presented a Petition from Reading, praying that the bill now pending in the Lords for the establishment of Local Courts might be passed into a law. The petition was numerously signed, and would have been signed by every inhabitant in Reading if more time had been allowed. He cordially concurred in the prayer of the petition, and believed that the bill, if passed into a law, would do a great deal of good, by preventing delay, vexation, and expense in obtaining justice. It would be an especial benefit to the working and poorer classes, and should receive from him the warmest support when it came into that House.

presented a similar petition from Lincoln. The great expense at present of law proceedings was a serious injury to all the middle classes, particularly to tradesmen. He rejoiced that one whose talents he admired, and whose loss to that House he deplored—he rejoiced that the noble and learned Lord meant to carry forward the reforms in the law which he had first proposed in that House.

was extremely anxious to call the attention of the petitioners to the fact, that although the principle of local judicature was excellent, and of the most ancient practice, yet in the details of the bill introduced into the other House. there would be found many objections, such as the complexity of its provisions, and the utter impossibility of one man combining all the duties imposed upon him by the bill. These things would in a great measure prevent the bill being beneficial, but he still approved of it as an experiment, though he would advise petitioners to be cautious how they wished to extend the operations of the system until they found its effects by experience.

said, that the petition was signed by several gentlemen, eminent in the profession of which the learned Gentleman near him (Mr. O'Connell) was so distinguished a member. An easy access to justice had been too long denied to the people; and he could not agree that it was better to delay still longer for the sake of such a measure as the learned Member might approve.

said, that he well knew that legal reform had been too long delayed; and all that he desired was, that, when granted, it should be effectual. He did not wish to discourage the petitioners, but he must repeat, that they would not find the proposed measure so efficacious as they expected.

presented a Petition from Lincoln, praying for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, complaining of them as unconstitutional and oppressive, and declaring that they ought not to be continued in the eighteenth year of peace. The hon. Member stated, that the petition was signed by 1,272 persons, including most of the principal inhabitants and tradesmen of the town. He concurred in the prayer of the petition, and would like very much to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to do. He objected in particular to the tax on houses, and wished to see the collectors of these taxes diminished. If the hon. Alderman, who had given notice for a motion on the subject of these taxes, did not bring the subject under the con- sideration of Parliament he would very soon after the recess.

thought it premature to support a petition by such observations as had fallen from the hon. Member, as it was well known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not then in the House, had the subject under his consideration.

presented a Petition from Gainsborough, praying for a Reform. The hon. Member observed, that this was almost the first from the county of Lincoln on this important subject, and would by no means be the last. He rejoiced to state, that the spirit of reform, now spreading through the country, was everyday becoming more and more apparent, as the necessity for it became more and more urgent. These petitions came from a numerous and independent body of the people, and. they especially prayed for the annihilation of the rotten boroughs, and for vote by ballot. He felt very great pleasure in presenting them to the House, and in cordially supporting their prayer.

presented a similar petition from North Shields.

said, that the petition had not resulted from a public meeting, but had been got up privately. He objected to the petition, because one passage of it asserted, that if a rational reform were not granted, the people would take it by violence. That did not express the sentiments of the people of Northumberland, for the population of that county was peaceable, and not at all disposed to seek reform or improvement of any kind by measures of violence, or by any but the most legal and constitutional measures-In that statement he was sure that his hon. colleague would concur.

said, that the passage did not allude to the people of Northumberland, but to the people of England in general. He would put one question to his hon. colleague. Did he or did he not believe that the people of North Shields were favourable to reform?

in presenting several Petitions from different parishes in the county of Kent, praying for Reform in Parliament, and a reduction of Taxation, said, that be quite agreed in the prayer of these petitions, and he hoped that prayer would be granted, at least in part. With repect to the mode of reform, that was not the occasion to deliver his opinions, but hoping that he should not excite the angry feelings of any hon. Gentleman, in the same manner as the hon. and learned member for Waterford did last night, he must say, that he sincerely concurred in his admiration of the vote by ballot. Whatever reform his Majesty's Ministers might think proper to propose, they would not, he hoped, omit to introduce the ballot; without which the interests of the people could not be secured. He was happy to have it in his power to state, that the recent change in the Administration had operated most favourably on the minds of the people. He had received a letter that morning from a most respectable and valuable Magistrate of the county of Kent, in which he stated, that under the late Administration, when it became necessary, in consequence of the disturbances that had occurred, to swear in a number of Special Constables, he could get nobody to be sworn; but since the change in the Administration, the respectable inhabitants had come forward in great numbers, and were now as anxious to uphold the peace of the county as they were before to stand aloof. That was a most important fact; and he trusted that it would prove an additional inducement to his Majesty's Ministers, to bring forward measures to promote the benefit of the country.

expressed his surprise at the statement of the hon. member for Kent, and he must beg leave to say, that those of his constituents who refused to be sworn in as Special Constables during the continuance of the late Administration, completely abandoned the duty which as Englishmen they owed to their country. He hoped that the hon. member for Kent would tell his constituents, that when a man is called upon to maintain the peace of any particular district, he is not to say, "I will maintain it under this set of Ministers, and I will not maintain it under that." He hoped that the hon. Member would tell them that they were violators of that principle which every man should act upon,—that they were defaulters in the payment of that debt which every man owed to his country — that the maintenance of the public peace was a duty—that they were to act like private individuals as they are, and not make themselves tools or partisans of any Government. He trusted that the House would not consider such a statement as any argument in favour of the measure of reform, for the repeal of the malt-tax, or for the redress of grievances. Such arguments were subversive of the Constitution. He could not sufficiently admire the presumption and impertinence of these persons, as if they were authorised to decline assisting in the preservation of the public peace, because one set of men or another set of men happened to be in Office. He hoped, however, that the constituents of the hon. member for Kent would henceforward do their duty, and that he would never again state in that House circumstances so disgraceful to his constituents.

did not mean to follow the course pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, by reading his constituents a severe lecture. Instead of lecturing them, it would be better if he were to endeavour to confirm them in their present opinions. He trusted that the present Ministry would do their duty, and by that means effectually prevent disaffection and outrage. With respect to the conduct of the Magistrates in the county of Kent, he would take the liberty of referring to an Address, a Memorial sent to the late Prime Minister by the Grand Jury of the county of Kent. In that memorial, addressed to the Duke of Wellington, it was said,

"We feel, that in justice we ought not to suffer a moment to pass away without communicating to your Grace, the great and unprecedented distress which, we are enabled from our own present experience to state, prevails among all the peasantry to a degree not only dreadful to individuals, but also to an extent which, if not checked, must be attended with serious consequences to the national prosperity. In making this communication to your Grace, it is our only object to call the attention of the Government to the real state of the country, and in the hope that effectual measures may be taken to alleviate distresses which press so heavily and severely on all classes of society."

This memorial was signed by every gentleman on the Grand Jury, and was not unworthy of the attention of the House. Eleven out of the twenty-three Grand Jurymen were candidates for the honour of a seat in Parliament, and the remainder were gentlemen of the first respectability. If that memorial had been attended to, not one of the disgraceful scenes which had recently occurred would have taken place in Kent. In all probability, if the present Administration bad then been in power they never would have occurred.

presented Petitions against any further grant to the Kildare Street Society, for the Education of the Poor in Ireland, from Kilglass, Balla and Drum, Kilfinora, and the united parishes of Aglish, Ballyhear, and Breafy. The contents of all these petitions, the hon. Member said, were the same; they all complained of the various abuses which existed in the management of the Kildare Street Society. He considered these petitions well deserving of the attention of the House. He had often heard, that this Society had proved a great benefit to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but he must confess, that he never met with any proof of that assertion. He trusted, that his Majesty's Ministers would take this subject into consideration, and adopt measures to make the grants, which are given exclusively to this Society, of advantage to all Ireland.

said, several petitions on this subject had been presented to the House, signed by bigotted and interested persons, which he had not thought it worth while to comment upon, although they contained allegations which it was in his power to disprove; but, when he saw petitions of this nature presented by so respectable and worthy a Gentleman as he who introduced these to the notice of the House, he should not be fulfilling the duties which he owed to his constituents, and his country generally, if he did not stand up to protest against the doctrines contained in them. The hon. Member could not be aware of the general principles which governed the acts of that Society; and if he rightly understood the rule of conduct it pursued, he could not possibly object to the management of the grants bestowed upon the Society by Parliament. So far from being established for the encouragement of any particular religious persuasion — so far from its advocating any one particular cause, the only fault ever found with the Society, though he did not think it a fault—was, that it was too liberal in its religious principles. The Society had been grossly maligned, and an ignorant prejudice had been excited against it, by persons who had been hawking petitions about the country for signature. He knew no institution whatever that had been productive of so much good as the Kildare-place Society in instructing the lower orders of Ireland, and he must repel the charge of its schools not being open to every sect. He could most positively state, that the benefits of that institution were conferred in an equal degree on Catholics and on Protestants, and he conscientiously believed, that more Roman Catholic schoolmasters, and more Roman Catholic children, had been educated and brought up by that Society than Protestants. The strongest objection stated by the petitioners was, that the Scriptures were read in the Society's school without note or comment. Was there any Gentleman in the House who would stand up and object to the Bible being open to the perusal of the people? When hon. Gentlemen were somewhat fond of boasting of their liberal principles, which, by-the-bye, they did not, in these times, always act upon, was it not astonishing to hear Gentlemen declare, that the people, either of England or Ireland, ought not to be allowed to peruse the word of God without note or comment. He did not expect to hear such a declaration made in any place, but the House of Commons of England was the very last place in which he thought such a doctrine would be broached. He did not impute improper motives to the hon. Gentleman who pre- sented these petitions; on the contrary, he merely stated the language of his constituents, as in duty bound. These petitions were, however, got up by bigoted and interested individuals, desirous of putting down this excellent institution, and were readily signed by a set of people who knew nothing of its principles—nothing of the manner in which the Society was conducted, who never read any of the books used by it, and who never were even within the walls of its schools. He hoped and trusted that the Parliament of the United Kingdom would protect that Society, and not diminish the grants, which confer benefit equally on Catholics and Protestants. As to the manner in which the funds are appropriated, there was no institution in the empire in which greater economy was practised, and in which less useless expense took place, than in the Kildare-place Society. Representing a county in the north of Ireland, and knowing a great deal of the principles of the people of the north of Ireland, the majority of whom were of the Presbyterian Church, he could take upon himself to state, that into schools in which the Bible was not read without note or comment, their children would not be allowed to enter. They wished their children to be instructed in the word of God, and made good Christians, as well as educated in the affairs of this life. The Kildare-street Society enjoyed the good wishes of all the Presbyterian clergy in the north of Ireland. He challenged any country in the world to produce a more useful institution. When persons were sent up to the central school, their religion was never inquired into, the majority of them were Catholics, and they taught the duties of a schoolmaster or school- mistress. They were remunerated, not in proportion to the number of children placed under their care, but in proportion to the progress the children made; to ascertain which, inspectors were appointed, who went about the school, and made their reports on the state of improvement in which they found the children. He most earnestly implored the House not to credit the asseverations contained in those petitions; they were not founded in fact, and he most earnestly implored those Gentlemen who might have taken up a prejudice against the charity, to pause before they took away from his poor countrymen the benefit conferred by this institution, He had to apologize to the House for trespassing so long on its attention; perhaps the hon. and learned member for Waterford would wish to monopolize the consideration of the affairs of his country, and to exclude every other Irishman from discussing its interests; he was, however, as independent, and as much attached to Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member, who might more usefully direct the energies of his great mind to the improvement of his country, than by constantly harping on the Repeal of the Union, which would, in his opinion, amount to a total separation of the two countries. In conclusion, the hon. Baronet begged to apologise for having trespassed so long on the attention of the House.

was not to be tempted into following the hon. Baronet, the member for Londonderry, into a discussion on the merits of the Kildare-street Society — "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." He merely wished to observe, that as to the utility of the Kildare-street Society, he differed from the hon. Baronet. He denied that the Society was popular in Ireland; on the contrary, it was one of the most unpopular that ever existed. It was not unpopular in the county which the hon. Member represented, but the inhabitants of that county entertained different opinions on most subjects from the inhabitants of other parts of Ireland. The Gentleman who last represented them lost his scat because he dared to vote in favour of Catholic Emancipation. He had no doubt that the Society was very well received by them. The hon. Baronet probably subscribed to it because he wished to encourage education. The Society professed a great deal, and unfortunately had not convinced him of the truth of its professions. Its acts, however, were contrary to its professions; and he had left it in consequence. But, he did not retire alone; on the very day on which he resigned, the noble President, the Duke of Leinster, Lord Cloncurry, and many other gentlemen resigned, and for the same reason. The Catholic clergy of Ireland condemned the Society. He did not mean to argue theological points, but the hon. Member had thought fit to introduce one, and he would not shrink, either in that House or in any other place, from defending the doctrines of the religion he professed. He objected to allowing the word of God to be placed in the hands of Catholic children without note or comment; he did not object to its being so placed in the hands of Protestants; they had a right to use it in any shape they thought fit, and he should be the last man to interfere with the exercise of any such right. He objected, however, to any Protestant having it in his power to go to the children of Catholic parents, and impose on them a mode of instruction of which the parents did not approve. The Catholic clergy inculcated the principles by which the people wished to abide— the Protestants might have schools, as many as they pleased; all that the Catholics wanted was, that their children should be educated in the manner their parents thought proper. The hon. member for Londonderry seemed not to be aware of the fact, that a Select Committee of the House, which rigidly inquired into this very subject, ultimately agreed with the Catholics, and called on the House to make no further grants to the Kildare-street Society. The hon. Baronet seemed to think it a great blessing that Roman Catholic children should receive an education of which their parents did not approve, while the Protestant children should be educated in a manner of which their parents did approve; and both were to be educated together. Now, the Catholic clergy proposed, that they should be educated together, but that one day in the week should be set apart for religious education, on which the children of Catholics and Protestants should be instructed separately. He would put it to any man whether the Catholics had not a right to educate their children in such religious tenets as they pleased? He would appeal to the hon. member for Londonderry himself, whether they had not an equal right with the Protestants so to do? He was ready to admit that the Presbyterians wished their children to be educated in the manner practised by the Society. Well, let the Presbyterians be educated as they chose, the Catholics as they chose —that was all the latter required. The hon. Member had charged him with a species of inconsistency, and if he ever wished to interfere with the religious principles of any human being, he would allow that hon. Member to charge him with anything. He had never so interfered, or uttered a sentiment that tended to interference. He entertained a firm conviction that religion was an affair between man and his God; and he who interfered on the subject might call himself a Christian, but other men would call him a blasphemer. He could bear, with the utmost complacency, the boasts of the Presbyterians, knowing that the world was greatly indebted to them for the liberties it possessed, and feeling, as he did, a high degree of respect for the independent members of that body. But let them be content to do by the Catholics as the Catholics would do by them — leave the latter to educate their children as they pleased.

did not intend to delay the House by offering many observations on the subject. No man could regret more than he did, that the time of the House should be occupied by discussions of that nature. The hon. Baronet, however, was fully justified in making his observations relative to the Kildare-place Society, and he should himself be unworthy of his seat in that House if he did not declare that it was a most useful institution. He differed from the opinion of the hon. member for Waterford as to the popularity of the Society; and if the Government wished to preserve the Union, and the security of the two parts of the empire, it would encourage a system which gave education to 120,000 children, Catholics and Protestants.

observed, that the Society was one which derived its support from grants of the public money, and that being the case, the proper time for discussing its merits would be when those grants should be next proposed. There could be no objection to the proceedings of the Society, so long as it was willing to afford education in such a manner as persons of different religious persuasions could approve of: the complaint against the Society was, that its principle necessarily excluded a considerable number of the people of Ireland from the benefits of that education, which the national grants were destined to promote.

moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider further of the Supply to be granted to his Majesty.

wished to ask a question of the noble Lord before the House went into a committee. The Charter of the Bank of England would, the House was aware, expire in 1833, and he was desirous of receiving some information on the subject of its renewal. In the course of the last Session, an hon. Member of that House, the late Mr. Huskisson, gave notice of a motion, by which he proposed to draw the attention of the House to this important subject, but he was prevented from doing so by the temporary absence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This subject must now press with greater force on their attention, as the termination of the Charter was so nearly approaching. He did not now rise with a view to enter into an examination of the policy pursued by former Administrations with respect to this question. Their custom was, to make an arrangement, in the first instance, with the Bank of England, and then to come to Parliament for its sanction; thereby leaving the House hardly an opportunity to examine such arrangement. Now, he earnestly hoped to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this course would not be pursued on the present occasion, but that the House of Commons would be called on to institute a strict examination into all the circumstances connected with the banking-system of England, before they granted a renewal of the Charter, in order, on the one hand, that they might prevent the recurrence of those convulsions and those enormous losses which had been sustained by the present banking system, and on the other, to give to the country the great and immense benefit which would be derived from a sound system of banking. The subject was of the utmost importance, and he took the opportunity which now presented itself of procuring for himself and for the public some precise information relative to it. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would state to the House what course was intended to be followed on this occasion.

said, he thought it would probably be found proper and fitting for the House to enter into an inquiry on this subject in the present Session. He had not positively made up his mind whether that inquiry should be instituted during this Session or in the next; but his impression was, that it would be desirable if it took place in the present. As to his right hon. friend's observation upon the course which former Governments had pursued with respect to the Bank, he pledged himself to his right hon. friend, and to the House, that no such system should be now adopted. The question should be submitted to the House perfectly free from any private arrangement between the Government and the Bank. At the same time, Ministers would make up their minds as to what appeared to them right and proper to be done, but no pledge would be given, no engagement would be entered into. No man could attach more importance to the question than he did. He felt that it was most essential to place the whole banking system of the country on a sound footing, in order to secure the interests of the public.

wished to know at what time it was intended to renew the committee which was appointed last Session to inquire into the state of the trade with India and China?

said, it was not his intention to move for the renewal of that committee before the recess. The reason was, that the President of the Board of Control would not take his seat in that House until after Christmas, and it was necessary that he should be present when the committee was renewed.

said, he wished to make a few observations with reference to the select committee that was appointed last night. He observed that the noble Lord himself was on that committee, although he had understood that no person connected with the Administration was to be placed on it. Two members of the late Government were also appointed members of the committee. These Gentlemen were certainly placed in a very extraordinary situation; because, if they declared that the salaries were too large, they would thereby convict themselves of having, during the many years they held office, received enormous salaries—salaries greatly disproportioned to the duties performed by them. They would, therefore, be in some measure compelled to state that the salaries were not too great. He also observed that the names of several of those who last night expressed strongly their opinion that the salaries were not too large, were introduced on this committee; but not one of those individuals who entertained a very different opinion had been placed on it. He had one other observation to make on this subject. He saw, on the Order-book, a notice given by an hon. Alderman (Wood) for a specific motion for the reduction of those salaries, which he proposed to bring on after the recess. How was it, he asked, that that hon. Alderman was not on this committee? As he meant to make a specific motion, he must have directed his attention to the subject, and therefore he was a proper person to be placed on the committee. He now asked the noble Lord, with the most perfect cordiality whether he had any objection to make this addition to the committee?

said, he was quite ready to give the hon. Member an answer. His object was to place no person on the Committee who could be supposed to be under the influence of Government. With respect to the placing two of the late Ministers on the Committee, that was done for the purpose of arriving at details of official business, which could not be given by any other persons. And though he had been all his life politically opposed to them as Ministers, still there were no individuals on whose honour, fairness, and integrity, he would place greater reliance. If their salaries had been too high, the blame rested with the House, and not with them; and, therefore, it was proper that the whole subject should be investigated by a Committee, whose labours would be laid before the House, which could then decide on its recommendation. The hon. Member said, he was surprised that no person who spoke in favour of a reduction of salaries was placed on the Committee. It was strange, that he overlooked the hon. member for Porsetshire, who had been all his life anxious for a reduction of expenditure. The hon. Member also observed, that some Gentlemen who spoke last night unfavourably of a reduction of salaries, were named on the Committee. But, he could say, that he selected the Committee with the greatest care before the debate, and therefore what then passed could not have affected the nomination. With respect to the hon. Alderman, he had no objection to his being added to the Committee. He had quite forgotten that the hon. Alderman had given the notice alluded to. His great object was to frame the Committee so as to give perfect satisfaction to the country; and it would have been most absurd if Ministers intended any thing else.

expressed his regret at not having seen the hon. member for Dorsetshire on the Committee that morning. Had he been present, he doubted not that he would have been appointed Chairman, —a situation for which his extensive experience peculiarly qualified him.

admitted, that the Committee was very fairly formed. If individuals were not included who last night spoke in favour of reduction, it could only have been the result of chance, arising out of the manner in which the appointment of Committees was ordinarily arranged. The subject to be considered was an exceedingly delicate one. It would be very difficult to say what would be a sufficient remuneration for a Prime Minister, or a leader in the House of Commons, without inquiring into the private circumstances of the individual. With reference to the circumstances in which he was placed, he could not help thinking that the object of this inquiry would be much better served by omitting him (Sir R. Peel) and his right hon. friend. They were placed in a more painful situation than if they even were subject to the influence of the Government; because any honourable man in office would much rather agree to a reduction of his salary, than say that for many years he had been receiving more than the public ought to have paid. In his opinion, therefore, it would be more likely to afford satisfaction to the public, if those who had held office were merely called on to give their evidence. It would be much more agreeable to him to appear before the Committee as a witness, than to sit on it as a Judge; for if he gave his conscientious opinion that the salaries ought not to be lowered, it might be unjustly supposed that he was only vindicating the character and conduct of himself and of those who had been connected with him in office. If it were necessary that he should act on the Committee, he would not shrink from the performance of his duty; but he thought it would be better to omit his name and that of his right hon. friend. He begged leave again to state his willingness to give all the information in his power, to facilitate the inquiry; and to say, at the same time, that he thought the Committee was very fairly framed.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Grant) whether he was prepared on an early day to bring forward a measure similar to that which he introduced last Session, for the relief of persons professing the Jewish religion?

said, he had intimated on a former occasion that it was not his intention to drop this subject, and he would now state, for the information of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that on an early day, on Monday next, he would present a petition from individuals of the Jewish persuasion, and he would then state when he meant to bring the question forward which he was, at some period of the Session, fully pledged to do.

said, that seeing the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his place, he was anxious to take the opportunity of putting a question to him on a subject of great constitutional importance. He could assure the noble Lord that his question did not arise from any spirit of hostility to him, or from any desire to embarrass the new Government. He would put the same question to the members of the late Government under similar circumstances. Neither was he disposed to put his question in the absence of his hon. and learned friend, the chief legal adviser of the Crown in that House, for' whom, on public and private grounds, he had a great esteem; and for whose consistency of public principle he had the highest respect,—a consistency which, he regretted to say, he had not seen in some others who held that situation before him; but he thought the subject was one so interesting in a constitutional point of view, that it ought not to be postponed. His question was, whether the Government of which the noble Lord formed a part, were aware of the intention of the large masses of the people who had accompanied the deputation to present the Address a few days ago to his Majesty, at his Palace of St. James's, to form the procession which had gone up? He wished to know whether this assem- blage had the deliberate sanction of his Majesty's Ministers, or had been allowed to proceed with their tacit acquiescence. He was desirous to have an answer to this, because it was important to know whether the Government had sanctioned, or only connived at, that which he must say was clearly a violation of the Statute-law of the land. He was aware that it was held in a very high legal quarter that the assemblage to which he alluded was not illegal—and that it was even a highly constitutional assemblage. With every respect for the great legal authority to which he referred, he knew that the opinion of others, for whose great legal knowledge and acquirements those who were acquainted with them had the greatest respect, was very different. He would say, that some of the highest legal authorities in the country took a very different view of this matter as to the point of law. On this account he regretted that this subject had not been introduced by some Member of great eminence, skill, and legal knowledge, and possessing in consequence more weight with the House than he could pretend to. Humble as he was, he had no hesitation in saying that the procession to St. James's Palace, carrying up an Address to the Sovereign, was illegal. The Statute of which it was a violation, was the 13th of Charles 2nd. The necessity for the passing of such an Act at that time was obvious. The country was then smarting under the effects produced by tumultuous assemblages of persons met for the purposes of petitioning. It might be said, that the procession to which he referred had not been a tumultuous assemblage, but, according to the Statute he had quoted, and the clause of which he would read, it was not necessary that a tumult should take place to render the meeting illegal.

said, that the hon. Member who rose to order, was himself not quite in order.

said, he was anxious to explain the grounds on which he put the question. The clause of the Act of the 13th Charles 2nd, to which he begged to call the attention of the House, was to this effect—that no person or persons whatsoever shall repair to his Majesty, or to both or either Houses of Parliament, on the pretence or for the purpose of presenting any Petition, Declaration, or Address, accompanied by any excessive— not tumultuous—but any excessive numbers; and that the number of persons accompanying the carrying up of any such Petition or Address shall not exceed ten, on pain of fine and imprisonment. The House were aware of the danger against which this Act was intended to guard; and most certainly, under that Act, the procession in question was illegal. It was no matter whether the meeting was tumultuous or not. He argued the question on principle; for if there were no tumult or inconvenience,—and he thought there were both, and that many peaceable and well-disposed persons were considerably alarmed and inconvenienced by such an assembly,—but supposing there were neither, he must still say that it made no difference in the principle for which he contended. There might be no tumult at one such assemblage, or at another, but the admission of the precedent would tend gradually to lead from shade to shade of disturbance, till at last the most serious evils might not only be apprehended, but be really produced by it. This was no new doctrine of his. It was the opinion pronounced by some of the highest legal authorities of which this country could boast. At the time of Lord George Gordon's mob, this Act of Charles 2nd was quoted by Lord Mansfield, who stated that under that Act any large assembly of persons, however peaceable in their demeanour, attending to present a Petition to the Sovereign, or to either House of Parliament, was illegal. This doctrine was acquiesced in by Judges Buller and Ashurst, and it was also clearly laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone. It was also the doctrine of a writer who was not remarkable for his great attachment to royalty or the high prerogative of Kings. The meeting to which he referred was an assemblage of many thousands of persons, who went up for the purpose of paying a compliment to their Sovereign: but in the procession was introduced that banner, which had been the signal of more crime, bloodshed, rapine, and destruction than any other that had ever been raised in Europe [Cheers and laughter.] He cared not for the cheers of hon. Gentle- men. He appealed to history, which was of much greater authority than their cheers, when he asserted that more scenes of horror, and cruelty, and destruction, had been committed under that banner, than any other that had been raised in Europe. He reported his hope that no defence would be set up for this assemblage on the ground that it had not been productive of any riot or tumult: that made no difference as to its legality. His objection was to the principle; and because he so objected, he wished to know from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) how far the assemblage had received the direct sanction or the connivance of Ministers.

begged leave in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member, to state the circumstances of the case as they had come to the knowledge of Government. Very soon after his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department came into office, he was waited upon by a deputation from the trades' societies, who expressed the great disappointment that had been experienced by the bodies to which they belonged, at not having had an opportunity, after the preparations they had made, of testifying their loyal and dutiful attachment to his Majesty, as they expected to have done had he visited the City; and they added a wish that they might be permitted to present the Address they had prepared at one of the levees. To this his noble friend replied, that there could be no objection, but his noble friend did not understand that it was intended that the deputation should be accompanied by any procession such as that which had taken place, and it was only a day or two before the intended presentation that he learned that it was to be accompanied by the procession of the trades. As soon as that information reached him, he lost no time in consulting with the Magistrates of police and others whose duty it was to attend to the preservation of the peace of the metro-polis. From these gentlemen he learned, that the peace of the City would run less risk of being interrupted by allowing the procession to proceed peaceably, than by prohibiting its assemblage, and they added that if no order to disturb it were issued, they would be answerable for the preservation of the peace, for which they had made sufficient arrangements. The result was as had been predicted. The meeting was most peaceable in its conduct from first to last. Under these circumstances, he must say, that he considered his noble friend acted with great prudence and sound sense in allowing the procession to proceed without interruption. He would at the same time admit that, according to the strict letter of the Act which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted, an offence had been committed in the assemblage of such a mass of persons to present an Address to the Sovereign, yet it would be unwise in Government to institute any prosecution for that offence. Such a course would be the most ill-advised and imprudent which any Government could adopt. When the people conducted themselves too with so much good order, it would have been most ill-judged to disturb them then, or to prosecute them afterwards for having assembled, even though such an assembly was, strictly speaking, illegal. At the same time he would admit the very great inconvenience of such assemblies on similar occasions, or of making this case a precedent for future processions for similar objects. It was well known that this Act had often been violated by processions with Addresses, without having any notice taken of their illegality; witness the presentation of addresses from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. [Mr. G. Price: 'These are permitted by Act of Parliament.'] Admitting that to be the case, he would still say in the general proposition of the hon. and learned Member he concurred, and that, according to the strict interpretation of the Act, such assemblies were illegal, though they had not unfrequently been permitted, and under the particular circumstances of the case, it would have been highly imprudent to disturb this one. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the fact of this assemblage having had amongst their banners a tri-colour flag. He would admit with him that that flag had been the signal of much crime and of much bloodshed, but these characters did not belong to the tri-coloured flag of the present day; and if the assemblage of Wednesday had borne that flag, of which he had not heard until now, no doubt it was not out of any approval of the scenes which had formerly taken place under it, but from admiration of the great and glorious and successful struggle for liberty which had been made under it in France during the last days of July, That was a feeling in which he, in common with the great mass of the people of this country, most cordially joined, and he owned that, with the admissions he had already made as to this meeting, he could not think its character worse, by bearing such a flag as an expression of their admiration of that glorious event.

said, that the spirit of the Act which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to was not violated by the meeting; but that though its letter might not have been in strictness adhered to, his Majesty's Government had acted with great wisdom and prudence in allowing the procession to approach his Majesty without interruption in the way it had done; and he must own, that he was rather surprised at the hon. and learned Member quoting an Act, passed at such a period as the time of Charles 2nd, and now almost forgotten, with a view of applying its provisions to times like the present. If he recollected correctly, this Act was passed in the second year of the actual reign of Charles 2nd; and when hon. Members looked back to the spirit of those times, they would find that certain Acts of the same spirit were passed to render the proceedings of the Long Parliament more palatable to the Crown. But though the Act was, in strictness, still the law of the land, yet it was a law which, in the present very different tone and temper of the country, it would be neither wise nor prudent to enforce according to its strict letter. He thought, therefore, Ministers acted the part of sensible and prudent men in not restricting those ebullitions of loyalty on the part of the people, for which they had made such preparations, and which there was no reason to doubt would be expressed in any other than a peaceful and decorous manner. If Ministers had permitted his Majesty's residence to be approached by a tumultuous assembly, they would, no doubt, be held justly responsible to the country; but after what he had that evening heard of the character of the assembly, and after what he had heard in another place on the subject, he must say, that Ministers had acted with wisdom and sound discretion; and their conduct must raise them in the estimation of the country,—in the confidence of which he was happy to know they were gaining ground more and more every day. Before he sat down he would beg to say a word or two as to what fell from the hon. and learned Member who had introduced this subject. The hon. and learned Member, with a want of that quickness of perception which he understood distinguished him elsewhere, had confounded two very important periods in the history of France, and had taken the tri-coloured flag of the present day, as a signal for the horrors which had occurred under it during the first Revolution. No two periods could be more different in the character of the events which distinguished them. For his part he execrated the horrors of the first Revolution as much as any man, but it would be a most unfounded attack on the conduct of those brave men who had immortalized themselves in the late Revolution, to look upon their national flag now as a signal for rapine, bloodshed, and destruction. From what he had recently seen in France, and from what he knew of many of those who were most conspicuous in the delivery of their country, he would say, that the crimes of the first Revolution had been in a great measure expiated by the glorious manner in which the second had been achieved. Let it be also considered, that if the flag of France was borne in a procession here, it was the flag of a nation whose Sovereign we had recognized, and whom, he trusted, we should long continue to call the firm ally of the king of England.

said, there could be no doubt that a meeting, such as that assembled the other day for the purpose of going up with an Address to the Sovereign, was illegal. Such a meeting might be, as that was, quite peaceable, but still, an actual tumult was not necessary in order to render it illegal. The mobs which assembled under Lord George Gordon, professed that they met for the most peaceable purposes, but, nevertheless, all the authorities of that day, and ever since, had no doubt that they were illegal assemblies. Indeed, it was impossible to consider that an assemblage of 10,000 or 20,000 persons round the doors of Parliament, in times of public calamity, or in a period of great excitement, should not have some undue control on their proceedings, and on this ground such assemblages, however peaceable their professed and even real object might be, were very wisely prohibited. With respect to the case before the House, he was very glad to find that Government looked upon it rather as an exception to the general rule than the rule; for undoubtedly, if such assemblages were to be permitted on the precedent of this, it might lead to serious evils, and certainly would cause very great public inconvenience. He owned he had heard now for the first time, but with great regret, that a tri-coloured flag had been borne amongst the banners of that procession. He heard it with the more regret, as, from the communication that had been made to him by the deputation that had waited upon him before he went out of office, he had understood that nothing of this kind was contemplated. Three persons from the trades' societies had waited upon him, acquainting him with the circumstances to which the noble Lord (Althorp) had already alluded in his statement of what occurred before the noble Lord now at the head of the Home Department. Those three individuals were not of any high rank in life, but he had received and treated them with a respect which he considered very justly due to the good sense and intelligence which they appeared to possess. They stated the disappointment experienced by the trades at the postponement of his Majesty's intended visit to the City, after the expensive preparations they had made in flags and banners to receive him, and they expressed a wish to be allowed to present their Addresses at the levee. He said, there could be no objection to that course, but it must be with the clear understanding that not many of their body should come up with the deputation. On that understanding they went away; and he had no doubt that a similar understanding was entered into with the noble Lord, his successor in office. As to the tri-coloured flag, he would admit that, as the flag of a country whose change of government we had acknowledged, and with which we were in perfect amity, it could not be considered as the representative of any crimes which in former times had been committed under it; but, at the same time, he should wish, that in a procession got up to compliment the Sovereign of this country, there should be no other flag introduced but our own national flags. He would have said the same last year, had the white flag been borne in any similar procession. Still he must hope that there was some mistake in this, and that a flag belonging to one of the trades which were of various colours was mistaken for the tri-colour, for he owned he could not have expected, after what had passed between him and the leaders of this, pro- cession, that they would have sanctioned any thing of this kind.

said, that he was in Pall Mall on the day in question, and saw the whole procession pass. He could not tell why, but there had been an impression on his mind, while the procession was passing, that he should see the tri-coloured flag among the banners; but it was not there; he could take upon himself to say, that there was no tri-coloured flag, and he should be ready even to depose to that fact in a Court of Justice.

was now more convinced that there must have been some mistake as to the flag being a tri-colour; but even if it were, it would be unfair to fix upon it as the act of those who managed the procession. In an assembly of 10,000 persons, it was impossible to guard against the introduction of such a flag, by one or two; and it would therefore be unjust to charge it as the act of the whole.

said, since the right hon. Baronet viewed the question without any disposition to impute blame to his noble friend at the head of the Home Department, he was ready to admit with him, that, according to the strict letter of the Act, the procession was not legal, and that it ought not to be drawn into a precedent for any future procession on similar occasions, for he acknowledged that such a practice might give rise to serious evils. From the letter and spirit of the Statute, it was clearly illegal that large masses of the people should go up with Addresses, yet it was but justice to the individuals who were assembled on that occasion to say, that not only was their conduct harmless and inoffensive, but praiseworthy, for the perfect good order and decorum which they had observed throughout. Let it also be recollected, that this body did not go up to petition—to ask any thing of the Sovereign—but simply to present an Address expressive of their loyalty and dutiful attachment to his Majesty. As to whether they bore the tri-coloured flag or not, he could not say; but if they had, he could not look upon it as intended as any insult to our own national flag, to which the people of this country were greatly attached, as they were also to the person of the gracious Sovereign under whom they had the happiness to live. The flag, if introduced at all, must have been intended as a complimentary mode of expressing their admiration of the glorious struggle which had so recently been made for liberty under that banner.

wished to be understood as not giving any opinion as to the policy of permitting this procession; but he would fully admit that, under the circumstances in which the knowledge of it had reached the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, it would have been impolitic to proscribe the meeting. He had been long enough in office himself to know the cases of difficulty which often presented themselves to the Home Secretary, and he fully admitted the difficulty in which the noble Lord was placed when he heard of the intended procession at so very short a period before the day that it was to take place. No doubt, if sufficient notice had been given, the noble Lord would, as he ought, have prevented it; but with so little notice, and the preparations that had been made, it was, he admitted, acting with prudence to let it proceed undisturbed.

said, that it was only the day before the intended procession that the Home Secretary was made acquainted with it, and that by having a placard brought to the office, noticing the intention of the trades to go up to the Palace. Under these circumstances, he thought it would have been the height of imprudence, not to say downright madness, to have prevented the procession, as it could not have been done without resorting to force. He would only add, with reference to what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to the conduct of the people, that their peaceable demeanour, after they had come up in the expectation of obtaining a sight of their Sovereign, and of receiving an answer to their Address, was entitled to great praise, and in the present period of excitement it more fully proved the loyalty and attachment to their Sovereign of the people of the metropolis. On the subject of the right of petitioning, he might be allowed to say a word. It was a right in which the strict letter of the law was every day violated without a word being said about it. For instance, petitions were presented to and received by that House, praying for reform and other changes, and yet by law no petition could be presented for any alteration in Church and State signed by more than twenty persons, unless it was signed by the Lord Mayor, or by the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions, or by some other potentates of that description.

said, he should at present merely move "That it is the opinion of this committee, that a sum not exceeding: 100,000l. be granted to his Majesty towards satisfying the Annuities and Pensions payable out of the Consolidated Fund or Civil List, deficient from the demise of the late King up to the 5th of January, 1831." As the House would have ample opportunity for investigating the subject immediately after the recess, he did not anticipate that any objection would be made to the present Motion, and should therefore sit down without offering any further observations.

said, it was not his intention to oppose the proposition of the noble Lord, for although it was a departure from former precedents, existing circumstances sufficiently accounted for the deviation. On all other occasions it had been the first act of the Legislature, on the demise of the Crown, to make provision for the Civil List. He was not surprised at the proposed deviation from established custom, but could not help regretting it, as the precedent might possibly prove inconvenient hereafter. It appeared to be most for the interest of all parties, that the question should be brought to a conclusion as soon as circumstances would admit. Under this feeling, he repeated, he did not mean to give any opposition to the motion just made by the noble Lord.

concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would have been more desirable to make an arrangement for the provision of the Civil List at the commencement of the Session, but the late changes having been effected so recently, it was out of the power of his Majesty's present Ministers to make themselves masters of the details in a manner which would enable them so soon to propose the Civil List on their own responsibility. Had they attempted to do so, they would not have acted consistently with their duty to the public. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend danger from the precedent, but all precedents were to be considered in connexion with the circumstances which induced them, and he had no hesitation in saying that the future recurrence of similar circumstances would warrant the adoption of a similar line of conduct.

objected to the wording of it, as excluding from the Throne all possible issue of the King, by any marriage after the death of the present Queen, in favour of the Princess Victoria. It was possible that her present Majesty might die, that the King might marry again, and have issue, and from the manner in which this clause was worded, bestowing the Regency on the Duchess of Kent, in case his Majesty should die without issue by his present Consort, it would postpone the claims of that issue to the right of the Princess Victoria. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved, as an Amendment, to substitute for the words "Leaving no issue by her present Majesty," the words, "Leaving no issue him surviving."

thought there was no necessity for the Amendment. The Bill was intended only to apply to existing circumstances. Certainly it was possible that her Majesty might die, but before the King could complete another marriage he must come to Parliament. That would be time enough to provide for the case the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. The present Bill was only to remove doubts as to who should exercise the Royal authority in one particular case, and therefore the Amendment was not necessary.

admitted, that the Act was intended to provide for a particular case, but as the first clause was of a general description, the Amendment that he proposed seemed necessary.

(Sir Thomas Denman) admitted the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observation. The Bill as it now stood implied a restriction which he understood was not intended. The best way of amending it, however, would be, to leave out the words "her present Majesty," making the enactment depend on his Majesty dying without issue.

took the same objection to the clause as the hon. and learned member for Kircudbright (Mr. Cutlar Ferguson), but he thought the best way of amending: it was that proposed by the Attorney General.

agreed to the suggestion of the Attorney General.

cautioned the House how they admitted the proposed alteration, for it would alter the whole principle of the Bill. The very intention of the Bill was to provide for the contingency of her present Majesty having no issue, and that alone. He would remind the House, that it would be very unadvisable to make any general measure without much consideration, for it was possible that marriages might be contracted which would be good in law, though not held valid by Parliament. If they meant to constitute a Regency for all possible cases, a different bill would be required.

thought the other clauses might, without difficulty, be adapted to the proposed Amendment.

saw the difficulty which had been pointed out, but in general he agreed with the view taken of the Bill, and of the care required to alter it, by the right hon. Baronet. If it were necessary to alter the Bill, he should prefer the Amendment suggested by his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General; but, at the same time, as the Bill was of so much importance, he hoped his hon. and learned friend would not press his Amendment till the Report was brought up.

observed, that it was a most grave and serious matter, for the Bill might be a Bill of Exclusion, and might regulate the succession. The Bill, however, contemplated only one contingency, and to that it ought to be confined.

also again contended, that the Bill, as it was worded, might be a Bill of Exclusion.

thought the perfection of the Bill was, that it was strictly limited to the particular case; and should the case supposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman arrive, the King would have to come to Parliament to complete his marriage, and then the circumstance might be provided for.

defended his proposed Amendment, and showed that all the other clause? of the Bill might be easily adapted to it. Of course, however, he should defer to the wishes of his noble friend, and postpone his Amendment till the bringing up of the Report.

entered his protest against introducing words into the Bill which would imply that any Queen Consort might be Regent.

said, that in rising to move for the returns which he should read at the conclusion of his observations, he was actuated by no feelings of hostility towards the Church, but by a sincere desire to render it as pure and useful as its best friends could wish. His object in moving for them was twofold. He wished in the first place to ascertain the number of clergymen who did not reside on their benefices, in order to devise some general measure to compel their residence—a consummation which was highly desirable, as he could state from his own personal experience that in all parishes where the clergymen were resident, the condition of the poor was much better than in those parishes where the clergymen were not resident. He wished in the next place, if the information obtained by these returns should warrant it, to found upon it a measure for the better payment of the working clergy, similar to that which a noble Lord had carried through the other House of Parliament, with equal credit to his head and his heart. The hon. Member then moved, for "a return of the annual separate estimated value of every Vicarage, Rectory, Living, or other clerical benefice in the gift of the Crown, with the name and description of each benefice, and its value in the King's books, as contrasted with its actual value; a return, with the name and description of every Living on which there is no clerical residence whatever;—a return of those Livings upon which there is a suitable clerical residence, and whether such residence is or is not in repair, and to what purpose converted;—a return of the number of the parochial benefices in the gift of the Crown, the duties of which are performed by those to whom the benefices have been given, or by Curates, and whether those Curates be resident upon such benefice, and if non-resident, where residing;—a return of the income which each Curate derives bona fide from his Patron, Vicar, or other superior, for the annual performance of his professional duties."

suggested that these returns ought also to be made regarding the value of every benefice in Ireland.

could not agree to the suggestion, because he believed that a commission was now inquiring into the value and amount of Church property in Ireland.

hoped, that the returns would be demanded, not merely from the incumbents of all benefices in the gift of the Crown, but also from the incumbents of all churches throughout England.

could not agree to this suggestion, any more than he could to that which had been already made to him. He would candidly admit, that his reason for moving for these returns was his belief that there was ground of complaint as to the non-residence of the secular clergy. He had limited his inquiry to the Livings in the gift of the Crown, because he did not wish to give offence to the hierarchy, and because he had observed that inquiries which were very large in their nature, were not in general productive of any beneficial result. His object was, to collect a mass of information so condensed and specific in its nature that a practical measure could easily be founded upon it.