Beresford presented a Petition from Carrickbeg, praying for a Repeal of the Legislative Union between England and Ireland.

said, that he had been instructed by his constituents to support this Petition; with the prayer of which he heartily concurred. There were facts connected with the town from which it came, that well illustrated the effects of the Legislative Union. In the year 1810 there were 7,800 persons supported in that town by the coarse woollen manufacture alone; while at present there were not seven persons maintained by it. This town was placed in the happiest situation for every species of commerce, both externally and internally. It was situated at the junction of three noble rivers, and the finest and richest plain in the world extended from it. Yet it was now in the most miserable st e of decay—he would say, decrepitude. He was glad to say, that Protestants as well as Roman Catholics, of Carrickbeg, had united in signing the petition; and he trusted they would join hereafter in all other objects. He was of opinion that the repeal of the Union would be, at least, as advantageous to England as to Ireland. It would free England from the burthen of Irish labourers; which, by depreciating the value of native labour, was, perhaps more influential than any other cause in producing the disturbances in the English counties. Complaints were made in that House last Session as to the pressure of this burthen, they had not been repeated this Session, and if they were, he would say at once, that if the money of Irishmen was spent in Ireland, the income of England would not be taxed for the support of Irish labourers.

said, he did not concur in the prayer of the petition. He denied that the Union had caused the decay of the woollen manufacture in Carrickbeg. The manufactures had been bad, and although admonished by their customers, the manufacturers continued to supply a bad article; and in consequence of this it was that Carrickbeg lost its owollen trade.

said, that as he had been prevented by severe indisposition from declaring his opinion on this question when it formerly came under the notice of the House, he would avail himself of that opportunity to state distinctly what it was. His decided conviction was, that the repeal of the Union would be attended by consequences the most deplorable to Ireland. He had always looked upon the Union as a measure which, once passed, was irrevocable; and he knew that it had been so considered by those great and illustrious men who had been its greatest opponents. It had always been asserted by Mr. Grattan, and by the most eminent men who had acted with him, that the measure of the Union, being once passed, could not afterwards be repealed. His opinion was very different from that of the hon. member for Waterford, respecting the effects which the Union had produced upon Ireland. A great many consequences had been attributed to the Union, which did not properly belong to it. He believed that many abuses which existed before the Union, and much of the misgovernment of the local Parliament of Ireland, were falsely attributed to the Union; and when Gentlemen called for the repeal of the Union, he begged leave to remind them, that he was old enough to recollect that many of those who now joined in that cry were formerly the loudest in the reprobation of the local Parliament. He had never had a seat in that Parliament, and therefore he was not liable to any imputations which might be cast upon it for passing the Union. He had always considered that measure as growing out of the circumstances in which the country was then placed; but, whatever might have been his opinion as to the original character of that event, he had never varied for one moment from the opinion, that once having been assented to, it should be looked on as irrevocable. He understood that an hon. Gentleman had said, that never was there one beneficial Act for Ireland passed by the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. Now he (Sir R. Newport) would turn to one Act,—he meant the Corn Intercourse Act of 1806,—which he defied the hon. Gentleman to denounce as an Act not beneficial to Ireland. When he informed the House that that Act alone had doubled the agriculture of Ireland, he claimed merit for the United Parliament so unjustly calumniated, and for himself, who had been the humble instrument of carrying it through that. House. That Act he brought as a proof that the interests of Ireland were not neglected in the United Parliament. He begged pardon for intruding so long upon the attention of the House; but he was anxious to declare the opinions which he entertained upon this subject in opposition to many even of his respectable countrymen. He always felt regret when he had occasion to differ from his constituents; but having been returned to that House, he considered himself as the Representative of the people at large, and bound to consult not private but general interests. He had never professed that he would make his sentiments conform on all questions to the wishes of his constituents; on the contrary, he had always avowed, and he still would avow, that he would discharge his duty honourably and fairly according to the dictates of his own unbiassed judgment.

ridiculed the idea that the distress now prevalent in some counties of England was owing in any degree which the House could notice to the irruption of Irish labourers upon their labouring population. The fact was, that the distress felt in the agricultural districts was always felt most severely in the winter. In the summer the value of labour increased, the rate of wages became higher, and the distress gradually vanished; and yet it was the summer months during which the great influx of Irish labourers came to our shores, and the winter months during which they were nearly all absent from them.

condemned the agitation of the question of repealing the Union, as a course calculated, beyond all others, to excite religious and political animosities in Ireland. He contended, that all men of good sense, good feeling, respectable character, and independent property in Ireland, were opposed to the mooting of it. As a proof of his assertion, he alluded to the proceedings of a public meeting recently held at Belfast, where every man of education, intelligence, opulence, and respectability in the town, no matter what were his religious opinions or political creed, had joined in declaring themselves opposed to a repeal of the Union. If such a measure should unfortunately meet with the approbation of Parliament, which he could not by any possibility anticipate, they would have a hundred paupers for every individual pauper whom they had in Ireland at the present moment.

said, that as this petition came from his constituents, he should move that it be printed. He then told the House that the hon. member for Londonderry (Sir Robert Bateson) was greatly misinformed when he stated that there had been a public meeting at Belfast which had condemned even the agitation of the question of repealing the Union. There had been a meeting of some gentlemen at a room in that town; but there had been no public meeting, and their opponents had taunted those gentlemen for not having dared to convene a public meeting of their townsmen on that question. As to the agitation of the repeal being likely to excite religious and political animosity in Ireland, he begged leave most explicitly to deny it. The fact was directly the reverse; it had contributed, more than any measure with which he was acquainted, to put an end to all religious and personal animosities. As a proof of it, he would mention, that since he had brought forward the agitation of this great and important question, he had had several votes of thanks presented to him by bodies of Orangemen—one in particular by a Mr. Richardson, of Dublin— and of such votes of thanks he was more proud than of any others which he had received in the whole course of his political life. He contended that every man of talent, independence, and wealth, not merely in Dublin, but throughout Ireland, was anxious to obtain a repeal of the Union. He denied that the great men who had opposed the passing of the Union had ever considered it as an irrevocable measure when once passed. He gave that denial to the hon. Baronet's assertion on the authority of a printed speech of Lord Plunkett, who had declared that he would resist the Union to its last stage, and would educate his children in the deepest hostility to it. As to the benefits of the measure he believed they were all confined to absentee landlords. The measure to which the right hon. Baronet had referred had increased the rents of the landlords, but not the comforts of the people. He was sorry to hear the noble Lord condemn the manufacture of Carrickbeg, for his father had appeared at Court in a suit of the cloth made there. He was convinced that the repeal of the Union would be most advantageous to both countries, and it was agitated by the great body of the intelligent people of Ireland.

said, he must positively contradict what had fallen from the hon. member for Waterford. There had been a public meeting at Belfast, at which those present came unanimously to a resolution against agitating the question of the repeal of the Union. The great town of Belfast was decidedly against entertaining that mischievous project.

said, that he could not hear the hon. member for Waterford make such statements as he had ventured upon that evening without giving that hon. and learned Member the most positive and the most decided contradiction. The opinions which prevailed in Ireland with regard to the repeal of the Union, were, as every body who was acquainted with Ireland must be aware, directly the reverse of what the hon. and learned Member had represented them to be. Instead of the wealth, and the respectability, and the talent of Ireland being friendly to a repeal of the Union, he would venture to say,— in the presence of Irish Members, and without fear of contradiction from any but the hon. and learned member for Waterford,—that all the genuine commercial activity—all that could be fairly included in the respectability, and all that could be properly called the talent of Ireland— were loud in expressing disapprobation at agitating such a question as the repeal of the Legislative Union between the two countries. The hon. and learned Member had said, that there was, in Dublin, a strong feeling in favour of the repeal of the Union. He not only denied that assertion, but would venture to say, that there was not, in that city, any one intelligent being, capable of understanding' the question, and of appreciating the disastrous consequences which must result from the repeal of the Union, who would not be ready to sacrifice all he possessed in order to preserve the Union inviolate. The hon. and learned Member had said, that the Orangemen of Ireland were favourable to the repeal of the Union; but this was perhaps the most unfounded of the statements which the hon. and learned Member had made, and he begged to give it the most broad and the most unqualified contradiction. Among the lowest class of the population of Ireland, there might, very likely, be that feeling which the hon. and learned Member had vainly endeavoured to persuade the House pervaded the respectable and intelligent Members of the Irish community. And it was no wonder that among the lower classes this feeling existed, for great pains had been taken to inculcate delusions upon them. The first of these delusions was, that the repeal of the Union must be carried, and that nothing could prevent it being carried. Now, when this representation, which they who made it must know to be untrue, was made to an ignorant and easily-excited population—and when the examples of Paris and of Brussels were held up to them as examples which they should imitate, he would put it to the House, whether the most dangerous consequences were not likely to ensue. He should not have been tempted to make these observations, if the hon. and learned member for Waterford had given them any hope that, by a specific motion, they should have an opportunity of dispelling this delusion by their votes. The hon. and learned Member would not give them any such opportunity, and therefore he could only hope, that every Member of that House, and every respectable member of the Irish community, would embrace all opportunities that might occur of expressing their decided disapprobation of agitating so hopeless and so mischievous a project as the repeal of the Legislative Union with Ireland.

rose for the purpose of contradicting the hon. and learned member for Waterford, who had said that no public meeting had been called at Belfast on this subject.

l.—I did not say that no public meeting had been called. I said that no meeting had been called by public advertisement.

said, that a most numerous and respectable meeting at Belfast had come unanitnously to a resolution against discussing this question, because they were convinced that the discussion of it would be highly injurious. He could answer for this being the opinion of the north of Ireland.

sincerely deprecated the agitation of this question. He could not concur with the hon. member for Dublin in wishing that it were brought before the House by a specific motion, because he thought that by that means the agitation of it in Ireland would be increased.

said, he held in his hand a petition which he felt highly honoured by having committed to his charge. It was upon the question of punishment of death for offences where violence had not been committed. It came from a body of men liable to serve upon Grand Juries in London; and amongst the names that stood forward on the list were those of seven gentlemen who had served as Foremen during the last year. The petition, he stated, was written with distinguished ability and great force, and he would fain have it read at length if he could venture to trespass upon the time of that House; he would content himself with reading the prayer of the petition, which was, that the law which prescribed the punishment of death for offences in which violence had not been committed was detrimental to public justice. He considered this petition worthy the best attention of the House, from the high authority of the petitioners upon the subject to which they directed their attention. It was evident, from the statement, that great difficulty arose from the scruples of Jurors to convict, and that thus the guilty frequently escaped punishment altogether. He believed the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) agreed with him in the principle, though they perhaps, differed in some matters of detail.

corroborated the statement of the hon. and learned Member; and said, that he heartily concurred in the prayer of the petition.

also supported the prayer of the petition. He considered it most important, and that it required the best attention of the House. It clearly showed the painful alternative to which Jurors were exposed—that of unjustly and unrighteously condemning a man to death, or else that of violating their conscientious feelings, by deciding contrary to evidence.

presented a petition from a Gentleman named Angustin Galleano, upon the important subject of the state of the Judicature there. The petitioner complained of a decision of the Court there, against which he had not been allowed to appeal.

said, that he had been requested to support the prayer of the petition. The case of the petitioner was peculiar: An action had been brought against him for a sum of 250l.; he complained that injustice had been done him; but, in consequence of the amount, he was not allowed an appeal against the decision. He believed, that in this instance a trick had been resorted to for the purpose of preventing an appeal, because the amount of the money really in dispute was above double the sum for which the action was brought, and by the law of appeals, no appeal could be brought in a case where the demand was less than 500l.

could say nothing of the facts alleged in this petition, as he had had no intimation of its being about to be presented.

was aware of that circumstance, but vouched for the accuracy of the statement, and for the bad effect of the limitation upon the right of appeal.

said, that if the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman was allowed to its full extent, there would be no limitation to the right of appeal. It would go even to destroy every subordinate Court which existed on the principle of limitation in the amount for which actions were to be brought.

did not wish to destroy that principle, but to leave a discretion in the Court of Appeal, that the principle might Dot be converted into an abuse.

said, that this case was only one of the very numerous instances of the evils of allowing the colonies to be governed by orders in Council. Until a different principle prevailed, abuses would continue, and the colonies would be expensive to this country, without enjoying prosperity themselves.

presented a Petition from certain inhabitants of the town of Galway, which Stated, that although the disqualifications generally affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects had been repealed, yet the Roman Catholic mercantile and trading classes of Galway still continued an isolated exception to the general boon, being as yet excluded from the elective franchise, as enjoyed by their ancestors in common with Protestants before the enactment of the penal code, and as exercised even at the present day by their Protestant fellow-citizens. The petition also stated, that since 1793 the franchise had fallen into the hands of an absentee peasantry, at present amounting to nearly 2,000 in number, to the entire destruction of any power in the Protestant mercantile classes, and to the utter exclusion of the Roman Catholics, who could not become free, from the want of Protestant freemen to whom they might serve apprenticeships. He had presented a petition against the Corporation of Athlone, and the present was the second intrusted to him against corporate usurpation in Ireland, and the conversion of public funds to private purposes. A third petition he had also to present, but which he should for the present abstain from doing, as he intended to make a specific motion to have it referred to a Select Committee when a Government was formed. That petition was from the city of Kilkenny, offering proof at the bar of the House that, like what had taken place in Galway, land, of the clear yearly value of 10,000l. had been, since the Union, converted to any purpose but that of sheltering the houseless poor, or giving employment to the people, as originally intended by their charters. Here was an instance of one of the most ancient and opulent cities in Ireland, and of a maritime town, admirably situated for foreign and domestic trade, both crushed in their industry, and actually chained down to poverty, by corporate usurpation and abominable dereliction of trust. If, since the Union, the Corporations of Galway and Kilkenny had expended these sums, which would have amounted to more than half a million, on the improvement of their ancient cities, and had by then-example animated others to spend larger sums, the consequence might have been, that the Members for Ireland would now have had to represent one of the happiest, instead of one of the most destitute countries in Europe, and need not entertain apprehensions of having all the popularity of their lives sacrificed for not urging the repeal of a Union, which many were disposed to believe had emboldened these Corporations to violate their charters, and despoil the people of their liberties and their wealth. He hoped a new King, a new Parliament, and a new Ministry, would no longer delude both countries by voluminous reports, but fearlessly declare, that the entire exports of the landed produce of Ireland were little enough to meet the claims on the country from absentees and the taxes; and that it was full time for corporate funds to be husbanded for the interests of the people, local taxation to be reduced, and tithes to be commuted.

supported the prayer of the petition. He had been also intrusted with a petition on the same subject from Galway, and he had only deferred presenting it in order that he might know whether it was the intention of his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, to bring forward again the Galway Franchise Bill.

said, that it was his intention to bring that Bill forward again this Session.

presented a Petition from the same places, complaining of the evils of absenteeism, and praying for a repeal of the Union. He took that opportunity to state, that he now held in his hand documents confirming his statement as to the serving of notices upon the estate of Earl Fitzwilliam, in the county Wicklow. Instead of 800 persons having got notice to quit (which was his original statement), it would appear from the documents which had been forwarded to him, that 1,544 persons had received such notices, and their names and residences were furnished to him. He had also received documents fully confirming his statement as to the estate of Lord Rathdown. He had also received one of the circulars which had been sent round by Lord Fitzwilliam's agent to the tenantry, informing them, that if any of them had sublet, they should not have their leases renewed. He had submitted those documents to the hon. member for Wicklow (Mr. James Grattan), and he had offered to lay them before the hon. member for Northamptonshire (Lord Al-thorp.)

did not mean to deny, that what the hon. and learned Member had stated with respect to the notices was fact; but it was not the mere consequence of the Subletting Act, nor was that fact sufficient to justify any imputation on the landlord. It was impossible, in the present state of the law, to relet the farms without giving this notice, in order to be strictly regular; but though these notices had been given, he denied that 800 or 1,500 persons had been turned off the estate. So far from it, indeed, he had the best reason for believing that only one of the tenants on whom notice was served was likely to quit. He took that opportunity of bearing his sincere testimony to the excellent character and conduct of Mr. Challoner, the agent for the noble Earl. He had had amply opportunity of witnessing the manner in which that gentleman managed the noble Earl's estate, and nothing could be more excellent or more liberal. Mr. Challoner had this last summer spent a very large sum of money in improving the estate, and the consequence was, that the peasantry in that neighbourhood had the advantage of good employment.

reiterated the statement contained in the letter of Archdeacon Trench, with regard to the estate of Lord Rathdown, and at the same time said, he should be most happy to see the documents spoken of by the hon. member for Waterford.

deprecated the practice of introducing such discussions upon the presentation of petitions; and, above all, he deprecated the practice of the hon. member for Waterford, in thus constantly recurring to statements which had been repeatedly contradicted. Was that House to be a court of appeal for the peasantry in these matters, and what sort of tribunal, he would ask, would the House of Commons become, if, night after night, state- ments should be repeated after the flattest contradictions had been given to them— contradictions so direct and positive, that they must come home to the heart of every one who felt like a gentleman? A detailed statement had been received by the hon. member for Youghall from Mr. Challoner, which amply refuted the attacks directed against him, and reflected the highest credit on him.

wished to know to whom were the peasantry of Ireland to prefer their complaints, if not to that House? He defended the conduct of the hon. member for Waterford, and contended that, as the serving of the notices had been admitted by the hon. member for Wicklow, the statement was untouched, and that the hon. Gentleman, the Solicitor General for Ireland, appeared to be ignorant of the facts of the case. His hon. friend, the member for Waterford, had been accused of stating falsely, that 800 notices to quit had been served on Earl Fitzwilliam's tenantry; he had accordingly brought documents to prove that 1,500 notices had been served; the accuracy of those documents was not denied by the hon. member for Wicklow, and therefore his hon. friend had completely made out his case, notwithstanding the loud and confident assertions of Gentlemen opposite.

explained. He had never meant to assert that the people should not have the right to petition that House.

observed, that upon the first night of the Session the hon. member for Waterford had asserted, in his speech upon the Address, not that notices had been served upon 800 families upon the Fitzwilliam estate, but that 800 families had been actually turned out from their homes, and sent adrift upon the world. The learned member for Yorkshire, in adverting to that statement upon the same evening, said, that it was the most horrible picture he had ever heard drawn of the condition of any country, and that such a state of things should not be allowed to exist in any portion of the civilized world. Such was the impression, too, which the statement of the hon. member for Waterford made then upon the House. That hon. Member afterwards retracted the statement as to 800 families, and confined it to 800 persons; and he had now retracted his statement as to the fact, for it appeared that the notices of which he spoke were not real ejectments. The object, however, was obtained by the extensive circulation of such inflammatory statements, in quarters where the retractations of them, and the answers to them, might never reach to counteract the misrepresentation.

replied, that he had all along asserted that 800 persons had received notice to quit; he had therefore retracted nothing, and the documents which had been furnished to him had nearly doubled that statement. He congratulated the House on its readiness to lead on a cheer against him, and assured the Members that such cheers gave him a proud conviction that he had done his duty to his country.

said, he was sorry that the learned Solicitor General was not in the House, as he would have another opportunity of admiring that beautiful thing which he called the science of the law. Here, was an amendment in the law for altering the essoign day, and he should be glad if the House could be made to know what it meant. Yet the law was praised because the hon. member for Middlesex could not understand it. An excellent thing it was for the conjurors who did understand it; but those who went to have their fortunes told had not much reason to rejoice. But even the conjurors themselves were sometimes at fault; for the Attorney General framed a bill last Session, exactly three months ago, and he now wished to make an amendment in it, in the necessity of which he perfectly concurred.

said, the hon. Member was a man of education, and he should have apprehended that few Gentlemen who aspired to speak in that House could be ignorant of what an essoign day was; but, since he supposed that others were, he would beg to explain the intention of the Bill. The hon. Member seemed to complain of his having removed that expression from the Bill, but in professing to criticise it, he shewed that he was not master of its meaning. He said, that the Bill had existed three months, and that already it had been found necessary to alter it; but, in fact, the part of the Bill to be altered had not yet come into operation, and would not till January next. A clause relating to the same subject as that now under discussion was introduced as a provisional clause into the Bill, the fixing the day being left to the discretion of the Judges. When, however, the Bill arrived in the House of Peers, the noble Lord who presided in the Court of King's Bench thought it better, instead of this temporary clause, leaving the matter to the Judges, that a precise day should be fixed, and so accordingly the Bill was passed; but he had since become aware that the Bill would be better as it originally stood, or that the return of the original writ should be put upon the same footing as the others, and he agreed in the opinion of that noble Lord. To carry that into effect, or restore the Bill to its original state was the object of the Bill, then before the House.

felt obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement, from which it appeared, that the Bill, instead of having been in operation three months, had not yet come into operation, but required another bill to enable it to move. If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew that this provision was necessary, why did he not introduce it at the time? His present measure was nothing more than a patching up of an incomplete bill. The public prints said, that it would be impossible to carry the learned Gentleman's measure into effect without amendment; and he apparently had taken the hint from the public papers. He was right in bringing these amendments forward; but he should not take credit for them. If the Attorney General and other law-officers of the new Administration should not know what they had to do better than those of the retiring Administration, one-half of the time of the House would be thrown away in amending the blunders and mistakes committed in the other half.

reiterated his statement that the Amendment was not of any clause introduced into the Bill in that House, but of a clause introduced by the Chief Justice in the House of Lords.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better providing Employment for the Labouring Poor, at fair and adequate wages. In doing so he observed, that the Bill which he was about to introduce was almost word for word the same as the Bill which he had carried to an advanced stage last Session, and which had been referred to a committee. The first clause of the Bill was the only one that was mandatory, and it was intended to do away with the system called roundsmen— a system which existed in a great many parishes, and which increased the rates, whilst it degraded the population. The remaining clauses of the Bill were only permissive to vestries to establish, by a majority of two-thirds, a common rate of labour. This would be the means to bring labour to a fair and open competition. He wished to avoid all descriptions of that distress which had existed last year in the county in which he resided, and in which labour was in a very unnatural state. He should not wish to express one-half of what he knew upon the subject, for his object was to mitigate and not to increase those bitter things which were felt on both sides by the classes interested in the cultivation of the soil. During the severity of winter, 4s. 6d. was the weekly wages of labourers in the county in which he resided, and in many parishes the wages were only 3s. 6d., whilst the peck of Hour, the starving ratio, the minimum of human existence, cost 3s. During all this distress, the calendar at the assizes and the quarter Sessions at the close of the winter was lighter than it had been for many years. He should not go further into the subject, as no opposition was intended to the Bill.

wished that the Bill could be extended to Ireland, though the Irish people ought to be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel) for what he had done for them, as well as for the fairness and candour, with which he had always avowed his opposition.

bore testimony to the truth and good faith which the right hon. Gentleman had always observed towards the House. He differed from that right hon. Gentleman on many political questions, but there was no public man whose integrity he more highly esteemed.

highly approved of the Bill, and contended that parishes ought to have the power of employing poor on waste lands. There was no surer criterion of the strength and prosperity of a country than the condition of the labouring and middle classes. He wished each man also to have a small piece of ground.

was convinced that the measure would be practically useful in the part of the country with which he was best acquainted.

knew from authentic information, that the county of Sussex was in a most deplorable state. Large bodies of labourers were going about compelling the farmers to give higher wages, and the farmers were unable to resist. Some measures should be speedily adopted.

could not attribute the state of the labouring poor to the conduct of Government, and he was convinced that it would be impossible to do any thing for the poor, unless the higher agricultural classes did something for them. The Bill could not be extended to Ireland, as no Poor-laws existed in that country. He hoped that the Bill would have the effect anticipated, and whoever might be the new Ministers, he was confident that they could not stand unless they did something for the landed interest and the distressed peasantry.

was more disposed to listen to those who suggested remedies for the evils, than to those who expatiated on them. It was not by Acts of Parliament that the distress could be remedied. All classes must lend a contributory hand, and especially landlords. Those who proposed that the salaries of Ministers should be reduced to the standard of 1792, should contrast their own rent-roll at present with the amount they received in 1792. Farmers could not afford to pay war-rents, war-tithes, and war-wages. Landlords must make large concessions, and the benefit would soon be felt and willingly acknowledged. He trusted that the clergy would practise the virtues of charity and forbearance, as well as inculcate them weekly.

said, that the rents in the county he represented had generally been reduced one-third.

was understood to speak in favour of the Church Establishment, and to reprobate any modification of the tithe-system that might possibly be inconsistent with its security.

protested against the doctrine that the landlords and gentry of England were indifferent to the state of their tenantry. The rent of land was regulated by the laws of supply and demand, like all other commodities; and if humanity did not induce landlords to lower rents to the state of the market, good sense very soon would.

thought it preposterous to talk of reducing the rent of lands to what it had been in 1792, since, in the interval, a great deal of capital had been laid out in its improvement. Land that was worth 30l. per acre in 1792, was now worth perhaps 60l. per acre. Rent was like the price of every thing else, it could not be controlled by law, but must be regulated by demand and supply. All the evils of the country had sprung from the country gentlemen supporting the Government in its extravagance. If Government would but take off taxes, all classes would participate in the relief, and that was the best remedy that could be applied. He hoped that the House would take care to have a cheap Government—that every individual employed should be paid, but paid no more than their services deserved. The hon. member for St. Ives (Mr. Long Wellesley) was anxious to support the supremacy of the Church; but the Church had long been predominant, and it ought to be subordinate, for its supremacy had vitiated its power of doing good. Large payments had prevented the clergy from instructing the people. The best measure would be to abolish tithes, or to put them on the same footing with those of Scotland, where the tithe-payer knew not the renter. If tithes were not moderated, the clergy would soon get none at, all. The clerical tithes were not exacted with half the rigour of the lay tithes, and yet they excited greater irritation and discontent. The Government ought to remove such a source of obloquy, and apportion tithes according to the duty performed. In his opinion, a clergyman of 2,000l. a-year was no more fit for a parish priest than a nobleman was fit for a menial servant.

was glad to have the subject of the Poor-laws brought forward; but it was attended with innumerable difficulties, and he much doubted the beneficial effects of the present measure.

explained, that he wished the tithe system reformed, but the supremacy of the Church maintained.