not made any allusion to the bench on which the right hon. Secretary sat. It should, however, be recollected, that there were attached to office, rank, and power, and influence, which might make an impression on those who did not care for the emoluments of office. He would not detain the House any longer, and, after the unfair attacks that had been made upon him, he hoped it would not be thought that he had taken up time unnecessarily.

said, that if, in addressing the House, he had ever assumed a tone or appearance which savoured of presumption or arrogance, no man could be more ashamed of such indecorum—no man more anxious to apologize for it—than himself. He trusted, however, that he had never so far forgotten himself,—that he had never been so insensible to the respect which was due from him to the House. If, however, such impropriety of conduct could be fairly charged against him, still a lecture upon such a subject could not possibly have come from a more unfit person than the hon. member for Middlesex. From the manner in which that hon. Member thought proper to address the House, a stranger might suppose that there was no Representative of the people in it but the hon. member for Middlesex,—no one who understood the affairs of Government but the hon. member for Middlesex, and that the hon. member for Middlesex was privi- leged to dictate, on all occasions, and that, too, not in the most becoming language, to all the rest of the Members who composed this branch of the Legislature. He, however, could assure the hon. member for Middlesex, that however unreasonable it might appear to him, he should insist upon his right of forming his own opinion of the measures that might be submitted to the House. If the hon. Member proposed, as he frequently had, measures calculated to benefit the country, he should continue to support him; and if the hon. Member proposed, as also he frequently had, measures of a contrary character, he should still feel it his duty to oppose him, however the hon. Member might be displeased with those who did not happen to view every thing in the same light as himself. Let him also assure the hon. Member, that he should not ask his advice as to his parliamentary conduct, nor allow himself to be dictated to by the hon. Member as to the place in {he House he should occupy. He would not take the hon. Member as a guide, nor submit to him as a dictator. The hon. Member asked, of what exaggeration he had been guilty? To this he replied, without hesitation, that the whole tenour of his speech was exaggeration, and that it had a most inflammatory tendency. This, he thought, must, to the majority of the House, be as manifest as that, since the hon. Member had appeared in his new character, he had displayed himself, not as a debater, but as a dictator. But the hon. Member insisted upon an instance of the exaggeration charged against him. If it were worth while detaining the House with a repetition of the hon. Member's statements, it would not be difficult to give several instances; but this was not worth while, and he would content himself, therefore, with one instance. The hon. Member had represented that Members of that House, in voting money, were influenced by the desire of supporting corrupt institutions, and of feeding placemen and sinecurists. This was a misrepresentation, and one that was calculated to excite inflammation out of doors. If one-half, nay, if one-tenth—of the statements of the hon. Member were true, the Government of the country would be an Augean stable, that would not only require to be cleansed forthwith, but which would justify almost any measures that might be directed towards that object. These exaggerations and mis-statements,— this conduct on the part of men who ought not to be insensible of the consequences they were calculated to produce,—made others who were more prudent, but not less ardent lovers of freedom than themselves, pause before they concurred in reforms to which there would otherwise be no objection. Such language and such conduct displayed anything but a desire to consult the welfare of the community. Upon the subject out of which the present discussion had arisen, he was totally at variance with the hon. Member. He considered it to be prudent, and rational, and statesmanlike, to consider how much money was necessary for the service of the country, and to compare that with the amount of the revenue. If, upon such comparison, it should appear that there was a surplus of revenue, that ought to be applied to the reduction of taxation. A very different course was insisted upon by the hon. Member, who called upon the Ministers, in the first instance, to reduce the taxation of the country,—or, in other words, to take so much from the revenue, before it was known whether the amount of the revenue, as it now stood, was sufficient for the service of the State. For his own part, he could not consider this to be either prudent or statesmanlike.

said, that he was not in the habit of using strong language in addressing that House, let the subject of the discussion be what it might; and justice towards his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, required him to say, that he did not hear him make use of any expressions which he himself would not have uttered; and his expressions did not deserve the strong remarks which had been made on them. The language used by his hon. friend was not such as to inflame the minds of the people, but was merely a representation of that state of public feeling at this moment to which he was desirous of calling the attention of Parliament. He differed from the opinion entertained by the hon. member for Callington, viz. that it was expedient to soften down the statements of public distress, for he must know that the public ferment was very great. Indeed, no one could deny it, and such ferment would be better allayed by individuals who held seats in that House, stating openly, and even in strong terms, their sentiments upon the subject, (provided the language be not of an exciting character) than by the line which the hon. member for Callington would adopt. The discontented portion of the public would be better satisfied to find that their grievances were exposed in energetic terms. On a former evening his hon. friend did, in the heat of debate, use a word which, on its being censured, he instantly retracted.—[Sir R. Peel said, "No."] His hon. friend retracted it in every sense in which the right hon. Gentleman had a right to condemn it, by explaining, that he merely referred to the removal of Ministers from their places. He admitted that the word "vengeance" was an inappropriate expression, but the explanation ought to have been accepted, and no further observation ought to have been made upon it. With respect to the Motion before the House, he was surprised that the Government should not have come down with some proposition calculated to give comfort to the people. Instead of doing that, Ministers availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to declare that nothing would be done to meet their wishes. First, they were told that not the slightest measure of reform was to be granted, and then that the Government was not prepared to state whether or not any reduction of taxes is to be made. The country was entitled to know whether any, and if any, what reductions were to be effected in the burthens which pressed so heavily on the people. The right hon. Gentleman declined giving any specific information to his hon. friend on the subject, but the House ought to be informed of the probable course that Ministers intended to follow. It was expected throughout the country that a great reduction of taxation would take place this year; and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would produce nothing but dissatisfaction. Surely, if he were disinclined to enter into particulars, he might say whether any reductions were contemplated—whether the public service would require the same or a less sum than last year; although, until he heard what the new Representatives of the people might say, he might deem it expedient to defer any statement as to the particular taxes to be removed or reduced—a matter which might be hereafter arranged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the general refusal to answer shewed, either that Ministers were unprepared to meet Parliament, or were determined to keep the public mind in a state of suspense, not necessary for the public service.

merely rose to say one word on the present occasion, as he had not an opportunity of doing so on Tuesday evening. If he had been able to attend, he should have supported the amendment of his noble friend, and should Lave expressed his opinion on the conduct of the Administration. He agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Bletchingly, that the country was entitled to know, whether it was the intention of Ministers to propose any reduction of taxation; the people ought to be informed what they were to expect; and before Ministers were entitled to ask for supplies, they ought to pledge themselves that reductions should be made. The people of England had never manifested the least indisposition to grant proper supplies to the Crown; they had always been willing to give their money liberally when they thought it necessary; but when it was demanded for the purpose of supporting-placemen and pensioners, or for building additional wings to Windsor Castle, they might justly desire, being themselves in distress, to keep it in their own pockets. The people of England had entertained Lopes that the Ministers would have come down to the House and proposed some great reduction in taxation. It would have been a subject of great pleasure to all, that such an announcement had been made in the King's Speech; which might Lave administered some relief to the agonies of an impoverished people. A right hon. Gentleman said, that the country was suffering under a passing cloud; but it would be long before the condition of the people was materially improved. He was determined to support the cause of the people. He would support the people, not in their riotous conduct,—for that he should be the first to oppose and put down,—but in their constitutional and legal mode of demanding a reduction of their burthens; and the Ministry not only ought, but would find they must do something more than they had hitherto done, for the relief of the people. He heard with considerable surprise the hon. member for Callington declare, that the country was in an improving condition, and that the people were better off now than at any period since the Peace. He denied the truth of that statement, and maintained that the distress became greater every day. Ministers were bound to relieve the country, and he would require them to work day and night in their offices, until they found some remedy for the present evils. The House had a right to insist that some hope should be held out to the people, and that there was a prospect of speedy relief. The taxes hitherto repealed had not benefitted the great body of the people. No good had been done by the repeal of a paltry tax like the Leather-tax, for shoes and boots were dearer than ever. The people expected the repeal of the Assessed Taxes, which pressed heavily on them. The Ministers and all the pensioners of the State ought to follow the example of his Majesty, and of a noble Marquis, in giving up a portion of their salaries and pensions. If they did that, and repealed a number of taxes, they might regain the confidence of the nation.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the more effectual Administration of Justice in Ireland. The object of the Bill would be, to extend to Ireland certain provisions of the Act for the more effectual Administration of Justice in England, which passed in the last Session of Parliament.

did not rise to oppose the Motion, but as the Act referred to had made no effectual reform in the administration of justice in England, it must not be understood that the Bill proposed to be introduced, would effect any legal reform in Ireland. He would take this opportunity of noticing the manner of appointing Judges in Ireland. None but a man who had been much employed in the Courts could make a good Judge; but such offices had always been filled by political gentlemen,—he would not call them political adventurers,—who were thus rewarded for the services they had performed to Government in that House. This had been the case in the last appointment. The Ministers did not inquire who bore the best character in the Hall, but they came to this House, and having found a gentleman who always voted for them, they gave him the appointment. This was a proof of the want of a resident legislature in Ireland. Such an occurrence could not take place in this country, nor ought it to take place in any part of the kingdom; for the Judges made more law than the Parliament, and the appointment of such men should, therefore, be made with reference to their knowledge and ability only. He had no interest in speaking thus, for there was no appointment of the kind that he would accept if it were offered him now, and he had no hesitation in stating, that he never would accept any such appointment at any time.

, after observing, with respect to the law of settlement, that many cases had occurred at the Quarter Sessions, in which the Judges had decided the law contrary to the spirit in which he was sure that law was enacted, —after citing a case where the hiring of a house for 10l. a-year had been decided not to give a settlement, as the tenant did not remain in it for a year—moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to explain and amend the Act 6 Geo. 4th, c. 57, as far as regards the Settlement of the Poor, by the renting and occupation of tenements."

rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move for a copy of the King's Printer's Patent. In doing so, he regretted that the hon. member for Callington was not present, as, one fact being worth fifty arguments, he should be able to prove to that hon. Member, that there were other motives which influenced Members in that House besides patriotism and the good of the country, by which alone he was sure that his hon. friend was influenced. He had greatly to complain of the conduct of Government in not redeeming its pledges as to economy. The Government had pledged themselves to effect every practicable economy in every department of the State, and he had to complain, that on the expiration of the patent to the King's Printer, they had not redeemed that pledge, by acting upon the recommendation of a former committee of that House. He had supposed, that the principle as to patents had been long since settled. He conceived that his Majesty had a right to grant patent privileges to certain individuals, for certain inventions or improvements, but he was of opinion that the King had no right to grant exclusive rights to individuals, by patent, to tax the people, without the consent of Parliament. He should, at a future period, when he intended to introduce the question of patents as regarded lighthouses, &c, bring forward the whole question as to patents, so as to have it fully discussed and considered by a committee of that House. With regard to the present patent he had to state, that in 1799 Mr. Pitt granted the patent office of King's Printer to John Reeve, George Robert Eyre, and Andrew Strahan, for a period of thirty-one years. He (Mr. Hume) believed, that he should be able to show that this patent was granted to John Reeve, for the purpose of securing to him an income of 1,5000l. a-year. Mr. Pitt understood that the clear profits of the office amounted to 3,000l. a-year, and it was stipulated that John Reeve should have the half of that during his life. Reports had been made by a committee of the House with regard to this office, to which he should have occasion to refer, and for which they were indebted to the hon. member for Dorsetshire. That hon. Member was chairman of a Select Committee in 1810, which inquired into the affairs of that, as well as of other offices connected with the Government; and the Report made by that committee contained much valuable information as to this office. The committee stated, with reference to the patent, that "the printing of Acts of Parliament and forms of prayer, stands on a different footing from the other printing, since Messrs. Eyre and Strahan have an exclusive right to the former until the year 1830, in virtue of a patent, granted in 1799, constituting them King's Printers, the former patent expiring at that period. The two English Universities have also a right to print the acts and forms of prayer, but they have not exercised it." He would not complain if an exclusive right had been granted to. supply his Majesty with prayer-books, &c.; but what he complained of was, that an exclusive right was granted, to supply to the House of Commons and other places, to an amount that cost the public 36,000l. per annum. It appeared that in the year 1807, Reeve, conceiving that he did not get his fair share of the profits, filed a bill in Chancery, in which he alleged that the supply to Government alone amounted to 56,000l. and that the nett profits upon that single branch were 13,000l. The parties avoided the risk of exposure which would have attended litigation by coming to an accommodation, and the bill was accordingly withdrawn. So matters remained until the year 1810, when the hon. Member for Corfe Castle submitted to the House the propriety of instituting an inquiry into that and other public departments. That inquiry was made; and the Committee recommended the Government not to renew the patent of King's Printer, which recommendation, he was sorry to say, had not been attended to. The Committee said, in its ninth report, "Your Committee called for an account of work performed by Messrs. Eyre and Strahan, for the public, in the year 1808, and they find by the return made, that the expense of ' Acts, Bills, Reports, Accounts, Minutes of Evidence, and other papers' delivered in that year to the Lord Chancellor and the House of Peers, was 8,226l. 19s. 5d; and the charge incurred for Acts of Parliament, delivered in the same year to the Magistrates of the United Kingdom and others, pursuant to an Address of the two Houses of Parliament, arising out of a recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to report upon the promulgation of the Statutes, was 16,975l. 13s. 9d. To these two sums several others are added—an account of Forms of Prayer for a general fast; of Acts, Proclamations, and other papers delivered to the Privy Council, to the Secretaries of State, and the Speaker of the House of Commons; and an account of local and personal Acts; making the total amount of this bill 36,137l. 3s. 5d. A further sum appears to have been paid in the same year to Messrs. Eyre and Strahan of 4,459l. 14s. 3d. for the Commissioners for Records, and of 1,369l. 0s. 4d. for the 35th volume of Journals of the House of Lords. Your Committee do not find that the bill of Messrs. Eyre and Strahan, any more than that of Mr. Hansard, is subjected to examination in respect to the reasonableness of the rate of charge." But the holders of this patent were not satisfied with the profits on the printing, for they considered themselves entitled to make an additional charge as booksellers. They thus made a very considerable profit on the sale of Acts of Parliament, and other things to which the privilege of their monopoly extended. The Committee went on to state that—"Messrs. Eyre and Strahan conceive that this patent consti- tutes them booksellers as well as printers to his Majesty, and entitles them to charge in both capacities for all the articles supplied under that patent; and they consequently make a much higher charge for Acts and Forms of Prayer than for Parliamentary Papers printed by them for the House of Lords. Their charges are 2½d. per copy for every sheet in the Public General Acts of Parliament, and 6d. for each copy of Forms of Prayer. If these charges had been reduced to the rate of their charge for the Parliamentary Papers for the House of Lords, the charge of 2½d. for Public General Acts would probably have been considerably below 1½d., and the charge of 6d. for Forms of Prayer much below 4d., and in this case a saving would have arisen exceeding 40 per cent in the price of the Public General Acts for 1808, and exceeding 33 per cent in the price of the Forms of Prayer." That committee stated then that a saving of 40 per cent might be effected in this particular department. He was sure if he were to try, that every sheet of Acts of Parliament, for which those parties charged 2½d., he could get done by contract for ¾d. Let the House then only think what a loss the country had suffered from this patent office during the last thirty-one years. The work done in this office cost 150 per cent more than the same work done in the Stationery-office. The committee of 1810 condemned the principle of all patents for exclusive rights, for the sale of works, &c, as such patents partook of the evil of all commercial monopolies. The committee on that occasion pointed out the evils arising from the existence of this office, and it had ever since been the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to attend to their recommendations. It was said, that the Administration of the Duke of Wellington was saving and economical. He denied that it was so—he denied that there had been any saving in any of the public offices, except, indeed, in the instance of the office of Assistant-counsel to the Excise. When the individual holding that office died, the Duke of Wellington did not fill up the vacancy thus created, and that fact went the rounds of the papers for months afterwards. The hon. Member read from the report of the Select Committee, a statement of several items in the charges made by the King's printers,—one of which was—"for a general fast 997l." The patent granted by Mr. Pitt expired in 1830. What he (Mr. Hume) proposed to ask for was, that an abstract of the accounts of this office for each year, during that period, be laid before the House, in order that they might see the expenditure which had been incurred for it, and also that copies of the bill and answer which had been filed by one party against the other should be laid on the Table of the House, in order that they might be enabled to judge of the profits of this office. He had been taunted with a sordid economy; but it was not sordid economy to endeavour to cut down this and other such extravagant items of the public expenditure. One part of the contract by which this patent was held was, that one of the parties should sit in that House, and, of course, vote for the Ministers. Mr. Strahan did so for many years; and one of the King's printers, to whom the patent had been again granted, was returned at present to that House. He hoped that the patent had not been as yet renewed. An hon. Member told him that he saw it yesterday at the office in the Adelphi, where it must lie, and can be seen for a year, before it is enrolled. He therefore supposed that it had been granted. He must protest against the practice of granting exclusive profits to individuals, and of introducing them into that House to vote away the public money (he did not speak of the money granted to themselves, for which he did not so much care), and to add to the burthens of the people. It had been said, that more reductions could not be made, as the Government must be enabled to carry on the business of the country: by which he understood that Ministers must be enabled to command majorities in that House. The hon. member for Callington had talked of his using inflammatory language, but he only wished that that hon. Member were now present to hear him assert, as he did, that it was by such unhallowed, unconstitutional, and he might almost say illegal means, that Ministers commanded the influence which they possessed in that House. If that were inflammatory language, he trusted that it might reach to the remotest extremity of the country. He would maintain that the King's printers ought not to have the exclusive printing of any thing but for the King's private use alone, and that all the other work which was at present done in that office should be done by public contract. In the stationery-office they were capable of doing all that work, and ten times as much. A public contractor could only, have the trifling profits between him and the next offer; but the King's printer was a contractor without a competitor. If Ministers could sanction such a patent, they did not deserve the confidence of the country, and ought not to remain in power for an hour. It would be seen whether the country would sanction such a proceeding. He, for one, protested against it, and if the patent had been renewed, he thought the House was bound, in the discharge of its duty, to bring to its bar the persons who had signed and sanctioned such a patent. He would not say, as the hon. Member to whom that patent was granted was not present, that it was on that account he voted for Ministers, but he never knew him vote against them. [Hear, hear, from Mr. Spottiswoode.] He saw that the hon. Member was present, and he would repeat his assertion, that he never knew him vote against Government. He then concluded by moving for returns of goods delivered and work performed by the King's printer for the last ten years, in detail, the object being to show the immense expense incurred by Government in printing public documents beyond what they could be printed for by contract in an open market.

said, that he had some reason to complain of the course which the hon. Member had thought proper to pursue. He had merely given notice of his intention to move for papers, and, instead of deferring his charges until the papers were produced, by which they might be refuted or substantiated, he had availed himself of his motion to put forth statements which at least ought to have been postponed. He would appeal to the House whether, before the documents moved for were produced, it was right for the hon. Member to discuss the propriety of granting the patent to the King's printer. Before the House could come to any conclusion upon the point, it must be in possession of the patent and other documents moved for. It was alleged that Mr. Pitt had appointed a gentleman to that office, and that he had kept up a scale of high charges in order to avail himself of the parliamentary services of him whom he had appointed; but was it fair to urge the same charge against those who now acted upon an opposite principle? An immense saving had been made to the public since the death of Mr. Pitt, and the only question now was, whether the patent should be given to a public officer, or the public should trust to chance the printing of its documents. This was a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence.

.—Not quite so: it is likewise a matter of principle and of opinion.

continued.—The patent to the King's printer was connected with the privileges of the Universities, for upon both did the public depend, that neither in the laws of God nor in the laws of Parliament should any inaccuracy be found. The patent, moreover, gave to things printed by the King's printer an authority in the courts of justice. The Duke of Wellington had taken every opportunity of abolishing offices that were useless to the public; and to prove this he need but to apply to the Boards of Stamps, Customs, and Excise, in each of which recent commissions had not been filled up. By not filling up the place of Mr. Carr, the public had saved 5,000l. a year.

said, that it had been asserted that he had made a contract to vote for Government in consideration of the advantages he derived from the patent. He denied the assertion, and defied any man to show such a contract: no man or set of men in that House had the right to command his vote, and if he differed from the opposite side of the House, that difference was not to be imputed to corruption. For his part he denied the charge. He did not fear the production of the patent, though he wished to hear from the legal Gentlemen in the House whether it was customary to produce the legal documents the hon. Member had called for.

said, that if the hon. Member was so willing to exculpate himself by producing the papers, he need not be so desirous of knowing what legal Gentlemen would say about the custom of affording documents to elucidate such a case. He would remind the hon. Gentleman, that in the Court of Chancery any man could get such papers, provided he could afford to pay for the stamps. It had not been asserted that the King's printer had entered into any contract to vote on all occasions for the Ministers: it had only been maintained that the chances were that the King's printer, as long as he possessed such a valuable patent, would always be found behind the Treasury bench, voting for the Government. This was only the doctrine of chances, and, as far as experience could trace, the doctrine had not proved fallacious. He denied what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the authority given in Courts of law to what was printed by the King's printer, under the present system; for, whatever were the arrangements or terms, every thing printed under the royal patent would carry with it its authority. He very much doubted the prerogative of the Crown to grant any such monopoly, and if such a prerogative did exist, it ought to be exercised only in obedience to the opinions of the country.

thought the present a very inconvenient mode of discussing the Question. He objected to monopolies of all sorts, and he thought the present contract taken out of the common routine of contracts.

complained that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had put in his mouth words which he had never uttered.

moved for returns of Pensions to widows of Officers of the Army, Navy and Civil service. He could not but confess him self averse to all public pensions, as they merely produced extravagance in individuals, and only effected results which might be attained by economy, and without burthening the public. A system of individual saving, to establish pension funds, had been commenced in private companies, and the contributions were from the salaries of the clerks. From this day forward, he would maintain, that no man, unless he was injured in the public service, ought to be entitled to a pension. He wished to get out of the present vicious principle entirely; for until pensions for one class, and poor-rates to provide for another, were got rid of, it was hopeless to expect that the country would have either a body of independent gentlemen or a body of independent peasantry. The poor of Scotland were many degrees better than those of England, for they depended upon their own exertions and upon the feelings of their neighbours, and not upon the right to parochial relief. In the same manner he believed that the middle classes would be better if they had neither pensions nor bounties to look for.

thought that the system of making retrenchments by turning poor clerks out of office was one of great cruelty.

maintained, that the widows' pensions were now governed upon a principle which could not encourage any extravagance in officers.

thought, that the widows of common soldiers ought to be entitled to pensions, and he denied that there was any wish on that side of the House to reduce the widows of officers and of common soldiers to the same level.

complained, that the rich man's wife now had a pension, and the poor man's had none. The soldier and sailor, the real nerve and arm of war, had no claim to this bounty, whilst others had.

denied the correctness of the last observation of the hon. member for Middlesex.