moved that a New Writ be issued for the election of a Member for the County of Cumberland, in the room of Sir James Graham, who had accepted the Office of First Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty.

, on the question being put, said, that a motion respecting the living of Stanhope had been put upon the books by the hon. Member who had now vacated his seat, and as that Motion could not now come on, for a short time at least, and, in the mean time, the right rev. Prelate referred to in that Motion, was subjected to the effect of those mistakes that had been circulated respecting him, he (Mr. Phillpotts) trusted that the House would indulge, him while he made a short statement of the real circumstances of the case: —The Petition from the inhabitants of Stanhope to his Majesty, praying that the Rectory of that Parish might not be holden in commendam with the See of Exeter, contained three allegations—and only three of any moment. They were as follows:— 1st. That "the population of which the Rector has the spiritual care, consists of 12,000 inhabitants."—2nd. That "he delegates the spiritual care of these 12,000 souls to a hireling."—3rd. That "the parish pays him a tithe of 4,000l. a-year, and therefore may claim the advantages of a resident Rector." Every one of these al- legations was substantially untrue. First, it was alleged that the population consisted of 12,000; whereas, at the last census, under the most extended description which could be given to the district, the numbers were no more than 7,341. But of these 7,341, the far greater part, no less than 4,994, were not placed under the spiritual care of the Rector. They belonged to an ancient Chapelry, locally situate indeed within the limits of the parish of Stanhope, but placed from the earliest times under a distinct minister, with a distinct endowment; and for many years past an entirely independent benefice. Within that Chapelry a second independent benefice had recently been erected. Over the incumbents of these two benefices, which, were indeed, in his patronage, he had no control whatever. In short, instead of 12,000 souls, as was asserted in the petition, 2,341 only were under the spiritual care of the Rector of Stanhope. The second allegation of the petition was, that the Rector "delegates the spiritual care of 12,000 inhabitants to a hireling." It had just been shown that the care of 2,341 only could be delegated by him at all. It was delegated, during the time of his necessary absence, to two resident Curates, both of whom were men of education and high character; one of them a man of independent fortune, who had resigned a small living of which he was incumbent, in order to become Curate at Stanhope. These Curates were not dependents; for when they were licensed, as they were bound to be, they were irremoveable, except for some fault of which the Bishop was the judge; and from his sentence they had an appeal to the Metropolitan. In short, therefore, instead of "the spiritual care of 12,000 inhabitants being delegated to one hireling," as was asserted in the petition, the truth was, that 2,347 are placed, during the absence of the Rector, under the charge of two licensed and responsible Curates. The third allegation was, that "the parish pays to the Rector a tithe of 4,000l. per annum, and therefore has a right to the advantages of a resident Rector;" whereas, in truth, the whole amount of what was paid to him by the parishioners was something between 500l. and 600l. per annum, hardly a shilling in the pound on the rental. The great bulk of the emoluments of the living arose from a payment not made by any inhabitants of the parish of Stanhope, nor by persons who could in any sense be called parishioners It was, in effect, an ancient donation from the See of Durham, made long before the restraining Statutes prohibited such an alienation of its funds. That donation conferred on the Rector of Stanhope a portion, nominally a tenth, of the ore raised from the lead mines of the See situate within the parish, which portion, amounting in value at present to about 3,000l. per annum, was paid by the Lessees of the Bishop's mines, who lived at a great distance from Stanhope. There were other considerable mines within the parish, especially those of the chairman of the meeting at which the petition was voted, but neither he nor any other proprietor, except the Bishop, paid anything whatever to the Rector on account of his mines. That payment, therefore, being the bulk of the income of the living of Stanhope, was taken from the revenues of the See of Durham; and that opulent See, so often as the Rectory of Stanhope was holden in commendam. contributes to supply the defective endowment of some poorer Bishoprick; an appropriation so fitting, that this Rectory has repeatedly been made the subject of a commendam. The three Rectors in succession who immediately preceded the last incumbent, held that living with their respective Bishopricks. 1st, Bishop Butler, the author of the Analogy—a man not more distinguished by his wonderful talents than by his pious and conscientious discharge of all his duties—with the See of Bristol. 2nd, Bishop Keene, with the See of Chester. 3rd, Bishop Thurlow, with the See of Lincoln. The See of Exeter, in consequence of the spoliation of its revenues, in the reigns of Edward 6th and Queen Elizabeth, was notoriously too poor for the maintenance of its Bishop. It had been the invariable practice to allow those who were raised to it to retain some or all of their former preferments. Since the commencement of the present century, there had been three instances of Bishops of this See holding livings; one of them. Bishop Courtenay, was Rector of the rich and populous parish of St. George's Hanoversquare, containing 43,936 inhabitants (though of this instance it was freely admitted, that the parish, being situate in London, might be superintended by the Bishop, during the months in which he attended in Parliament). 2nd, Bishop Pelham held a parish in Sussex of 1,907 inhabitants. 3rd, The late Bishop held a parish in Yorkshire, containing 841 inhabitants, the income of which, being small, was found not sufficient to make the revenues of the See of Exeter adequate to the demands upon him, though he was a single man. It must be observed, that when a poor Bishoprick was to be sustained by a commendam, the question, what that commendam should be, must be decided, generally, by the nature of the preferment previously held by the person nominated to the Bishoprick. In the present instance, besides this general reason, there were special circumstances of a very peculiar kind. When the present Rector of Stanhope succeeded to the living, he built a house upon it, at the requisition of the late Bishop of Durham, the patron of the living, and on a plan approved and settled by him. The charge of building that house and the premises annexed to it, together with a house, which, of his own accord, and without being required by the Bishop, he built for the residence of his Curates, has amounted to 12,000l.; which charge, equivalent to 1,000l. per annum, was not laid permanently on the living, but attaches solely to himself, and, of course would continue so to attach, even if he should cease to be Rector. In consequence, when his Majesty's gracious intention of raising him to the bench of Bishops was announced to him, four months ago, not having solicited, nor taken any step, direct or indirect, to obtain this or any other Bishoprick, he immediately felt it his duty to state the impossibility of his availing himself of his Majesty's gracious purpose, unless, like his predecessors, he should be permitted to retain his living in commendam, there being no other preferment vacant at the disposal of the Crown approaching to an equivalent for the sacrifice. It was after this communication that he was informed by his Majesty's Minister, that orders were given for preparing the proper instruments to enable him to retain the living; he, in consequence, no longer scrupled to accept the offered promotion. He trusted that this statement would be thought satisfactory, to the hon. Baronet and the country and that the House would hear no more upon the subject. He was quite sure that the hon. Baronet had no notion when he gave notice of the motion, of what were the real circumstances of the case.

said, that as the circumstances attendant upon the promotion of Dr. Phillpotts were generally under- stood, he felt it necessary to say a few words upon the subject. He had the authority of the Duke of Wellington for stating, that he (the Duke of Wellington) was in communication with Dr. Phillpotts upon the subject of the Catholic Relief Bill, and that Dr. Phillpotts, instead of being, as was generally supposed, an approver of that measure, had been, in fact, an opponent of the measure, up to the time of the passing of it. He could further state, on the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that it was the intention of Lord Liverpool to raise Dr. Phillpotts to the Episcopal Bench. The House should also, perhaps, be informed, that the Duke of Wellington made the usual communications to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, and that the noble Duke received the assent of those right reverend Prelates to the propriety of the appointment of Dr. Phillpotts to the See of Exeter. The right reverend Prelates had, indeed, said, that the appointment might be unpopular in the Church; but, as the noble Duke knew that the grounds on which Dr. Phillpotts was unpopular were altogether mistaken and erroneous, the noble Duke saw, that this could be no objection to the appointment. Let him observe that Dr. Phillpotts had fourteen children to provide for, and that he was compelled to lay aside a considerable portion of his income as a provision for his family, in the event of any accident happening to him. He did not appeal ad misericordiam in behalf of Dr. Phillpotts. They ought to recollect that Dr. Phillpotts had laid out 12,000l. on the living, and that he had all along been promised that he should hold the living in commendam with the See of Exeter. He had thought it his duty to state this to the House, in addition to the explanation which had been given by the hon. Member opposite, of the misrepresentations which had gone abroad on this subject.

, seized the same opportunity to express his hope that the office of Treasurer for Ireland, a sinecure, would be abolished. This was the more necessary, as the country was paying 16,000l. a-year as pensions to retired or displaced Lord Chancellors, and might soon have an additional 8,000l. to pay.

would take that opportunity to say, that though no individual could differ more than he did upon many public questions with the members of his Majesty's late Administration, he regretted, upon other grounds, that some of them had been obliged to quit office. Though no ministry ever came into power in times of greater difficulty than those which marked the accession of the present Ministry, he rejoiced exceedingly that the principles which they professed had triumphed and he did not sit there to oppose them, [the hon. Member occupied his usual seat on the Opposition Benches,] but he sat there, because it was his opinion that, in the present corrupt state of the Representation it was the duty of every independent Member of Parliament to exercise a vigilance, almost amounting to a suspicion, towards any Administration. Though he differed upon many general public grounds from the right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary for the Home Department, he conceived that the country was indebted to him for many useful reforms; and he regretted much that that right hon. Gentleman had felt it his duty to retire from office. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not become convinced of the necessity of reform; but, at the same time, he trusted, though out of office, that the country would feel grateful to the right hon. Baronet for what he had effected. He also regretted the retirement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, than whom no one could be found better calculated for the discharge of the public duties which had devolved upon him; and he likewise regretted the retirement of the noble Lord who had presided over the Woods and Forests, the duties of which office would never be discharged in a more vigilant excellent, and honourable manner. While he said all this, he was far from wishing to be understood as giving his praise or assent to the general public principles which had rendered the retirement of the late Ministers necessary, in order to satisfy the country. He repeated, that he thought these were times of great difficulty in which the new Ministry had come into power; but never was a more glorious opportunity presented to any Ministry than was offered to them, and never did the country place more confidence in a Ministry who came into office upon the sole foundation of reform and retrenchment. The new Ministers were pledged to reform and retrenchment, and to the principle of non-interference with foreign Powers, and if they but did their duty, they might be sure that the country would support them. If that House should not support them in carrying into effect those measures to which they were pledged, then let them dissolve Parliament, and make their appeal to the country. Constituted as that House was, the Treasury could always return from twenty to thirty Members, and if the new Ministers should be driven to a dissolution, they could at once command that number of supporters from the Government boroughs, and he would assure them that all popular places would send Representatives to that House to support them.

(who spoke from his usual place upon the Ministerial benches) said, he was also anxious to make a declaration of his sentiments upon this occasion, as well as the hon. member for Preston. If the new Ministers would conduct themselves properly—if they would redeem the pledges which they had given—and if, beginning at the right end, they would effect the retrenchment and the Reform which they promised, they should have his support. He hoped, among other things, that the new Ministry would again bring forward the question for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, which ought to be done away. The greatest mistake of all had been the declaration against Reform. Had the franchises of a few of the corrupt boroughs been given to the large towns, even by way of a sop to Cerberus, the Ministers might have weathered the storm, and he for one regretted that they had not done so.

expressed his dissent from the gallant Admiral's opinion as to the office of Lord Lieutenant for Ireland.

said, he held in his hand a Petition from a Parish which now contained 130,000 inhabitants. He alluded to the parish of Mary-le-bone, and the petitioners prayed for a law to enable them to remove the Select Vestry, which now concealed from the parishioners the nature of their expenditure, and which had been made to amount to so large a sum as greatly to distress the parish. When the parishioners had come before the Magistrates to appeal against the conduct of the Vestry, they found many of the Officers of the Vestry sitting on the bench with the Magistrates, and they complained against the proceeding as altogether unfair. The petitioners prayed that the Select Vestry should be abolished, and that every individual paying a direct tax should have a vote in the election of Vestrymen. For his part he hoped that the time had now come for doing away the Select Vestry system altogether.

thought, that the parishioners had an advantage in preliminary appeals, and might afterwards appeal to the Sessions, while other parishes could only appeal to the general Sessions.

rose to present a Petition from the Town of Nottingham, praying for a thorough Reform of Parliament. The petition was signed by 8,000 persons, a number which constituted more than half of the adult male population of the place. The petitioners prayed that the subject of Reform might be taken immediately into the consideration of the House, and they expressed themselves favourable to the vote by Ballot. They were convinced that the mere extension of the franchise to a few great towns would be a Reform of very little value. With respect to the vote by ballot, he thought the subject required the fullest consideration, since so very large a portion of the country was favourable to that system. In his private opinion, he was by no means convinced of its propriety by any arguments he had as yet heard, though he must confess himself quite open to conviction upon the subject.

supported the petition, and he hoped that the time was arrived when the prayers of the people would be heard in that House, and he trusted that before many weeks the Cabinet would bring in some measures for Reform. As to the vote by ballot, he had been rather opposed to it, but the manner in which the late elections had been conducted, had convented him to take a favourable view of that plan. At any rate it seemed now to be desired by the people, and their wishes ought to be attended to.

believed, that the people of Ireland generally, and more especially in the north, and in Armagh, were unanimously in favour of voting by Ballot.

moved the third reading of the Sussex Special Jury Bill.

said, that he continued of opinion, that the measure was of an injurious character, and that it would tend to prevent a fair and impartial administration of justice. The Bill proceeded altogether upon a false assumption of the law with respect to where the Assizes were held, the places not being permanently fixed by law, but changeable at the pleasure of the Crown. He did not know what could be done in cases of remanets, if the Bill were to pass. In this respect the Bill was, in fact, opposed to what it pretended to accomplish; for as the Assizes were held alternately in the eastern and western parts of the county, and as the remanets from one Assize were tried at the next, the Special Jurors who had been summoned in such causes in the first instance from one division of the county, would have to attend the trial in the other. He thought the general system ought not to be broken in upon by any such local Bills.

thought, that as the learned Member's objections were technical, they ought to have been stated in the Committee. The cases of remanets were provided for in the Bill.

had no wish whatever to exclude petty Jurymen from any advantages to be given to especial Jurymen under the Bill. It should be remembered that the county of Sussex was 100 miles long, and only thirty broad, and it was a great hardship to call upon Jurymen to travel such a vast distance. The Bill had been brought in with the approbation and at the desire of a very considerable body of the freeholders of the county. The districts for selecting Juries would be fifty miles long, by thirty broad, and it was not likely that Juries could be packed. He had seen an observation in another place than that House, that Special Jurymen were paid for their trouble, and consequently that it was not necessary to consult their convenience so much as that of petty Jurors; but the payment was only one guinea, and which was unworthy of consideration with respect to the distance they had to travel. If' the districts into which the Bill would divide the county were too small for the fair selection of Juries, what must be the case in Rutlandshire, Huntingdon, and Hertfordshire? and yet no complaints of partiality in the selection of Juries were made in those small counties. There was a special clause in the Bill, providing for remanets.

thought the House under great obligations to the hon. member for Stafford (Mr. Campbell) for his observations upon the Bill, which certainly formed a precedent for circumscribing the districts from which Juries were selected, and therefore the Bill trenched upon the principles of the Jury Act. Practically speaking, Sussex was divided into two parts—the eastern and western, and they were separated more than parts of counties generally were. Upon the whole, he thought the local convenience of the county would be very much consulted by the Act, and he, for one, should not be disposed to offer it any opposition.

wished for a postponement of the measure, to facilitate the arrangement of its details.

did not wish to obstruct the Bill, if the gentlemen of the county, who must be the best judges of the matter, were favourable to it; but the question was, whether the distance from which Special Jurors must be summoned was such as to render it worth while to pass a law on the subject.

thought the Bill calculated to afford a reasonable degree of accommodation to the county, and anticipated no greater inconvenience in Sussex, when thus divided, than in other large divisions of counties, provided a sufficient fund of Special Jurors could be found within it. He thought, however, that the part of the Bill relating to remanets required further consideration, and therefore he hoped that the Bill would be postponed.

postponed the third reading-till the 1st of February.

said, he had given notice of a Motion for that evening, to the effect, that it was the opinion of the House that no person appointed to any Office after this time, should receive any Salary or Allowances exceeding those paid for the same Office in 1796, and he felt sure that the House would have gone along with him in the propriety of the Resolution, if it had not been for some circumstances that recently occurred. Now, however, lest it should appear as if such a motion involved a want of confidence in the new Ministers, and as he felt no disposition to refuse his confidence to them at present, he should postpone the Resolution till he saw the House filled with the members of the new Administration, for whom writs had been moved. He would then bring- forward his motion, and take the sense of the House upon it, should it be opposed. Meanwhile he took this opportunity to say, that he viewed the recent change with feelings of great satisfaction, because he thought it offered to the country hopes of a radical change in public measures. He understood that Ministers stood pledged to Reform, and as a friend of Reform he was anxious to see them in their places. He also understood that they were pledged to carry into effect measures of economy and retrenchment—principles which he had long advocated. He hoped that Ministers would carry forward such measures in a manner more effectual than their predecessors; if not, they should find him their steady opponent, as he had been the opponent of the last Administration. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought he should not compromise the duty which he owed to his constituents and the country, by giving the new Administration a fair trial. He had heard with satisfaction that Ministers were disposed to act upon the principles of Free Trade —he hoped and trusted that they would do so, and also adopt measures of liberal policy generally, calculated to satisfy the country. He trusted that they would adopt other measures of Reform, to which, however, it was not now necessary to allude. He hoped that Ministers would imitate their predecessors (whom he must compliment on this point) in upholding public credit. I f a doubt were cast for a single moment upon its being maintained, the results must be most disastrous—Ministers owed it, therefore, not only to the safety of this country, but also to the well-being of Europe, to uphold public credit. On the whole, looking to the principles of the men who had now taken office, he thought them entitled to support; and he should withdraw his motion, without fixing any day for bringing it before the House. He had also upon the paper a notice of motion respecting the names, offices, and salaries of the servants of the Ordnance freemen of Queenborough, but he found that the case was already before a committee, and further, that it was thought his Motion might interfere with the proceedings of the Committee. He was the last person to wish to interfere with the justice of that or any other case, and lest he should be thought to compromise the rights of parties before the Committee, he begged to postpone the Motion. There was a question which he confessed he felt rather unwilling to bring before the House—it was involved in the petition of an individual with respect to the Armagh election, praying for an extension of the time allowed for entering into recognizances. The petitioner asked for thirty days, because the Master in Chancery had fixed an irregular day for entering into recognizance; but on inquiry from the Master, he (Mr. Hume) learned, that the day had been fixed at the petitioner's own request. Nevertheless, the petitioner now demanded indulgence on the ground of an irregularity created at his own instance, Under such circumstances, although he \ did not like to refuse presenting a petition which was properly worded, he could not give his support to its prayer, but would leave it to the House to deal with it as might be thought proper.

said, that the original petition to which the hon. Member referred, was reported by him to-day to the effect that no recognizance had been entered into; and on that report being made, the order for the consideration of the petition was discharged. With regard to the merits of the case, he believed them to be precisely as the hon. Member had stated. In the first instance, a day was fixed for entering into recognizances on the petitioner's own suggestion; and now further time was asked for, because the Master, acting on that suggestion, had fixed an improper day. It was for the House to say whether, under such circumstances, it felt disposed to receive this petition, or disturb the decision to which it had come upon the subject [cries of "Withdraw."]

said, he should yield to the feeling of the House and withdraw the petition.

having moved for leave of absence for Mr. Dundas, who was ordered to join his regiment in consequence of the public disturbances,

said, this was the second or third leave of absence that had been moved for in consequence of the disturbances which unfortunately existed in various parts of the country. He put it to the good sense of the House to say, whether, under all the circumstances of the case, it might not be expedient to defer a great number of the Election Committees till after Christmas. [Cries of "No."] The consequence of the absence of so many Members in the disturbed counties must be, that they should not be able to make a House upon ballot nights, and then the trial of certain election petitions would be adjourned, with great expense and inconvenience to all parties concerned. He therefore put it to his Majesty's Government, whether a compliance with the suggestion which he had thrown out was not desirable.

said, that after the decision of the House the other night, postponement could not be thought of. At the same time he admitted that much inconvenience might be felt by parties in the event of difficulty being experienced in obtaining sufficient Members for ballots. But when the difficulty arose, the House must endeavour to deal with it. The hon. Member intimated that it was proposed to get through the ballots for election petitions as fast as possible, and with that view the House, which would adjourn over from to-morrow till Wednesday, would meet again on Thursday, for which day there were three ballots fixed.

hoped no serious idea of postponing the Election Committees was entertained in any quarter. He should certainly oppose such a proposition.

suggested, that between that time and to-morrow an opportunity might be afforded to apply to the parties interested, and consult them as to whether it would be of advantage to them to have their election petitions postponed. If ballots were fixed, and a House was not made upon the appointed day, it would occasion a heavy expense to individuals.

said, he did not wish to disturb what had been done the other night, but at the same time he felt that no duty was so important as that of endeavouring to restore tranquillity and quiet to the country. He might, perhaps, be considered an alarmist—a character he should be sorry to sustain, but he found it impossible to conceal his opinion as to the extent of the existing evil, and wished to call the attention, not only of individuals locally interested, but of Government, to the subject. He repeated he should be sorry to spread any unnecessary alarm, but must declare his opinion that nothing was so pressing—no duty of Government or individuals so urgent—as to endeavour to put an end to the state of things existing in several counties. The authors of those disorders, he thought, might have been, and still might be, discovered, and the disturbances put an end to, by vigilance and promptitude. He wished for no delay in the ballots on election petitions—that was, he desired no delay that could be safely avoided, but, at the same time, he thought it might be well worth while to incur delay in such matters, if by postponement could be purchased the great object of quieting the country. If putting off election committees, or even an adjournment of the House, would leave Gentlemen at liberty to contribute more efficiently to the attainment of that end, no inconvenience that might be caused to individuals should prevent him from recommending the proceeding.

in reference to the hon. Member's allusion to, and implied want of vigilance and promptitude in the late Cabinet, with respect to the disturbances existing in some parts of the country, could only say, that every aid which it was possible for the counties in question to receive from the military force at the disposal of Government, they had received; that every suggestion of the local magistracy—every suggestion calculated to stop the evil, had been adopted by the late Government, which paid the most undivided attention, to the case. Where parties locally interested co-operated with Government—where the disposition towards disturbance had been promptly met by them—it was always suppressed. He had seen individuals, unsupported by any force, refuse to sign papers guaranteeing a reduction of rents and tithes, and he knew of no one case of personal violence having been offered to such individuals, who were uniformly successful in their resistance to such lawless demands. In all cases of this nature the rioters had retired, threatening perhaps to return on a future day, but they did not. No doubt, if there was not a sufficient military and local force to support persons who acted thus, and repress disturbance, Parliament would be at least as much in fault as the late Govern- ment, for having compelled Ministers to adopt dangerous reductions. He repeated, every thing which it was possible to do had been done in the way of despatching detachments of the military, and sending portions of the police of the metropolis (although that was a body intended for other purposes), to aid the local force where the exigency called for such assistance. Every species of civil, military, and legal assistance had been promptly given to the local magistracy.

was convinced that no person could have attended to the duties of his office more assiduously than did the right hon. Baronet; but giving the right hon. Gentleman every credit for a desire to restore the public quiet, still he must say, he was of opinion that the disturbances might have been put down at once by prompt measures; that when more confined and limited than, unhappily, they now were, the disorders might have been crushed and prevented from extending. He feared, that if the disorders went on for three or four days longer, they would extend beyond the reach of almost any power to suppress them. That was his opinion; if there was not force in the country to put down the disturbances, when they only existed in one county, what chance should we have of suppressing them when they extended, as they soon might, over a dozen counties? If there was not sufficient force to repress these disorders, it was the duty of Government to provide it. But he did not mean to say that there was really any deficiency of force to effect this object; on the contrary, he was of opinion that, with a little more vigour at first, and a better application of the force which we possessed, Government might have prevented the evil from spreading as it had.

ventured to say, that if a proposal had been made by Government last year to increase the military force of the country, in anticipation of disturbances such as now existed,—he ventured to say that the proposal would not have met the approbation of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had said, the disorders might still be put down, and in this sentiment he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he saw no reason for apprehension. He thought that, even without reference to a military force, the fact of every man that was menaced being, as was doubtless the case, prepared to fight in defence of his property, was sufficient without such an effort. If aggressions were met by a pusillanimous compliance, no military force would suffice to put down the disturbances. Every man who had landed property had dependents more or less numerous—let him arm them, and they would repel all aggression. A case had occurred in which this was done, and 150 men put down a riot. Let others follow the example, and refuse to make concessions to tumultuous violence, and he would assure the hon. Gentleman that there existed a military force sufficient (when thus aided) to put down the disturbances. But without that, all the military and civil force that could be brought to act— all the efforts of a Secretary of State—were as nothing. Indeed, it would be a perilous state of things if every thing depended upon the energy and sagacity of an individual sitting in an office at Whitehall. It would be impossible for a Secretary of State, or any other functionary, to act with advantage in such cases, unaided by the suggestions of the local magistracy.

assured his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Spring Rice) that he felt no hostility towards him, or the newly-appointed Members of his Majesty's Government generally. At the same time he must say, he had seen with feelings of the utmost surprise and concern the announcement of the appointment made to the office, of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He said, it was with surprise he saw Government filling up this place, more particularly after what fell from the present Lord Chancellor the other night in the debate on the Civil List. If Ministers persisted in their present line of conduct with respect to the Duchy, and did not themselves take the matter up, he should consider it his duty to bring the subject of the Duchy of Lancaster before the House immediately after the recess.