presented a petition from the Ward of Aldgate, for the repeal of the Assessed Taxes. It was most respectably signed, the name of the Alderman of the Ward being at the head of the petition, and that was followed by the names of the Commissioners of Assessed Taxes. The petitioners deplored the declining state of trade, which had been failing since 1825, and as trade declined these taxes became a most intolerable hardship. The Assessed Taxes fell very severely on tradesmen, who paid two-thirds of the sum levied in that district. The litigation occasioned by these taxes was appalling, and the surcharges were very numerous, amounting to 180,000l. in the year. The surcharges, too, had always been most ruinous in seasons of distress. He thought, therefore, that the repeal of those taxes was preferable to the removal of any other portion of the public burthens. He had no intention to throw impediments in the way of his Majesty's Ministers, but if they did not bring forward a measure for the repeal of those taxes, he must make a motion to that effect.

was convinced, that nothing would be so acceptable to the public as the remission of these taxes. Fie hoped the worthy Alderman would persevere in his intention, and he should most certainly give him all the support in his power.

presented a petition from Bath against the House and Window-tax. The gallant General observed, that the petition had been more numerously signed than any former similar petition presented to the House; and although the petitioners had expressed themselves in strong terms, as they had said nothing upon the subject which at present so much occupied the House and country— viz., the question of Reform, the gallant General hoped it would be considered as a proof that distress alone had urged their complaints, whilst they had abstained from alluding to the cause, trusting that the Government would relieve them from the burthen of a tax they were no longer able to bear.

supported the prayer of the petition; Bath was particularly affected by these taxes, and he hoped to see them repealed.

also supported the prayer of the petition. He hoped the people would petition on this subject till the taxes were repealed.

presented a petition from Kirkaldy, for Parliamentary and Burgh Reform. The noble Lord said, he did not wish to identify or pledge himself to the support of the petitioners' views, but would come unshackled to the consideration of the question.

stated, that the petition was signed by all the respectable inhabitants of the town, and he hoped with them that an extensive Reform would be granted, and would extend to Scotland.

also supported the prayer of the petition, and said, that there was no town in Scotland better entitled to express its opinion and its wishes.

wished to call the attention of the House to a petition on a subject which appeared to him of considerable interest and importance. The petition was signed by several Clergymen of the Established Church, by Dissenting Ministers, and by several of the most respectable inhabitants of Boston, in Lincolnshire, and it described the dreadful scenes which occur in India at the religious festivals of the natives. It adverted to the enormous fees collected at the temple of Juggernaut, and other superstitious places, and requested the interference of the House for their abolition. The petitioners also alluded to the numerous immolations of human beings which took place in India, and earnestly entreated the House to adopt measures for abolishing practices so repugnant to the feelings of every considerate individual. When he reflected on the connection between this country and India, it appeared to him to be of the greatest importance, that the House should interfere, and prevent the repetition of such shocking customs. The East-India Company ought to use their utmost endeavours to put a stop to such revolting practices; and he remembered, that when the Charter was last granted to the Company, it was the unanimous opinion of the House, that it was the peculiar and bounden duty of the Legislature, by all just and prudent means in their power, to promote the interests and happiness of the inhabitants of British India, and to pay a strict attention to their moral improvement. With that opinion it certainly was matter of surprise and regret to learn, that attention had not been paid to the moral improvement of these people: and that despite of that opinion, idolatries of the most cruel and horrible description continued in existence, and were actually sanctioned— even more than sanctioned—actually converted into a source of revenue, by exacting from all those who shared in these superstitious festivals fees to a large amount; by which means the superstitions themselves, were upheld and encouraged. He was undoubtedly loth to occupy the time of the House by then entering into a discussion of this question, notwithstanding that he in common with other Gentlemen who had paid great attention to it considered it of the greatest importance; and, therefore, he would give notice that alter the recess, he should direct the attention of the House more particularly to the subject.

thought, that some of the observations of his hon. friend appeared to convey a reflection on the conduct of the East India-Company, for not having interfered with the religious institutions of the Hindoos. He begged leave to enter his protest against such a remark. In his opinion the East-India Company deserved great credit for having allowed the natives of the extensive tract of country under the government of the Company to retain their religious usages without interruption. Having witnessed many of the Indian ceremonies which his hon. friend called idolatries, he must state, that it would be by no means advisable to interrupt them. The East India-Company had indeed put an end to the burning of widows; but it was admitted on all hands, that that sacrifice did not necessarily form a part of the religious observances of the Hindoos. Various absurd practices no doubt prevailed in India; but indulging the natives in the observance of them, contributed to the general peace. His hon. friend made an observation on the moral education of the natives; but he was sure that every freedom and facility had been afforded to every Missionary or other individual, who resorted to that country for the purpose of instructing and enlightening the Hindoos. The Company was not opposed to the improvement of the natives, for it must advance its own interests by endeavouring to raise the moral character of the Hindoos, and giving them the best instruction it could. He was ready to admit, that the festival of Juggernaut might be censured with propriety; and he should certainly be pleased to see the revenue derived from the ceremonies observed there reduced, or appropriated to different purposes. He could assure his hon. friend, who presented this petition, that the servants of the India Company had been most anxious to abolish many of the superstitious ceremonies of which he and other Gentlemen complained; but they had always found themselves restrained by the stipulations not to interfere with the religious ceremonies of the natives. The observations of his hon. friend, had they remained unnoticed, might create an opinion, that encouragement was given to improper ceremonies, and opposition made to the progress of education among the natives; he had therefore thought it right to state, what every one knew, that the Company did not throw obstacles in the way of those whose labours tended to the improvement of the Hindoos.

in moving that the petition be printed, wished to say, that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, could not be more devoted than he was to the cause of religious freedom, nor less inclined to interfere even with idolatrous superstitions; but the petition stated, that the East-India Company interfered and countenanced these superstitions, and encouraged pilgrims to resort to Juggernaut and other temples; obtaining thereby a revenue of upwards of 900,000l. Not less than 120,000 persons, on an average, perished yearly from the severities of the pilgrimages, and from the dreadful floggings they inflicted on themselves.

presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Belgrave-square, and its vicinity, praying for an early delivery of letters, and that the post should be two-penny instead of three-penny. The Post-office collected a large revenue from the inhabitants of this metropolis, and parties situated as the inhabitants of Pinlico were, lost half its benefits. The addition to the revenue made by the extra rate of postage was very small, and if it were to be continued, at least more accommodation should be given. The hon. Gentleman asked the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether any measure on this subject was in contemplation.

said, that this subject was at this time, under the consideration of his noble friend, at the head of the Post-office. He was anxious that the greatest economy should be practised; but it was not inconsistent with economy that duties should be well performed; and part of these duties was, that letters should be delivered speedily in every part of the metropolis. It might not, however, be deemed unfair that rales should vary in proportion to distances. The question, however, was now under consideration, and he hoped, by the time they met again, that a satisfactory arrangement would be entered into.

presented a Petition from St. Alban's, for Reform. It would have been more numerously signed but for handbills that had been circulated in the town, falsely attributing sinister motives to him for getting the petition up. Influential persons had decryed it as tending to commotion, which had prevented many respectable men from putting their names to it. The hon. Member also presented a petition from certain individuals for promoting emigration, and was proceeding to address the House on the subject, but the interruption of several Members made him desist, though he declared that the subject was of great importance, and would sooner or later force itself on the attention of the House.

wished to take that opportunity, to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to Mastership in the Court of Chancery. It appeared that, in consequence of the death of a relative, one of the Masters of Chancery had succeeded to a peerage, and he wished to know from the noble Lord whether he was aware of the fact; and whether the Government intended to take any steps on the subject, and if it did, what course of proceedings it meant to adopt?

said, the fact had been properly stated by the hon. Member; but it was not the intention of the Government to take any step in consequence. He was not aware that there was any law to prevent a Peer holding such a situation. At all events, if there was anything improper in a Peer being a Master of Chancery, if that was derogatory to the privileges of the other House, it was not the House of Commons, but the House of Lords that ought to take cognizance of the subject.

considered the subject of great importance, and he should, therefore, give notice—[Order].

said, the hon. Member had already spoken on the petition being brought up, and he was out of order to address the House a second time on the same petition. He could not introduce his notice as a parenthesis, into the motion of another hon. Member.

wished to ask the noble Lord, as he observed that the hon. Member for Bletchingly had been appointed Clerk of the Ordnance, if it was the intention of the Government to fill up the other offices in the Ordnance, such as that of the Treasurer, as they fell vacant? If he understood that such was its intention, he would give notice of a motion for a committee to inquire into the state of that department, the number of persons employed, and the amount of their salaries.

begged to remind his hon. friend, that the Government had not filled up the place of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance. An inquiry had already taken place before the Finance Committee, as to the necessity of keeping up the offices he had alluded to; but the decision was reserved till after the inquiry should have been made into the utility of the offices of Paymaster-general, Treasurer of the Navy, and other offices. When that question was reserved, it was impossible to make any report till the connected question should be decided. A similar course would now be pursued by his Majesty's Government. It was necessary, till the arrangements were made to try how the Ordnance affairs could be conducted, to fill up these offices. The House was not to consider the matter as settled. Steps were to be taken to consolidate the offices of the Ordnance, and to abolish at least two of them.

wished to know if the noble Lord thought the Clerk of the Deliveries a useless officer?

replied, that when the House again met he should be able to give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer.

deprecated the practice of hon. Members asking questions of the Government, which it was impossible for the Government to answer. It ought to have due time given it to make its own arrangements, and questions ought not to be put to elicit its opinion.

again attempted to address the House, but was called to order.

presented a Petition from certain individuals in Belfast, for the repeal of the Coal Duties.

again expressed himself not satisfied with the answer relative to the Masters of Chancery, and gave notice, that after the recess, he would bring the matter before the House.

said, the question mooted by the hon. Member was not a new one, and had been brought before the House on the question—whether Masters in Chancery could sit in that House or not? He did not conceive, that the question had any relation to that House, as a Master in Chancery could only come into contact with it, by bringing down a message from the other House.

deprecated the discussion. There was, he believed, but one opinion on the subject. There was no reason whatever why the noble Lord should vacate his place. He had executed the duties of his office with great credit to himself, and with great advantage to the public. The question might arise in another place, whether it was consistent with its privileges; but it ought not to be interfered with in that House. He hoped the hon. Member would not persist in a Motion which might embarrass individuals without any public advantage. The Government had, he thought, taken a very proper course in not interfering with the matter.

thought, public duty called on him to bring the subject under the notice of the House.

said, the Government had not made a Peer a Master in Chancery but a Master in Chancery had, by the course of nature been made a Peer. In that circumstance there was no reason to find fault with any body.

said, by the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman who had a motion on the books, and who had consented to allow him to take precedence, he rose to make the Motion of which notice was given the day before yesterday, for the Adjournment of the House. It would be convenient, he believed, for Members then to return to the country. The period for which it was first intended to move the Adjournment was till the 8th of February, but, on consideration, the Ministers thought the period might be somewhat shortened, and therefore they proposed, that the Adjournment should be till Thursday, February 3rd. He had heard nothing which should make him doubt that the House might then safely and with propriety adjourn, nor did he see anything in the circumstances of the country which should raise up objections to the adjournment, on account of the public business, being for the length of time he had proposed. Gentlemen would recollect, that it was usual for the House to meet at the beginning of February, and at that time the King's Speech was to be delivered, the Address was to be agreed to and adopted, and several days must pass before business could begin. On the present occasion, the House would be ready to begin public business immediately, and there could be no danger that it would not get through that business before the end of the summer. With respect to the situation of the country, there was nothing in that to induce him to make the adjournment shorter. He doubted, indeed, in the present critical situation of the country, whether Gentleman might not be of more benefit to the people by returning home, than by staying in town, and the objections were much greater to keeping them away from their own neighbourhood, than were the objections to adjourning Parliament. He was aware of the difficult situation of the country, but he did not perceive the necessity of making any immediate legislative enactments. He felt that the Gentlemen belonging to the country would, for the present, be better there than here, and therefore he should beg leave to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to February 3rd.

did not rise to oppose the Motion, but he thought in the present critical state of the country, a shorter period would be better. No one knew what crisis might arise in the mean time —no one knew what might be the state of the metropolis, or the state of foreign affairs; and he should, therefore, have preferred an adjournment for a shorter period, with an understanding, that no meeting should take place till the 3rd of February, unless some special cause arose for a more early meeting. After the House was adjourned there was no possibility of summoning it together again, and there was no knowing what might happen. He would recommend, that the House should only adjourn for a fortnight, with an understanding that if the country then remained tranquil, the House should be adjourned for a fortnight longer.

concurred entirely in what had fallen from the gallant General. The state of the country was such that Members of Parliament ought to be on the spot where they were most likely to be useful, and to which they had been culled purposely at an early period. If there were no other business than presenting and discussing petitions, that alone, he thought, ought to be sufficient to induce them to re-assemble early. It would have been better certainly if the country gentlemen had remained in their own neighbourhood, but being away, they ought to remain and carry on the national business. He had no wish to embarrass the Government by making these observations, for he placed great confidence in his Majesty's Ministers.

said, every one admitted, that he was friendly to the Ministers, yet it could not be denied, that many of those who made such professions were most forward to criticise their actions. They were like the hare with many friends —everybody was giving them advice, and everybody was criticising them. For his part, he wished to wait in silent confidence, and he hoped others would act in a similar manner. Ministers had already done a great deal; they had promised more; and, till they had broken their promises, he would give them his support. He was convinced that country gentlemen would be of more service at present among the people than in that House. He differed entirely from the opinions expressed by the gallant General and the gallant Colonel, and thought his Majesty's Ministers were not treated with that courtesy which they deserved, when hints were thrown out that it was necessary to watch their proceedings.

wished it to be understood, that he had expressly declared, that he did not want confidence in his Majesty's Ministers.

would not say, that he would wait, like the hon. Member, in silent confidence on the Ministry, but certainly he could not join in any of the objections raised to the Motion proposed by the noble Lord. With respect to the adjournment, he thought it would be best to leave the period to be fixed by his Majesty's Ministers; and it was not very fair towards men placed in their situation to object to the term proposed. The presence of Members was more necessary in the country than in the House. The objection to the noble Lord's motion he thought unfair; and he should be the last man in that House to raise any objection which, without cause, might embarrass the Government.

rose for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Lord, relative to Parliamentary Reform. He did not wish to call on the Ministers for any detail of the nature of the reform which they had in view; but he thought it was due to the House and the country that a question of such vast importance—a question on which the wishes and hearts of the nation were irrevocably fixed, ought to have a day fixed for its discussion in that. House. He did not put the question with any unfriendly feeling to his Majesty's Ministers, or with any view to show that he wanted confidence in them. In answer to calls from several Members, the hon. Member said, his question was, at what time, after the recess, it was the intention of Government to bring forward the question of reform?

could not, under the present circumstances, fix any day. He could, however, assure the hon. Gentleman, that it was the most anxious wish of his Majesty's Ministers to introduce to that House the proposition they intended to make on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, that the Administration would, at a very early period after the recess, fix a day for bringing forward the question.

approved of the plan of the hon. and gallant Member, for adjourning the House from time to time, in order to watch the occurrences that might arise in the present state of the country.

wished to ask, if his Majesty's Government had any plan under consideration to amend the condition of the peasantry in the southern counties, and remedy the abuses of the Poor-laws?

said, there was no plan under the consideration of his Majesty's Government, but the subject was; and if the Administration could devise any plan to remedy the evil, it would be the duty of Ministers to do so.

said, if there was any subject which could make him doubt the propriety of adjourning the House to the 3rd of February, it was the subject started by the hon. member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney). The distress of the labouring classes was a most important subject, and ought to be taken into consideration as soon as possible. The proposal of the hon. member for Liverpool, he thought was, in his mind, objectionable; for it was hardly possible that the House of Commons, under the existing circumstances of distress in the different counties, could continue to adjourn over from fortnight to fortnight at a time, without creating in the minds of most persons a suspicion that Government considered things in a more alarming state than was warranted by the fact, and disseminating the idea of insecurity and danger. Dismissing, however, the subject of the adjournment, he could not avoid expressing his surprise that the Ministers had thought fit, by a Treasury Minute to make a great alteration with respect to an item of taxation, and yet, although Parliament was sitting, they had not thought it necessary to move any resolution in that House which would sanction such a proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Thomson) had taken it on his own authority to reduce the duty on barilla; and he certainly was a little surprised, that after such a slip or mistake, no attempt had been made to procure from Parliament the approbation of that measure.

observed, that Ministers, in proposing the adjournment for so long a period, had been actuated by the consideration, amongst other important ones, that the Representatives of the people in Parliament would be at this moment employed, perhaps, more advantageously for their interests, in the particular counties and places they represented, than they would be even within those walls. Public duty, then, not personal convenience to his Majesty's Ministers, had been their object in the proposition respecting the adjournment. The Treasury Minute relative to barilla duties was not without a precedent. He would particularly refer to that of the 25th of February, 1825, authorizing the reduction of the duty on Sulphate of Quinine. Having that precedent, and there existing a particular reason why the duties on barilla should be lowered, the Government had taken the responsibility of doing that on itself.

remarked, that the precedent of the 25th of February, 1825, was one which could not be considered applicable. It removed only certain duties on the sulphate of quinine, an article then recently discovered, and on which the duty could not much exceed, perhaps, 100l.. The duty on barilla, however, was a protecting duty for a manufacture long-established in this country, and between that and the duty on the sulphate of quinine there was no analogy whatever. This, then, could be no precedent for the reduction, at the pleasure of Ministers, of duties so large in amount, more particularly as it had been done whilst that House was sitting. When the duty on thrown silk was reduced to 5s. from 7s. an application was made by Government for a resolution to sanction the proceeding; and Mr. Canning, when, in 1826, under the apprehension of a scarcity, admitted foreign corn to be sold from the warehouses here, to meet the pressing emergency, lost no time in calling Parliament together, in order to get its sanction, in the shape of a vote of indemnity, for an action otherwise commendable in itself.

after expressing a hope that the noble Lord, on the part of Government, would disavow the proceeding as a precedent, said, he was encouraged to hope that Government would not attempt to postpone the financial statement late in the Session, but would bring on the budget shortly after the recess.

said, that it was not his intention to bring out the budget until the Estimates had been voted, but he would not fail to bring the financial state of the country under consideration at an early period after the recess.

said, that the trade had been acquainted, by the late Ministers, as early as last June, of their intention to lower the duties on barilla, and therefore he did not think that his right hon. friend was to blame for making the alteration. He was solicitous to know, as the late Ministers contemplated an alteration and revision of the stamp duties, if the present Ministers intended to follow up that projected alteration? Interested as he felt on the subject of marine and life insurances which he stood pledged to bring under the notice of the House, he was anxious to learn the intentions of Government on the subject.

said, the bill for that object had been found in the office, and it would be proceeded with as soon as convenient after the re-assembling of Parliament.

in rising, according to his notice, to direct the attention of the House to the inflammatory language contained in one of the political publications of the day, entreated them to grant him their indulgence while he attempted to perform what to him appeared to be a very important duty. He did not know whether the inflammatory language to which he alluded was or was not contrary to the law of the country; but on the purport and tendency of it there could be no quest ion; and he thought it was the duty of that House, if it was not within the immediate province of the law-officers of the Crown, to adopt some measure with respect to it; and at all events to record their sense of the mischiefs it must produce. The language to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was to be found in the publication of a person named Cobbett, called The Political Register. There were, unfortunately a vast number of passages in that publication which were well calculated to excite the people to sedition, and to support their hopes of advantage from scenes of mischief and disorder; but he should confine himself to one, taken from The Political Register for Dec. 11th, which combined in it more than others, all that was mischievous and offensive. One great object of the writer seemed to be, to excite dissatisfaction among the agricultural population, and to induce them to believe, that the destruction of tithes and the ruin of the clergy would prove advantageous to their interests and better their condition. In the first instance which he would select, the writer, after declaring in the most violent terms against a clergyman of Suffolk, who had published an address to his parishioners, warning them against the consequences of their conduct, and entreating them to abandon a system of destruction of property, which must plunge all classes in ruin, thus proceeds: —

"In the meanwhile, however, the parsons are reducing their tithes with a tolerable degree of alacrity! It seems to come from them like drops of blood from the heart; but it comes; and it must all come now; or England will never again know even the appearance of peace. 'Out of evil comes good.' We are not, indeed, upon that mere maxim, ' to do evil that good may come from it.' But without entering at present into the motives of the working people, it is unquestionable that their acts have produced good, and great good too. They have been always told, and they are told now, and by the very parson that I have quoted above, that their acts of violence, and particularly the burnings, can do them no good, but add to their wants, by destroying the food that they would have to eat. Alas! they know better; they know that one thrashing-machine takes wages from ten men; and they also know, that they should have none of this food; and that potatoes and salt do not burn! Therefore, this argument is not worth a straw. Besides, they see and feel that the good comes, and comes instantly too. They see that they do get some bread in consequence of the destruction of part of the corn; and while they see this, you attempt in vain to persuade them, that that which they have done is wrong. And as to one effect, that of making the parsons reduce their tithes, it is hailed as a good by ninety-nine hundredths even of men of considerable property; while there is not a single man in the country who does not clearly trace the reduction to the acts of the labourers, and especially to the fires; for it is to the terror of these, and not the bodily force, that has prevailed. To attempt to persuade either farmers or labourers, that the tithes do not do them any harm, is to combat plain common sense. They must know, and they do know, that whatever is received by the parson, is just so much taken from them, except that part which he may lay out for productive labour in the parish; and that is a mere trifle compared with what he gives to the East and West Indies, to the wine countries, to the footmen, and to other unproductive labourers. In short, the tithe-owners take away from the agricultural parishes a tenth part of the gross produce, which in this present state of the abuse of the institution, they apply to purposes not only not beneficial, but generally mischievous to the people of those parishes."

Now, for what purpose was this said, unless to excite the people to acts of riot, and to increase the discontent of the labourers? Was it not proving that the laws of the country were at best merely calculated to preserve a species of rapine, and that the people were justified in violating them? The writer then goes on to allude in these terms to the late disturbances in the Midland Counties,—"The accounts from Cambridgeshire say, that since the terrible fires that have taken place in that county, ' the Magistrates have met, and resolved immediately to make inquiry into the actual state and condition of the poor in every parish of the county.' Very just, very wise; but never so much as talked of, much less resolved on, until the labourers rose, and the 6res began to blaze." Was not this declaring in plain terms that the people were justified in their incendiary proceedings; that to them they were indebted for the relief they had received, and for the inquiries which were promised; and that in them they would find a remedy for their grievances? Again, the writer says, as if aware of the dangerous character of the preceding passages, and anxious to screen himself from the consequences of promulgating such opinions—"The acts committed by the labourers are unlawful in themselves. Nobody denies this; but all men agree that they were starving; and what says the law in this case? Why the laws of God and of man, and especially the laws of England say, that it is no crime to take by force that which is necessary to the preservation of life. It is against nature to suppose the contrary. All the great authorities concur as to this matter." This was a new reading of national law, for he (Mr. Trevor) certainly had never heard it asserted before that any species of distress justified the taking by force from another any portion of property of which he was rightfully and legally possessed. The next passage he should read was of much the same character:—

"But, short of death, how great, merciful God, have been the sufferings of the labourers and their families! And is not the parish allowance slow starvation? Has not this been proved over and over again, before the committees of the House of Commons? Has it not been proved, before those committees, that the allowance for a man at work has not been one-half of what is allowed to the felons in the jails? Has it not been proved be-fore those committees, that a working man, his wife and three children, are allowed less to live on than is paid to one common foot soldier, who has clothing, fuel, and lodging into the bargain, which the labourer and his family have not? And if this be their horrible state, will this Ministry shed their blood? No: I fear not to assert, that they will not shed their blood; let the hell-hounds of loan-jobbers and News cry for blood as long as they may. No: this will not be done. The course of these ill-used men has been so free from ferocity, so free from any thing like bloody-mindedness! They have not been cruel even to their most savage and insolent persecutors. The most violent thing that they have done to any person has not amounted to an attempt on the life or limb of the party; and in no case, but in self-defence, except in the cases of the two hired overseers in Sussex, whom they nearly trundled out of the carts, which those hirelings had had constructed for them to draw like cattle. Had they been bloody, had they been cruel, then it would have been another matter; had they burnt people in their beds, which they might so easily have done; had they beaten people wantonly, which has always been in their power; had they done any of these things, there would have been some plea for severity; but they have been guilty of none of these things: they have done desperate things, but they were driven to desperation. All men except the infamous stock-jobbing race, say, and loudly say, that their object is just; that they ought to have that which they are striving for; and all men, except that same hellish crew, say, that they had no other means of obtaining it."

In reading these, and similar inflammatory addresses to the feelings and prejudices or the lower classes, it was impossible to avoid exclaiming with the eloquent Roman, "Quousque tandem abutere, Cutilina, patentia nostra?" It was the opinion of one of the most eloquent and able men that ever sat in that House (the late Mr. Burke) and of a noble and learned Lord of high character in the other House, but whose health prevented his taking any part in public business—he alluded to Lord Grenville—that to the dissemination of opinions like these, in language such as he had. read, the Revolution of France, with all its concomitant horrors, was mainly to be attributed. Let it not, however, be said, that in endeavouring to repress or extinguish the publication of such sentiments, he was an enemy to the rational freedom of the Press, or that he wished to place any restriction on its power of promulgating the opinions of the public. He considered it the best means of conveying to the House and to the country the wishes and the feelings of the people—wishes and feelings to which they were at all times bound to attend; but when it became the organ of sedition, and the medium of scattering abroad such poison and venom as they had just heard, then indeed, he was entitled to say of it, "corruptio optimi pessima est." To the unfortunate persons who were suffering from distress, and who were driven by language such as he had read to acts of violence, he would extend the utmost compassion; but he could feel none for those who wantonly urged them to pursue such a course, and endeavoured to corrupt their minds for the purpose of profiting by the confusion and mischief their violence must produce. A storm was gathering in the country—a storm mainly occasioned, in his opinion, by publications such as those to which he had directed the attention of the House; and, unless the best energies of that House, and of the loyal and peaceably disposed portion of the population, were brought into active exertion to resist its effects, he was much afraid it would spread devastation and ruin throughout the kingdom. He did not wish to embarrass the Government, by pledging it to any particular course; but. he had felt it his duty to call its attention to the subject; and, whatever might be the fate of the Resolution he intended to propose to the House, he trusted that, the exposure of the insidious and inflammatory proceedings to which he had adverted, would not be without some beneficial result. The hon. Member concluded by thanking the House for the attention with which it had favoured him, and moved the following Resolution:— "It is the opinion of the House, that the publication of Saturday, the 11th of December, entitled, Cobbetts Political Register, is a false, malicious, and scandalous libel, inconsistent with the principles of government in this country, an audacious insult to the Church Establishment, and having a direct tendency to subvert the laws, and introduce general anarchy and confusion."

said, that if the hon. Gentleman brought forward the subject as one particularly deserving the attention of the House, he would find on examination that it was not in the habit of noticing such publications, unless they more particularly attacked its own rights and priviledges; but if he meant it as a reproach or censure upon the Attorney General, for neglecting to prosecute the publication he had quoted as a seditious libel, he could assure him, that he could not more condemn the omission of the Attorney General than he (Mr. Bulwer) applauded it. The hon. Gentleman would probably agree with him, that if the prosecution of this publication were to be followed by an acquittal, it would neither be advantageous to the country nor creditable to the Government. As the hon. Gentleman had described himself as unacquainted with the law of libel, perhaps he was ignorant that the law of libel such as it was laid down by the decision of Judges in arbitrary times, who, from the manner in which they rose to their office, were particularly attached to high prerogative, was very different from that which popular juries would consider to be the law, and would lend themselves to enforce. The number of cases, of late years, in which juries had come to a verdict very different from that to which the direction of the Judge would have produced in former times should always be a warning against prosecutions for libel. The hon. Member had surely not forgotten that famous parody, beginning,—"I believe in his Majesty's Ministry, &c." for which Mr. Hone was tried, as for a libel, and acquitted. He put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether it might not be argued that this publication was no libel at all? "No man," it might be said, "upon reading the whole of it, could conceive that the writer meant to say, that those burnings were productive of good, and therefore ought to be encouraged. If Mr. Cobbett's intentions had been seditious, would he have confined his argument to the promotion of fires? Certainly not; and the only view with which he could have been supposed to recommend fires, with a seditious intention, must have been, because he thought they would lead to rebellion, revolution, and change in the established form of Government. But so far from such ideas being encouraged, in the context of the alleged libel, he states, that he is in favour of the established form of Government; that he is not for pulling down the Houses of Lords and Commons; that he supports the present Administration, and calls upon the public to give that Administration its confidence in the most able manner." He was not speaking in his own person; but as he thought a counsel might speak who was advocating the cause of Mr. Cobbett. It was very unlikely, in times like those which had returned Mr. Hunt as member for Preston, for his political principles —it was very unlikely that Mr. Cobbett would be found guilty of libel by a jury for expressions like those. He would leave, however, the question of law; merely observing, that, on grounds of general policy, the Attorney General would have been liable to censure had he entered upon a prosecution of this publication. The law of libel was indeed the law of the land, but a most unpopular law, being looked upon by the people as a sword in the hands of the Government, the edge of which juries were always desirous to turn aside. It was the duty of the Attorney General not to consider what he could prosecute, but what he could avoid prosecuting. The public press being more an instrument of good than of evil, when in troublesome times a man professed himself a friend of the people, and excited them to mischief, it was not by punishing and prosecuting him that calm could be restored, but by convincing the people that he was not their friend. It was by the press, and not by the pillory or the prison, that a libeller could be reduced to his natural insignificance. He was as little inclined to favour factious demagogues as the hon. Mover, and he reprobated the cry against landlords and landed proprietors, whom he considered to have been most unjustly traduced, and who, he thought, ought to be favoured as the support and staff of the country. The clamour raised against them was the offspring of ignorance and malice, but the Press would do more to put it down than all the barbarous laws that barbarous times had invented, or than all the cruel punishments the laws in barbarous times were authorised to inflict. The hon. Gentleman had himself used language more likely to excite discontent in the people of this country, than any thing to be found in Mr. Cobbett's writings. When the hon. Gentleman said, on a former evening, that the people were in a more wretched state, and in a worse condition than colonial slaves, did he not use language more calculated to exasperate their minds than any he had read to the House? If the hon. Gentleman, at any future time, should happen not to be a Member of the House, and should print and circulate such language, and Mr. Cobbett, "being a Member, should rise in his place and declare that the hon. Gentleman ought to be prosecuted by the Attorney General, he would then say to Mr. Cobbett, "expose fallacy by truth, put down ignorance by knowledge, and do not give it importance by the dignity of a prosecution." He believed, though, perhaps, he ought to apologise to the House for intruding upon it his opinions, that the cheap publications of the "Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,"— a title most appropriate,— were more likely to put down disturbance than expensive prosecutions to enforce severe and ill-defined laws. Experience shewed, that prosecutions made proselytes, and raised the prosecuted into notice which they would otherwise never have attained. Let the House only look to the case of M. de Potter, who had been made a very important person age by a state prosecution. Let the House take warning by the events of a neighbouring country, where the King had been driven from an hereditary throne by prosecutions similar to those which the hon. Gentleman probably wished the Attorney General to undertake. He believed, that the principles of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury-bench, would prevent them from adopting such a course; but he would nevertheless call upon them to take warning by the example of the Belgians; and rather to make men love the Government by its wisdom, its tolerance, and the diffusion of knowledge, than inflame the minds of the people, by seeking to check the expression of opinions by severe, arbitrary, and hated laws.

said, that the question as to the expediency of prosecutions for libel was, in his opinion, and, he was sure, in the opinion of the best judging persons in the country, better intrusted to the discretion of the Ministers of the Crown, than a proper subject for discussion in that House. There might, indeed, be occasions on which, if the House of Commons had no confidence, that discretion would be properly exercised. A case might arise for the independent Members of that House to call for a prosecution; but even then, he thought the better course would be, not to call for the prosecution beforehand, but to censure the neglect, if any neglect took place. If the House had no confidence that his Majesty's Ministers would prosecute where there was just occasion for it, he could conceive that they would support the motion of the hon. Gentleman; but if they felt —and he hoped they would feel —a confidence, that the Ministers would act properly in that respect, he hoped they would not interfere with the discretion of those Ministers. For himself individually, he hoped that his Majesty's Government did deserve confidence; and the House might give them credit for having no unwillingness to prosecute, as the hon. Member's motion seemed to assume, when he stated the fact, that one prosecution had been already instituted by the Attorney General. With respect to the particular publication at present in question, he should abstain from expressing any opinion upon it. He felt it his duty so to abstain. He wished it to be understood, that he did not mean to say whether it was a libel or not, or whether or not it ought to be prosecuted, or even whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to institute a prosecution; but he must observe, that if the Motion were carried, stating the opinion which it did, it certainly would have the effect of pre-judging the question, and of rendering it impossible, under any circumstances, to bring the subject fairly under the consideration of a Court of Justice. For the last 20 years —at least so far as he could learn — there had been no precedent of that House, ordering the Attorney General to institute a prosecution, unless it was on some matter concerning its own privileges; and even in that case, he considered it an evil that such a question should come under discussion there. Undoubtedly the House of Commons, as an independent branch of the Legislature, had the power to discuss such a matter, and order a prosecution. He did not, therefore, dispute the right of the House to agree to the present Motion. It had a full right to do so. But all that he would urge and press upon the House was, that it was not discreet, at the present moment, to bring such a question forward. With these views, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House at any length. If at any time the discretion ought to be left in the hands of Government, surely at a time of difficulty, at a crisis like the present, it was peculiarly expedient that that course should be pursued. He would beg the hon. Gentleman to recollect, that it was not because a publication might be mischievous, that the Government was bound to prosecute it. There were other considerations to be looked to; these were questions which could not be advantageously discussed in a popular assembly. It was impossible to discuss the question, whether or not a publication ought to be prosecuted, without Members being obliged to express opinions which must interfere with the administration of justice. A discretion must be left to those who were responsible, and if it were the practice in that House for Members who were not responsible, to bring forward such questions, upon their own views of the bearings of them, most mischievous consequences must ensue, and he hoped that the precedent would not be established. He did not wish to give a direct negative to the Motion, but rather would move the previous question.

would put it to his hon. friend, whether, after the exposition which the noble Lord had made of his own views, and of those of the Government, and after the pledge, that there was no unwillingness to prosecute where there was just cause, and that one prosecution had, in fact, already been commenced —after the intimation that this Motion would tend to defeat its own object —and, above all, when his hon. friend admitted the state of excitement which existed at present, and the great danger which there would be in bringing this Motion to a hostile division in the House; —he would humbly submit, whether it would not be better, both for his hon. friend's views, and the interests of the country, to withdraw the Motion, than to hazard a disagreement with Gentlemen, on the application of a principle, the validity of which they acknowledged as firmly as he did.

concurred in this recommendation but explained, that his hon. friend, the member for Romney, did not wish to urge the House to recommend a prosecution by the Attorney General. He only wished to attract the attention of the House to the subject, hoping that thereby a check might be given to similar publications. Now that he had accomplished this object, he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his Motion.

expressed a hope, that his Majesty's Government would, during the recess, take into consideration the distress which was so prevalent, and which was the cause of those seditious publications, and by relieving that distress, they would do more towards checking such violent appeals than any prosecution could effect.

briefly replied. He wished only to notice the observation of the hon. member for Wilton, (Mr. Bulwer) as to what fell from him on a former occasion. He did say, that the slaves of the colonies were in a better condition than the peasantry of this country, but he meant as regarded food, clothing, and lodging, and that they, notwithstanding the charitable rhodomontades of some Gentlemen, could not be benefited by changing situations with our peasantry. He had no wish, however, by the statement of what he conceived to be a fact, to excite discontent in the minds of our own people, but to allay the agitation of another subject, and of other people. As the sense of the House appeared to be against him, he agreed to withdraw the Motion.

gave notice, that shortly after the recess, he would move an humble Address to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased, to appoint a day for a general fast —[cries of "general what?"] a general fast throughout the United Kingdom.

said, that in rising to move for copies of Treasury Minutes relating to the office of Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, he could assure the House, that he was not actuated by any feeling of a political nature, and still less by any feeling adverse to the Government. The call, however clamorous, which had been raised for the abolition of the office of Vice-treasurer of Ireland, was, in his opinion, founded in complete ignorance. He had endured much obloquy from it having been said that this office, which he had held, was a sinecure; and his object in moving for these Minutes was to show, that the office, far from being a sinecure, was an indispensable part of the Treasury, and connected with all the details of the receipt and expenditure of Ireland. He would not at this time go through these details, because they would appear upon the Minutes for which he was about to move. There were, however, some points connected with those details, on which he was anxious to say a word or two. All payments in Ireland were made through that office, such as the interest on annuities, and on the funded debt. It had the management of the Exchequer bills, and the payment of interest on them. It had also the payments of the Civil List to make. With these important duties to perform, the expense of the office had been reduced from 28,000l. a year, first to 17,000l. and subsequently to 10,000l. With respect to the office being a sinecure, he must deny that he took or possessed it as such. He was under great responsibility, and liable to heavy losses. When he accepted the office, the Duke of Wellington sent for him, and offered it to him, because the Duke said he wanted to place in connection with the Government, a gentleman well acquainted with Ireland. Under his direction he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had been employed in digesting a plan for administering the local revenue of Ireland, by which the Grand Jury system of that country would have been much improved, and at least five per cent of the local taxation —a sum amounting to 800,000l. would have been saved. This plan had met the approbation of the noble Duke, and would have been carried into effect, if he had remained in office. He could therefore state fearlessly, that in accepting the place, he had no idea of connecting himself with a sinecure office, or taking a large salary for doing nothing. With respect to the economy of the arrangement, he must contend, that the arrangement which the Government had made with regard to this office, could not be productive of anything like the saving which had been stated would be made. Probably it would be found, that no actual money-saving, would result from that arrangement. If this were so, then the Government would only have taken away the political office of Vice-treasurer of Ireland, and against this course he must enter his protest. In his opinion, it was highly desirable that there should be in that House some efficient and responsible person, well acquainted with the revenue of Ireland. Now that this office was taken away, there was no remaining political office which was filled by an. Irishman. This had made a deep impression upon Ireland. It was thought, no matter how erroneously, by the people of that country, that no Irishman had any longer any chance of being; employed in political offices connected with Ireland, and this opinion he was convinced, would lead to very mischievous consequences. He was quite sure, that his constituents, and the country at large, would acquit him of avidity for office. He did not speak thus because he had been removed from the office, but because he thought the abolition of it highly objectionable. He could wish that it had been filled up, and he knew of no one whose appointment to the office would have been hailed with so much satisfaction, as his hon. friend, the member for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell.) He would not detain the House any longer than to observe, that he thought the Motion he was about to make was called for, in common justice to himself, who had held the office, and to those by whom he had been appointed to that office; because, if the Motion were agreed to, it would be seen that the office was anything but a sinecure. He begged to move, "That there be laid before the House, copies of the Treasury Minutes of the 10th of July, and 20th of September, 1822, and of the 3rd of January, 1823, relative to the office of Vice-Treasurer of Ireland."

said, that he had known and acted with the right hon. Gentleman too long to suppose that he could be actuated by any sinister motive in bringing forward this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had taken two views of this subject; the one was economical —the other political. Upon these, with the permission of the House, he would say a few words. For the first, he must say at once, that he did not understand the economical argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore it would, perhaps, be better for him to state shortly what had been done, and what saving had been effected. He had always been of opinion, that the office of Vice-treasurer of Ireland was altogether unnecessary, and when he entered the Ministry that opinion was confirmed; for, upon making inquiries respecting it at the Treasury, he was told that all the duties of the office were performed by Mr. Mitchell, the chief clerk. His first impression was, that it would be better and more economical to continue Mr. Mitchell in the performance of those duties, after the office of Vice-treasurer was abolished; but finding that Mr. Smith held a situation that might be dispensed with, and perceiving that much advantage must result from sending into Ireland a gentleman of so much experience in Treasury business as Mr. Smith undoubtedly possessed, — that arrangement, which had already been explained to the House, was resolved upon. Then, as to the saving which had been made by this arrangement, but which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think could not by possibility have been made. The saving amounted to 2,600l., and it was effected thus:— The salary of the Vice-treasurer amounted to 2,000l., the salary of the Deputy Vice-treasurer amounted to 800l., the salary attached to the office which Mr. Smith held was 1,000l., making altogether 3,800l. All these offices had been abolished, and in their stead had been substituted an office with a salary of 1,200l. The saving, therefore, which had been effected was obviously the difference between 3,800l. and 1,200l. It was 2,600l.; at this sum it had been stated, and he could not perceive the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman had in understanding how the saving had been effected. He might also state, that he did not think the saving would stop here. Mr. Smith, who had now gone over to Ireland, was a very active man, and as he had before observed, extremely well versed in Treasury business; and he was not without hope and expectation that Mr. Smith would be able to carry the saving further by dispensing with more than one of the clerks who were now employed. He came now to the political part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If the right hon. Gentleman was right in the view he had taken, the arrangement certainly was one of much greater importance than it had seemed to him to be. So far, however, from agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman in this view of the subject, he must say, that he considered it a matter for rejoicing that it had been possible to abolish one parliamentary place. For his own part he was glad of it. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the Vice-treasurer of Ireland ought to be in the House; but allow him to say, that for many years the Vice-treasurer had been in the House, and yet he had never seen —nor did he believe could any hon. Member point out —what advantage the country, the Government, or the House, had gained by the presence of the Vice-treasurer of Ireland. As to the observation which the right hon. Gentleman had made about Irishmen not being employed in political offices, he could only say, that in appointments, of whatever character, he could never recognize any distinction between an Englishman and an Irishman. If there were to be any such distinction, the Union would not be complete. He was sure, however, that there was no such distinction, and that there was not the least ground for national jealousy of this kind. He would not do the people of Ireland the injustice to suppose that they could harbour any such jealousy, and, for England, he might, if it were worth while, give proofs enough that they harboured none such. He had only to say, in conclusion, that nothing which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman had altered his opinion as to the propriety of the arrangement; and, with this observation, he need hardly say that he had not the least objection to the Motion.

had heard with much surprise the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Fitzgerald) below him, and thought the statement of the noble Lord opposite must have convinced even the right hon. Gentleman himself that the arrangement was a very proper and a very economical one. He trusted that the present Government would follow up measures of economy similar to that to which reference had been just made, and that the present was only the beginning of the simplification of the public accounts.

in moving for certain Returns respecting the duties of the Recorder of Dublin, remarked, that the subject was one which deserved the consideration of the House and the Government. He had been taunted with gross ignorance the other evening respecting the appointment of the Recorder, by the right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary for the Home Department, whom he was sorry he did not then see in his place. That right hon. Gentleman did not himself know what were the Sessions the Recorder attended, and in what different Courts he presided; and had he (Mr. Hume) been for four or five years Chief Secretary in Ireland, and had he been afterwards Secretary for the Home Department, through whose office all the business of Ireland proceeded, he should consider himself culpably ignorant if he was not aware of the peculiar duties of the Recorder of Dublin. He was desirous to show, from the Returns for which he was about to move, that the duties of Recorder of Dublin, and of a Member of Parliament were quite incompatible. He had found upon inquiry, that the former Recorder of Dublin, Sir Jonas Greene, sat regularly upon every Tuesday and Friday, in every week throughout the year; and that when there was a press of business, he sat more frequently in the Sessions' Court. He had only to add, that the Recorder of Dublin presided as Judge in the Lord Mayor's Court, and in the Sheriffs' Court, and that he took cognizance of all civil cases arising within the jurisdiction of the city of Dublin. How was it possible, if that learned Gentleman was to attend to his duties in that House, that he could sit regularly in his Court in Dublin, on every Tuesday and Friday, to discharge his duties as Judge? He understood that 1,600l. a-year was paid to that officer by the public; and if that was the case, the payment of the money should certainly be withheld by Parliament until that learned Gentleman relinquished one or other of the situations which he now filled, and the duties of which were manifestly so incompatible. The hon. Member concluded by moving for certain Returns, setting forth the duties of the Recorder of Dublin, the number of days he sits, and the respective Courts in which he presides; stating also the number of cases tried in the years 1828 and 1829, by the late Recorder of Dublin, stating the amount of the sum voted by Parliament towards the payment of the salary of the Recorder; comprising likewise an account of the number of felons confined in Newgate, and the number that had been tried in the last year of the Recorder-ship of Sir Jonas Greene; and a similar Return with regard to the present Recorder, up to the latest moment at which it could be made out.

expressed his regret, that the Motion had been made in the absence of the Recorder, who, had he been present, could have given an answer, most likely to several of the statements of the hon. Member.

entertained the same opinion as the noble Lord, and thought there was a great want of courtesy, both in the present attack, and in the attack made the other evening by an hon. Member, in presenting a petition.

was the Member who presented a petition against the Recorder; but he made no attack on him, he had merely declared, that the two offices, of Recorder of Dublin, and Member of that House, were incompatible. He denied, therefore, that he had displayed any want of courtesy to the absent Member.

stated, that he had given notice of his Motion, and the censure, therefore, of the hon. Member was thrown away.

gave notice, that upon the second Thursday in February, he should move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire respecting the patents granted to the King's Printers in England and Scotland.

inquired, why his hon. friend did not include the King's Printer in Ireland, in the motion of which he had given notice?

had given his Majesty's Government the credit of having abolished that office. He would willingly adopt the suggestion, and include it in his Motion. He wished to know from the noble Lord, whether it was a fact, that if the patent to the King's Printer were not challenged up to the 1st of January next, it would then be a good and valid one? It lay at present in some office in the Adelphi, open to public inspection; but he understood, that if no objection was made to it before the 1st of January, it would then be valid.

did not possess any knowledge with regard to the point of law which the hon. Member had mooted, but he would make an inquiry upon the subject.

moved for various Returns to shew the Revenue derived from the sale of the Crown Lands and Clergy Revenues in Canada. The hon. Member expressed a hope that his Majesty's Government would turn its attention to the affairs of Canada. Great dissatisfaction at present prevailed in that colony.

said, that the state of Canada was at that moment under the serious consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, and that every endeavour would be made to produce a satisfactory state of things in that colony.

also moved for a Return of all Pensions granted in the Colonies. He would take that opportunity of saving, that he hoped that his Majesty's Government would direct its attention to the important colony of New South Wales. He believed that that colony was at present in a very dissatisfied state. He understood that the Government there had instituted eleven prosecutions against one individual; and that, since the introduction of Jury trials in that colony, that that individual had obtained seven convictions against the Government Gazette, for libels on his character. He wished to know whether it was a fact, that the Governor of that colony had suspended the Judge who had so fairly and properly exercised his functions in the instance of those trials? If the Governor of New South Wales had acted so, that was in itself prima facie proof that things were not as they ought to be in that colony. He hoped that the noble Lord opposite would be able to state that there would be some change made in the government there. He trusted, that before the House met again, the Government would have come to such a determination; for if not, he should feel it his duty after the recess to bring forward a motion on the subject. He must express a hope, that his Majesty's Government would interfere in the case of Mr. Hall. That gentleman had been imprisoned for three years; and there had been eleven government prosecutions against him, though he had obtained seven convictions against the Government Gazette, which fact was a tolerable proof of his innocence. He wished to know whether it was a fact, that in the instance of every one of the verdicts against the Editor of the Government Gazette, with the exception of one against Archdeacon Scott, the fines had been paid out of the public money? The hon. Member concluded by submitting his Motion to the House.

observed, that the hon. Member must be aware that there was a great degree of excitement and party spirit in the colony of New South Wales. The circumstances of that colony were very different from those of others, and what might be conclusive as to the misconduct of a Governor of another colony should not be considered conclusive, or any such thing as conclusive, proof with regard to misconduct on the part of the Governor of New South Wales. With respect to the charges preferred by Mr. Hall against Governor Darling, the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department would only discharge his duty properly by receiving them with great caution and suspicion. As a proof that the charges made by Mr. Hall should be received with great caution, he instanced the charge preferred against the Governor in reference to the bush-ranger. In that instance, the Governor was charged with conniving at murder. Now, the real fact was, that this bush-ranger had been found guilty of murder, and that, in attempting to make his escape, he had been shot. The charge in question became the subject of an investigation afterwards, and the counsel for Mr. Hall, in that instance, acknowledged that his case had broken down.

remarked, that, from his experience, his testimony would bear out the noble Lord who had last spoken, with respect to receiving, with great caution, charges brought against individuals holding official situations in the colonies. He contended that, although it could not be said that the Sydney Gazette was altogether blameless in the transaction, still, were a balance to be struck between it and the Sydney Monitor, it would be found greatly against Mr. Hall, who was the editor of the latter, and who had published libels calculated to bring the Government into contempt, and to injure the Governor of the colony. The hon. Member who had brought forward the present Motion had, in one respect, been misinformed. He had urged the necessity of the appointment of a council at the colony of New South Wales, in order to assist the Governor by their deliberations. He begged to inform the hon. Member, that, in the year 1828, a bill was introduced into that House, by which a council was appointed: and, in conformity to the provisions of that bill, proper persons were selected to fill those responsible offices, without any regard to partiality in their choice.

was of opinion, that a great deal of oppression had been manifested in the case of Mr. Hall, who had been imprisoned very unnecessarily for a great length of time.

hoped, that the noble Lord would take all the other cases with which Mr. Hall had been connected, as well as the one he had mentioned, into his serious consideration.

said, that all he had stated with regard to the case of the bush-ranger had been verified by the report of Mr. Justice Dowling, who presided at the trial of Captain Wright.

rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, with regard to the Pensions granted on the Civil List. The hon. Member commenced by remarking, that this was a subject which merited the serious attention of the Government and the country. He should confine his Motion, in the first instance, to the pension which had been granted to Mrs. Arbuthnot, in order to bring the general question, with respect to pensions granted where no services had been performed, hereafter under the consideration of the House. After stating the amount of salary to which the right hon. C. Arbuthnot was entitled, and of which he was in receipt as Secretary to the Treasury in 1823, the hon. Member stated, that at that period, while her husband filled that situation, a pension of 1,200l. per annum was granted to Mrs. Harriet Arbuthnot. He conceived that such a grant could not be defended. The next pension to which he called the attention of the House, was that granted to Lady Hill. He was informed, he said, that she was the lady of Sir George Hill, the late Vice-treasurer for Ireland: that hon. Baronet, at the present moment, as governor of the Leeward Islands, in addition to the pension granted to him, as late Vice-treasurer of Ireland, after the loss of his office as Clerk of the Irish House of Commons, was in the receipt of 2,091l. 8s. 2d. Yet it appeared that, on the 5th of April, 1830, a pension was granted to Lady Hill of 467l. 12s. That pension was granted upon the very day that Sir George Hill retired from his office of Vice-treasurer of Ireland, to which office the Knight of Kerry was appointed, and in addition to the other pensions granted to him, it made the total received by himself and his lady from the public, amount to, 7,347l. That was a gross abuse which should be corrected. The next pension to which he would call the attention of the House was that granted to the Earl of Minto. It appeared that, on the 2nd of April, 1800, a pension of 938l. 8s. 9d. was granted to that noble Earl; and therefore, since that period, that noble Earl had received about 28,000l. from the public purse. He (Mr. Guest) was ignorant of the services which the noble Earl had performed to entitle him to such a reward. The next name which called for notice was that of the Countess of Mulgrave, though her husband, the Earl of Mulgrave, as former Master-general of the Ordnance, had a pension of 3,000l.; he received, also, his full pay as Colonel. There were no exact returns of the pensions received by this nobleman; but he was in possession of his full pay as a General, and also as Colonel of the 31st regiment of foot; and in receipt, also, of an annual sum as governor of Scarborough. The hon. Gentleman said, that the pensions granted to the family of the Grevilles were particularly deserving of attention. Mr. C. Greville, as Comptroller of Cash in the Excise, was in receipt of 600l. per annum; he was allowed, moreover, 600l. a-year as Receiver-general of Taxes at Nottingham; and, in addition to that, he was in receipt of 350l. a year as Secretary of the Island of Tobago. Now, it was plain that some of those offices, if not all of them, must be perfect sinecures. The amount of pensions granted to the Grevilles — a father and two sons —was 7,662l., and all the services which they had performed, as far as he could understand, was, that one of the sons had been for three years Private Secretary to the First Lord of the Treasury, for which, on a moderate calculation, he had been rewarded by a sum not less than 1,373l. per annum. The hon. Member then referred to the pensions granted to the Cockburn family. The first bore date so far back as 1789, and was for the amount of 184l., granted to Jean Cockburn: to three other members of that family, pensions of 97l. each were granted in 1791 upon the Civil List of Scotland. There was also, in the document which had been laid upon the Table of the House, an account of a pension granted to Mary Penelope Bankhead, bearing date October 8, 1825, and for 350l. 7s. 5d. What were the services for which such a pension had been granted? It would be seen from the same document, that the Countess of Mornington was in the receipt of a pension of 600l. a-year since 1813. The hon. Member alluded to several other pensions which had been granted upon the Civil List, and, among others, to those of Lady Ann Cullen Smith, who, since 1812, had received a pension of 600l.; of Mary Wilkins, who, since 1800, had received 115l. per year, upon which last pension the hon. Member remarked, that he was astonished how any one in possession of 4,000l. a-year could think of taking from the Civil List a paltry sum of 115l. per annum. In conclusion, he remarked, that all these pensions had been granted during pleasure, and that he was anxious that all the circumstances connected with those grants should be laid before the House, in order that they might see whether it would not be necessary to submit all such pensions to reconsideration and revision. He had, as an independent Member of Parliament, felt it his duty to bring forward the Motion with which he should conclude, and he would now declare, that whenever pensions were to be voted and placed on the Civil List, which were not granted for some service performed to the State, he should feel it his duty, even if he stood alone, to vote against such grants. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a copy of the Warrant, or other document, bearing date the 5th of January, 1823, granting a pension of 1,200l. per annum to Mrs. Harriet Arbuthnot.

in rising to second the motion of the hon. Member, begged to express his obligations to him, and also to say, that it was an irksome and unpleasant task for hon. Members to perform, when it became their duty to move for such returns as were contemplated by the motion of the hon. Member, as such a proceeding partook somewhat of the nature of a personal attack, though it was, in fact, of a very different character. He, however, felt that there was no other mode of putting a stop to the shameless drain occasioned, by such pensions, on the public purse; he had no hesitation in stating his conviction, that the acceptance of a pension of 1,200l. by the wife, or any part of the family of a Member of that House, ought to be considered as incapacitating that individual from sitting in Parliament. It was proceedings similar to those which the hon. Member who spoke last had stigmatised, that had reduced the country to the impoverished state in which it now was, and he considered it was the bounden duty of Ministers to bring the propriety of continuing these pensions under the consideration of a committee of the House. The system caused a great deal of discontent in the country, and he hoped that it would be put an end to.

considered, that the entire Pension List ought to be brought under the direct control of Parliament; he trusted that in future the list of pensions would be annually laid before the House; and had that course been pursued before, a great many names which now appeared in it would not have been found there. He felt unmitigated satisfaction in finding that the Duchess Dowager of Newcastle had relinquished her pension.

explained, that he had just been informed that the Earl of Mulgrave had not a pension of 3,000l., and that the reason why there was not a return of his emoluments before the House was, the severe illness of the noble Earl. He hastened to make this statement after receiving it, and to apologise for the incorrectness into which he had been led.

expressed his obligations to the hon. Member whose motion was before the House. He felt that it was a subject of great delicacy to single out the names of individuals who were in the receipt of pensions —still it was a duty, and as such was unavoidable. Amongst other names on that list, however, there was one which was super-eminent amongst them, that of Bathurst, a nobleman, who had held a high official situation for many years, and who, independent of the salary which he had received, had enjoyed for upwards of twenty years a sinecure of 2,700l., and another sinecure of upwards of 1,000l. In addition to these sums, there were the names of no fewer than five of his family, to one branch of which an increase of 200l. was made to her pension in 1825, and of 100l. in December, 1829. He thought it excessively hard that individuals who received from 10,000l. to 12,000l. a-year could not support their own families. He recollected that the very year when some of the worst of these pensions were granted, the people were in great distress, and even perishing of famine. That was a monstrous abuse which must be done away.

said, that was not the time to enter into a discussion of the Civil List, which would come more regularly under discussion when that subject was brought forward by Government. Having this feeling on the subject, he should not have trespassed on the attention of the House, but for the extraordinary misrepresentations of the hon. Alderman (Waithman) on the subject of pensions granted to Earl Bathurst's family. The hon. Alderman stated, that Lord Bathurst's family received a large sum in pensions. His answer to that statement was, that they received nothing. It was true Lord Bathurst himself held two offices, which were nearly sinecures, and which he obtained long since, as the son of a Lord Chancellor, it being the practice in those times not to grant the Lord Chancellor a pension, as at present, but to reward him by granting sinecures to his family. All that Lord Bathurst obtained by this antiquated system was, the difference of holding sinecures worth about 4,000l. a-year, instead of a pension of 3,000l. to which he would have been entitled from the duration of his personal services. The pensions which the hon. Alderman remarked upon were granted to the family of Mr. Bragge Bathurst, a gentleman who was well known, and who had been in the public service during the greater part of his life, but never held any office which entitled him, under the Act of Parliament, to a pension. He went out of office not in affluent circumstances, and with a large family; and Lord Liverpool's Administration certainly advised the granting of pensions to his wife and family to the amount of 1,500l. or 1,600l. a-year. Unless the granting of pensions was to be condemned altogether, he believed that no pensions had ever been better earned than those enjoyed by the family alluded to. He would not enter further into this subject more than to observe, that if the system advocated with respect to the Civil List was adopted, and every pension submitted to Parliament before it was granted, it would be the greatest alteration any one now living had seen in the Constitution — an alteration, in his opinion, which would be productive of infinitely more jobbing than had ever existed. He had no doubt that other pensions, as well as those granted to the name of Bathurst, could be explained; but at any rate he would claim credit for the Duke of Wellington's Administration for having steered clear of such jobs. He admitted the abuses, but they were all of long standing, and of a date long prior to the time when the Duke of Wellington was placed at the head of affairs.

explained. He never said that the right of granting pensions should be vested in the House of Commons: he only contended that, when granted by the Crown, they should afterwards be submitted to the House of Commons, and the reasons assigned for which they were granted.

also explained. He had seen the name of Bathurst in the Civil List, and, in common with many other persons, was impressed with the idea that they were members of the noble Lord's family.

was very anxious that the observations made on this subject should not convey a stronger impression abroad than was intended. It might be the duty of his Majesty's Government to investigate the Civil List, but he was quite persuaded they did not wish it to go abroad that they had made up their minds to advise his Majesty to withhold all assistance from those who had hitherto been placed on the Pension List. It should be recollected, in discussing this subject, that the pensions granted on the Civil List formed a part of the allowance made to his Majesty, in return for the hereditary revenues of the Crown. The course advised, of submitting all pensions to this House, might be right or wrong, but it was quite new, and ought to be adopted with caution.

said, that although it might be something of innovation, it would be a great improvement to submit all pensions to Parliament. This was proved by the fact, that the oldest and most intelligent Members of that House could not tell for what services the pensions had been granted. Pensions ought to be an honour, and not a disgrace; and if pensions were granted only for public services, he was sure Parliament would not be niggardly. He considered the appointment of a committee would be the preferable mode of determining whether any part of the pensions granted should be discontinued or not. He also observed, that leaving the consideration of pensions to Parliament was not such an innovation. Some of the largest grants ever made to individuals (those to the Duke of Wellington, for instance) were made by the votes, and with the concurrence of the Legislature.

said, that as no excuse was made, and nothing said in extenuation of the pensions referred to by the hon. Mover, he had a right to construe the silence as a token of general disapprobation. It was for Parliament to prevent the recurrence of such abuses hereafter; abuses which, he believed, had done more to bring disrepute on that House, than all the inflammatory and mischievous publications of which so much had been said in the early part of the evening. Whatever way the House was disposed to deal with vested rights, as they were called by some, a remedy ought to be devised, to prevent the repetition of such enormous abuses.

said, the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Courtenay's) argument, as to Mr. Bathurst's family, proceeded entirely on the assumption that men in office were not adequately remunerated for their public services. That assumption was violently in collision with public opinion, and with the expressed opinion of his Majesty's present Government. It was very desirable that Ministers should give their attention to the Civil List, and, if possible, reduce it to a great extent; but though this might gain for them a little temporary popularity, he did not hesitate to tell Ministers that, if they contented themselves with any reductions they could make in the Civil List, they would show that they were not adequate to the urgency of the occasion which called them into office, and, so far from relieving the distress of the country, they would only add to its difficulties. He was desirous of referring to another point, on which some observations had been made a few nights ago. Something had been said of the Government appealing to the people, or, in other words, of a general election. It was only a few months since the people expressed their opinion by electing Representatives, and he therefore told the Ministers, that if they appealed to the people so soon again, it should be on some other grounds than that of gaining two or three votes, more or less, by bringing in Members to represent boroughs under the influence of Government. The people ought not to be appealed to twice within a few months on such a pretence. It would be to disgust the country by obtruding upon it the discreditable parts of the system of representation; and if Ministers adopted such a course, they would render themselves deeply responsible. If they appealed to the people, it should be by measures suited to the urgency of the occasion—measures calculated to afford relief to this distressed, distracted, and nearly disorganized, country. If Ministers were defeated in such measures by party politics, they might retire with satisfaction; and if they succeeded, they would place themselves in the highest position in which any Ministers ever stood.

said, that, though he had opposed the Duke of Wellington's Government, he was bound to say, that no Government had added less to the Pension List. He believed that the aggregate amount of pensions granted on the Civil List, under the Duke of Wellington's Government, did not exceed 10,000l. per annum.

said, he had refrained from rising until then, expecting that some member of his Majesty's Government would speak on a point of such great constitutional importance as that which had been brought forward in this debate. His Majesty's Ministers were the proper guardians of the prerogatives and rights of the Crown, and their opinions ought to be stated on this point; and till then it was hardly decorous in him or other Members to obtrude any observations on the House. Some doctrines, however, had been put forward, upon which, as his Majesty's Ministers had neglected to reply to them, he felt called upon to offer a few observations. The hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, had confounded all the different classes of pensions—those granted by the authority of an Act. of Parliament, with those granted by his Majesty. His Majesty was legally intrusted with the power of granting pensions to a certain extent, and the question which had been mooted by hon. Members was, whether this class of pensions ought not in future to be voted by the House? Was that the conduct proper to be pursued? They had read little of the history of this country, of mankind, or of popular assemblies, who thought that such a power could with safety be vested—under a constitution at all monarchical—in any other branch of the Government than the Crown. He maintained, that the House was not the fit judge of the cases in which it might be proper for his Majesty to grant pensions—[hear, hear, from Sir J. Graham]. He did not do the hon. Baronet the injustice of supposing, that he would advocate such a doctrine. He hoped no one who occupied those benches on which the hon. Baronet sat, would ever maintain such a doctrine. But it had been repeatedly stated, in the course of the conversation, that the House of Commons should have the revision of all pensions granted by the Crown. He would not pursue the argument further than to observe, that such a principle, if adopted, would be fatal to every thing like the vestige of a monarchical government. Now, as to the grant, of pensions, he would only observe, that it might be wise or unwise to place such a power in the Crown. But a certain sum was assigned to the Crown, which the Crown had a right to grant, not only for public services, but as matter of grace and favour. Whether it would be right or not to persevere in. that system was another question; but such had been hitherto the law, and it was looked upon to be an important part of the Constitution of the country. He was not only defending the Duke of Wellington's government—which had given away the least, perhaps, in pensions, of any government — but all the governments which had preceded it. They were all open to the charge, if charge it could be called, of advising the Crown to grant pensions, not only for service, he repeated, but as matter of grace and favour. Unless the members of the late Administration had been guilty of advising the grant of some pension under circumstances which rendered it the subject of special disapprobation, they had not exceeded the power vested in them, and exercised by all their predecessors in Office, nor could they fairly or decently be charged with any dereliction of duty, or with malversation, in recommending his Majesty to grant certain pensions. The granting of pensions on the Civil List was perfectly consistent with Mr. Burke's measure for the reform of the Civil List. That right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle, and Parliament assented to it, that a certain sum should be placed at the disposal of the Crown, to be granted by the Sovereign as he thought fit, without Ministers being-liable to be questioned in Parliament as to the manner of its appropriation. Every great Statesman in that House who succeeded Mr. Burke, agreed to the principle laid down by him. If the Crown were stripped of the right and power of granting pensions, or that power were made subject to a dominant faction, and every pension to depend on the vote of a majority of the House of Commons, the Crown would be left without any power. Formerly the Crown had the power of making grants of land, and grants from the hereditary revenues; and if Members took the trouble of looking back, they would find that the power of granting pensions, to a certain extent, for grace and favour, was esteemed a just consideration and compensation for the hereditary revenue which was formerly applicable to the same purpose. When the Parliament and the Crown came to make terms, it would be for the House to consider, whether a similar power should be again vested in the Crown. The maintenance of that power was not then the question—it was the pensions granted, and not the pensions granted to particular persons—but the attack was directed against the whole Civil List. He could not sit down without telling the hon. Member who made the Motion, that it would have been better if he had not entered into personal allusions. When he (Mr. Herries) came down, he had no expectation of hearing any names called in question; and, as it never happened to him to have advised any pension, he was the last person who could be supposed qualified to give an answer. Nevertheless, he felt it his duty to call upon the House to suspend its judgment until the subject was fairly before it, and hon. Members had had an opportunity of inquiring upon what grounds particular pensions had been granted. He hoped that the present Ministers, when they came to arrange the Civil List, would, in looking to the dignity of the Crown, and the support of the" Monarchy, determine upon having some fund at the uncontrolled discretion of the Crown, out of which it might dispense its favours, and reward the merit of individuals according to the views of those who served the Crown.

agreed with some part of what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, that there ought to be some fund at the uncontrolled and irresponsible disposal of the Crown. But the amount of the specific sum so disposable would be the subject of discussion when the Civil List came to be settled by Parliament. He must say, however, that he believed that it would be found advantageous to bring before the House the particulars of pensions granted out of that fund. Of the salutary effect which might result from the House thus taking cognizance of the mode in which, and the persons to whom, pensions were granted, an illustration was presented in a. case which, had been that evening alluded to—he meant the pension of the Duchess Dowager of Newcastle. Immediately after that pension had been spoken of in the House, it was resigned by her Grace. He did not think, that the right hon. Gentleman, was justified in calling on the Ministers to deliver their opinion on this occasion. The motion was for an Address to procure the copy of a warrant, granting a pension to Mr. Arbuthnot; with that pension the present Ministry had nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman had been for a long time Secretary to the Treasury under the Administration of Lord Liverpool; and in that office he had been instrumental in the appointment of a great number of pensions, and was therefore fully competent, either to answer any objectionable remarks of the Gentlemen who had spoken from the other side, or to suggest to the persons who were at present honoured with his Majesty's confidence, the course which it might be most advisable for them to take respecting the settlement of the Pension List. But if he (Sir J. Graham) mistook not, the Government, of which he was an humble member, would take a middle course, and adopt such measures as should at the same time secure the honour and dignity of the Crown, and the integrity of the Constitution, and give satisfaction to the people. The hon. member for Borough-bridge had given to his Majesty's Government advice, of which the kindness, no more than the earnestness, was to be mistaken, and of which the import seemed to be, that they ought not to dissolve Parliament. Now, that hon. Gentleman had seen the difficulties with which Ministers had had to struggle, and he therefore doubted whether they would keep their pledges. But he could assure the hon. Gentleman, that although there were, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate, some seats in that House which had hitherto, for the most part, been occupied by Gentlemen supporting the Administration of the day, then held by opponents of the Government of which he was a member —although the places so represented might send to a new Parliament Gentlemen, who would give his Majesty's advisers their support—yet the present Ministers would keep their pledges — would press steadily on in their course—would scorn all indirect or illegitimate influence —would bring forward their measures on the merits alone of those measures themselves. He did not mean any taunt, but he would say, that his Majesty's Ministers were resolved not to submit tamely to defeat. They would not be awed by threats in that House or out of it. If defeated there, they would go to the people. If defeated by the House of Commons, in measures which they conceived calculated to rescue the nation from peril, they would take the sense of the nation itself; and, whatever might be the national decision, he (Sir J. Graham), for one, would content himself with the reflection, that he had clone his duty. He would meet the hon. Gentlemen, whether as friends or enemies, sitting on this side of the House or on that, to discuss in fair argument any measures for the safety of the nation.—In his present course, however, he would proceed, conscious that he was acting with men governed by a high and firm sense of duty.

was surprised to hear from the right hon. Baronet that Ministers had nothing to do with the great constitutional question which had been brought under discussion. Had they remained wholly silent, he should have supposed that they meant to propose that the Crown should receive no sum to grant for pensions; and he was, therefore, glad to hear that they meant to steer what the right hon. Baronet called a middle course. The right hon. Baronet threatened to appeal to the nation, should Ministers be defeated by the House; he forgot that such defeat might be attended by circumstances which would deprive the present Administration of the power to make such an appeal.

expressed great satisfaction at the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham). He was sure that speech would give equal satisfaction to the nation.

moved, agreeably to notice, that the petition of Sir Harcourt Lees, presented on the 21st of December, for the repeal of the Act of Abjuration, be printed.

objected to the Motion. It was contrary, he understood, to the rule adopted by the House, and if the petitions of individuals were to be printed at the expense of the public—a course which he would never recommend—they would adopt that method of making their sentiments known to the world.

rose to postpone the Bill for prohibiting the growth of Tobacco in Ireland, till after the recess. His Lordship fixed Thursday, February 3rd, for discussing the measure.

expressed his regret that the noble Lord should postpone the Bill. It appeared by the evidence before the Committee, that there was no reason whatever for allowing the growth of tobacco in Ireland, and he hoped, therefore, that the Bill would have been passed one stage that evening.

observed, that he had fixed it for the first day the House would meet after the recess. He had no intention whatever of giving up the Bill.

declared his intention of supporting the Bill.

gave notice that he would oppose the Bill in every stage.

wished to enter fully into the subject, when he was called to order by

who informed him, that the Bill was withdrawn, and that there was no question before the House.

moved for a Return "Of the number and names of those at present in the commission of the peace in each county, city, and town in Ireland; distinguishing in each the number and names of clergymen and laymen; also, distinguishing the names of the Magistrates in each department who have qualified to preside on Road Sessions, and specifying the number and nature of offices, (if any) civil or military, under the Crown or otherwise, held by each or any of such Magistrates, and the probable amount of salary or pay derived there from;—such Return to distinguish also the number and names of those Magistrates appointed under city or corporate authority, from those deriving their commissions of the peace from the Lord Chancellor; also, a Return of the number and names of those who have been appointed Magistrates in each county, city, and town in Ireland, since the year 1810, with the names and number of those who have been superseded in that period, up to the latest time."

doubted whether the whole of these Returns could be made out. The Clerk of the Peace could, undoubtedly, give the names of those who held commissions as Magistrates; but he had no means whatever of knowing what offices they might hold, or what salaries they might receive. It was impossible that the Returns could be made out, and he suggested, therefore, to the hon. Member the propriety of withdrawing his Motion.

only wished the Returns to be made out as far as possible. He did not expect to obtain all the information that he required; but, let the Return be as defective as possible, he was the person, not the right hon. Gentleman, to complain of that.

thought, that much difficulty would arise in ascertaining the meaning of the word "offices." For instance, an attorney was not an officer, and how an attorney could be described according to the Motion he did not know. Certainly, the Return could not be made without great difficulty.

did not expect to have been met by so many frivolous objections. The Motion would be intelligible enough to those by whom the Return must be made. Hon. Members could not expect that he should be answerable for their want of acquaintance with facts which were well known in Ireland.

opposed the Motion, on the ground that as there was a change in the Chancellorship of Ireland just taking place, to make such a Return at present would be extremely inconvenient.

said, as the Motion was decidedly objected to, he would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw it, and give notice of his intention to submit it again on some future occasion.

said, that it was certainly the usual custom of the House, when a decided objection was made to a motion for Returns which was expected to be agreed to as a matter of course, to withdraw it for the time, and to give notice for some future day. On looking at the Motion, he saw nothing objectionable in it; but if the noble Lord opposite entertained a different opinion, he had undoubtedly a right to oppose it, or to ask that it should be withdrawn, and notice given of an intention to submit it on a future occasion.

was of opinion, that the Motion carried something invidious on the face of it; and he should support the noble Lord in opposing it.

could not recognise the principle upon which opposition was made to his Motion. He could not conceive upon what principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after having induced him, almost as a personal favour, to postpone his Motion on a previous night, should then call upon him to postpone it again. Had he divided the House at that time, he was sure that he should have carried the question by a strong majority; but in a spirit of courtesy towards the noble Lord, he postponed it; and he would then appeal to the candour of the House to decide, whether that postponement, under the peculiar circumstances attendant on it, ought not to be considered in the light of a virtual notice of his intention to bring-forward the Motion again, particularly as he then distinctly announced that intention. Since that time, he had new modelled the Motion in such a manner as he deemed best calculated (without relinquishing his own view) to do away with the objections of some of the extremely fastidious persons in that House, who, if their knowledge of the matter were inquired into, would probably be found to know as much about the subject of the Motion as those who at that moment, might be enjoying themselves in Kamtchatka. His late Majesty's Attorney-general (Sir Charles Wetherell) — one of the most sensitive plants he had ever met in that, or any other House— shrunk back, with well-feigned horror, some evenings ago, at the very name of his proposition. He had extracted from the Motion those words which were objectionable in the eyes of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and then he came to ask on that, the last night of the sitting of Parliament—the last moment to which his duty would allow him to postpone it— that the Return (with the respective adjuncts enumerated) of those who are in the commission of the peace for Ireland, should be laid on the Table of the House. Could it be alleged that there was anything unfair in that, or that those persons could be ashamed of having their names made public? After what had passed that evening, it became the duty of every hon. Member to institute inquiries, and to ascertain how things were really to be conducted in Ireland. An almost endless variety of subjects had already been brought forward, but they had been all, on one account or another, invariably put off until after the recess; and when the House met again, a hundred other subjects would demand and obtain precedence. What good had been yet effected for the people of Ireland? He wished to be useful in his own department—to work for the benefit of his fellow-men at his own little ant-hill. He did not wish to interfere with any of the mighty projects which would doubtless be brought forward in that House, but merely to discharge his duty on those humbler, but not less important, subjects to his constituents, in which they were deeply interested. When he reminded the noble Lord, that the portion of the kingdom which he represented was that which had been considered the most turbulent and dissatisfied; that the people there were in consequence of the neglect (he might almost say, the contempt) of Government, reduced to a state of the most extreme destitution; that their grievances were heavy, and only equalled by their patience; when he reminded the noble Lord of that, it would, he hoped, at least deter him from treating an important proposition, twice brought forward by one of their freely chosen Representatives, with any appearance of inattention or neglect; it should induce him not again to ask for a postponement of this Motion—to which he (O'Gorman Million) could not and would not accede. The humble and the poor orders of his countrymen were deeply interested in obtaining an upright and pure class of Magistrates; his motion would tend to obtain that blessing for them; the information it would procure was most important to a due consideration of the real state of Ireland: and for these reasons he must decline following the advice of the noble Lord, or of the hon. member for the City of Limerick; he was determined that the House should say whether or not the Returns should be made. He had endeavoured to shape the Motion in as conciliatory a manner as possible, and, if no other man would support it, he would go below the bar himself. His constituents, when they elected him, did not mean that he should allow himself or them to be trifled with; and by Him who made the world, he would that night have from the English House of Commons either a conclusive affirmative, or a positive negative! Was he, in coming forward in a conciliatory manner, to be told that the Motion must be again postponed? He would not postpone it; he would have the decision of the House upon it at once. It was hourly becoming evident to all, how matters relative to Ireland were disposed of in that House. That very evening several measures had been mentioned and disposed of, as if of no importance; among others, was that most important one, to prohibit the growth of tobacco in Ireland;—that measure, whenever it came forward, he would resist to the very utmost of his power and ability; and he could tell the hon. Member for Middlesex, easy a victory as he anticipated, that when it came under the consideration of the House, it would meet with a much more serious opposition than he imagined. Was the House aware, that if the measure should be carried, and the cultivation of tobacco prohibited in Ireland, thousands of poor, even from the youngest children to the oldest men, and females of all ages, would be thrown out of employment, and consequently deprived of the means of honestly supporting themselves? [" Question from Mr. Warburton."] The hon. Gentleman called "question!"—he should have enough of question, and should have answer too. He was not surprised, that the hon. Member should call out "question;" because he was then touching upon a subject which was neither familiar nor agreeable to the hon. Member; but he would tell the hon. Gentleman, it was a question too deeply interesting to every Irishman to be got rid of as the hon. Gentleman wished. No Government could expect the support of independent Irish Members, if it did not recognize the fair, legitimate, undoubted rights of Ireland—and freely to grow tobacco was one of them. The question came to this:—A starving and numerous population demanded employment; would the House allow them the means of sustenance, or would it deprive them of those means by prohibiting the growth of tobacco? The answer was a short one: —if it did, it would violate the Treaty of the Union. By the laws, Ireland was entitled to cultivate this plant freely; if the Parliament deprived her of that right, it would cut the painter between England and that injured country. Parliament had then been assembled six or seven weeks: and during that time, though almost all the Irish Members had spoken on the subject, there was but one who declared he would support the repeal of the Union. After what had occurred that night, when the hon. member for Waterford should bring the question forward, he should not want a seconder in that House; and he would venture to predict, that, from that time forward, there would be, not one, but two, and three, and four, and five, and up to ten and twelve, and, before the next Session, even twenty Members in favour of the Repeal. How could he go back to those who sent him there, and tell them that he would support a connexion which would deliberately deprive hundreds and thousands of them of the means of existence? He was bound by no pledge —his constituents elected him unshackled and unchained by any promise as to the political course which he should pursue. He had given them no intimation as to his intention either to support or to oppose this Government or that; but the very manner in which they thought proper to elect him, and the unlimited confidence thus placed in him, bound him more closely, by a thousand degrees, to the interests of his constituents than if he had given all the pledges of all the Members, English, Scotch, and Irish, put together. His gratitude to those who placed him, a free and independent Member, in that House, would be incomplete, did he not prove, that the trust they had so generously reposed in him was not misplaced. The manner in which Clare, his native county, conferred its confidence on him, was a much higher source of pride and gratification than the mere seat he occupied in the Assembly. From his place he openly proclaimed, (though conscious that no one would cheer the sentiment) that, as he had ever been, so would he be, a staunch friend to the repeal of the Union. It should always receive his best and most strenuous support; and when he said that, he knew that he spoke the sentiments of the county he represented. He stood there singly—amidst the many who were opposed to him—and those who would applaud and support him in those sentiments were far away—but he heeded it not, nor would he shrink from the avowal of his determination. That was the last time he should have the opportunity of addressing the House for some weeks:—and he wished it to remember his prediction—Before the conclusion of the Session, many Members would be found to stand up with him in favour of a repeal of the Union, and to express an anxious desire to cut the Legislative connexion between Ireland and England; many would desire to establish a separate Legislature in Ireland—before which the people might unfold their griefs with the prospect of obtaining attention. If Ireland was always to be treated as she had been treated that evening, how could the Government, or how could the House expect, that the men of that country would range themselves under the Legislative banner of the United Kingdom to fight its battles '. It would not—it could not be done. A repeal of the Union must take place; and, reverting to Clare, he could say of his colleague, who once presented a petition on this subject, but declined expressing concurrence in its prayer, or giving any opinion on the subject, that if he did not support that repeal, he would not—he could not—he should not again be returned for that county, [Order! order.!] He meant merely to state the simple fact that his colleague, except on certain conditions, would not again be returned for the county of Clare, and he apprehended that there was nothing irregular in that.

the hon. Member said, that his hon. colleague should not be returned. If, however, he intended only to say that he would not be returned, there was certainly nothing irregular in the expression; but to say that an hon. Member should not be returned, implied a future threat.

—was speaking of a period to come—his hon. colleague was then member for Clare; and he said, that if he did not adopt a particular course, with respect to a particular measure, he would not and should not be the Member again. Would the hon. Gentleman have him, when speaking of the future, apply the signs of the present or of the past tense to the case of his hon. colleague, when in reality he meant he future, and distinctly said what he meant,—that he would not, and should not, be again member for Clare, unless he advocated the repeal of the Union? If the hon. Gentleman wished him to promote such confusion of signs and tenses, he would willingly oblige him, did not the rules of grammar forbid it? but he apprehended, that his real object was to interrupt him, and such a course was both uncalled for and improper. Indeed, there existed in the House too great a desire to interrupt those who were honestly acting in the discharge of their duty, and who did not fear to state the truth, however unpalatable it might be.

called the hon. Member to order. The hon. Baronet had very satisfactorily explained the reason of his interruption. It arose from a critical distinction between the terms shall and will, and to English ears, a meaning was often attached to the one, which would not apply to the other. The hon. Baronet in this instance, thought that the word "shall" implied a menace. He was speaking to order, he did not interrupt the hon. Member for any other reason than to set him right with the House. Having said this upon the subject of the call to order, he thought he need hardly point out to the hon. member for Clare, that he should not attribute to the House a desire to close its ears against the truth. He was quite sure, that the hon. Member would feel, on reflection, that to attribute such a disposition to the House, was not only not in order, but not quite correct.

was obliged for the pains which the Speaker took to set him right with the House; he must repeat, however, that his hon. colleague, except upon such conditions as he had stated, would not, and should not, again be returned for Clare. In alluding thus to his colleague, he merely wished by it to indicate his consciousness of the sentiments of their constituents, and of those of many other county Members. The House would permit him to add, that when he made use of the observation which had been found fault with, he did not mean to include the whole House in the charge of indisposition to hear the truth. He merely meant to say, that there were some particular Members who had an antipathy to the truth, and who did not hesitate to interrupt those who spoke it, and of this the House had had proof, more than once during the evening There would, however, no longer be one man only, but twenty, calling for a repeal of the Union; the Table of the House would be crowded with petitions praying for this object, which would be sufficient to show the Government, that something must be done for Ireland. That country sent 100 nominal Representatives to Parliament, for the greater part of them were any thing but Representatives; and the efforts of those who had a claim to the character of Representatives, to better the condition of their country, were overpowered and borne down by the voice of the majority of the other 55S, returned by England and Scotland; and so long as this disparity existed, powerful as Ireland was, she must remain a neglected, a suffering, and an impoverished country. Seven or eight millions of Irish, could not be adequately represented by 100 men, let them be ever so good. In times like these, however, it could not be expected that she would long continue in a state of tame subservience. If employment, at least, was not afforded to her population, to as great an extent as hitherto, tumult must follow. The people would not lie down and starve in the ditches. The Act of Union ordained, that the growth of tobacco should be allowed in Ireland, for the benefit of the people, and the privilege was given to Ireland expressly for them! If that privilege were taken away, the Union must be dissolved; and when the question came before the House, he would call on every Member connected with Ireland to do his duty, by supporting the Repeal of the Union. To revert to the subject of his motion: he would tell his Majesty's Government, that if they wished the Irish Members to be united to them, they must not treat the measures for the protection and service of the Trish with neglect. After having postponed this Motion from day to day, as a matter of convenience, either to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to other Members, he put it to the House, whether he had not a right to express something like a sense of wrong, at the manner in which it was attempted to be thrown over. He would only add, that unless some different course was adopted towards Ireland and her Representatives, before the end of eighteen months, more than half of the Irish Members would declare themselves in favour of a Repeal of the Union. He would divide the House on his proposition, if it were opposed.

had already told the hon. Member, when he shewed him his proposition, that he saw nothing objectionable in it, and for his own part he did not object to it; but since other hon. Members had raised an objection, he was disposed to support them in the usual practice of the House, which required that the Motion should be withdrawn and notice given. He would remind the hon. Gentleman, however, when he had become such a warm advocate for the Repeal of the Union, on account of the treatment he had received that evening, that the objection to his Motion originated with an Irish, not an English Member. His Majesty's Ministers meant certainly to persist in bringing forward any measure which they thought beneficial, notwithstanding the threats of any hon. Member, He should be extremely sorry to lose the support of the hon. member for Clare, and other Irish Members, but he should like much less to lose the approving feelings of his own conscience. He was convinced that no evil could result from the adoption of his proposition, but much would result to both England and Ireland, if a stop were not put to the growth of tobacco in that country. It was possible, that the Repeal of the Union might gain some advocates; but not, he believed, by the measure he intended to introduce.

stated, in addition to what his noble friend had said, in answer to the observations of the hon. member for Clare, that although his Majesty's Ministers were anxious for his support, as well as that of every other hon. Member, yet if the hon. member for Clare supposed that they would be deterred from proceeding with any measure they might deem advisable, from the threat of his opposition, he would find himself much mistaken; and more so, if he thought, by the menace which he had thrown out, that he would obtain his object. [O'Gorman Mahon had not used a threat, or made use of any words tantamount to one.] The hon. Member said, and the House generally understood him to mean, that he would, if this measure were carried into effect, use all his endeavours to promote a Repeal of the Union, and that, in the course of six months, Irish Members would be compelled to pursue the same line of conduct as himself. Was not that equivalent to saying, that the consequence of this measure, would be the separation of the two countries?. He would tell that hon. Gentleman that, however anxious his Majesty's Government might be for his support, as for that of all other Members, it would never be deterred from bringing forward any measure which it might deem beneficial; and that it was prepared to meet him on the question of the Repeal of the Union, or any other question, whenever he or any one else might please to bring it forward.

had read the motion of the hon. Gentleman since he proposed it, and finding it of a very different nature from what he expected to find it from the tenor of his speech, he should be happy to give it his support. He thought the hon. Member moved for a return of all Magistrates having offices,—such as attorneys and the like,—but his Motion only applied to offices of a public nature, and to which a salary was affixed—that is, in short, to all civil or military offices. To this he conceived there could be no well-grounded opposition; but to the Motion, as he previously understood it, there would be many objections. The hon. Member had charged him with calling "Question!" He was mistaken — he had not called question, but, if he had, the hon. Gentleman would excuse him for saying, that the discursive nature of his speech would have afforded a better justification in resorting to that custom than was generally the case.

was in hopes that the subject would have passed off without observation, for he was sure that what had passed that evening would not tend to allay the angry feelings which prevailed in Ireland. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would, during the recess, turn their attention seriously to the situation of Ireland, and bring forward some measure—not calculated, like that of the noble Lord, to excite disturbance, but to promote tranquility. He should be sorry to sink in the good opinion of his countrymen, but he was prepared to meet all the consequences of the course of conduct which he was resolved to pursue. He would, notwithstanding any language which might have the appearance of intimidation, do as he had hitherto done in the House— speak, honestly and fearlessly, his opinion; and he repeated then, as he had before stated, that any measure likely to lead to the separation of the two countries would meet with his most strenuous opposition. He was decidedly favourable to the Union, though he did not mean to say that it was impossible for circumstances to justify its repeal; but if unhappily such a proceeding should become necessary, he would only listen to it on the principles of the British Constitution. He hoped, that we should not see in Britain anything like those revolutions which had disturbed the Continent of Europe. He trusted that the Union with Ireland would be preserved; but if the dissolution of it should be necessary, he trusted that it would be done in accordance with the principles of the British Constitution, and by legitimate means.

could not let the idea go abroad, that the hon. Member, as well as any other Irish Member, did not get a patient hearing on a subject connected with that country. He would tell the hon. member for Clare, that an Irish question was listened to in the House with as much attention as an English question. The insinuation that there was an unwillingness to listen to an Irish Member patiently, was without foundation. With respect to his observations respecting Irish Members being compelled in a short time to come forward and advocate a repeal of the Union, he would tell him, that some hon. friends of his, Representatives of places in Ireland, would be deterred by no threat from coming forward and stating their opinions manfully against the repeal of the Union. He was sure, that his Majesty's present Government would support that Union at all times, and would never consent to a separation of the two countries, and he believed that nearly every honest and enlightened man in the country would support them on that question.

wished, as the hon. Member had challenged Irish Members, to give their opinions on the subject of the Union, to occupy the attention of the House for a very few minutes; but he also wished it to be distinctly understood, that he should not be induced to lend his support to the hon. Member in consequence of the philippic he had uttered against all those who would not support the Repeal of the Union. As he was the Member of a large commercial city, and the second place in importance in Ireland, he would declare his sentiments on this subject. He did not believe that the respectable portion of the Irish people were in favour of the Repeal; on the contrary, he considered them to be directly opposed to any such scheme. At the same time he could not conceal from himself, that many persons of great influence were of a different opinion, and one in particular, an hon. and learned Member of that House, who possessed the highest talents, and who, he was sorry to say, had exerted them in exciting a ferment on this subject. He could not contemplate the result of their proceedings without dread, as he conceived they might lead to consequences full of horror^✶: it was even possible that they might lead to revolution and civil war. He, therefore, would fearlessly enter his protest against any measure of the sort. He had no doubt that his constituents in general coincided with his view of the subject, and, indeed, he could say, that the advocates of the Repeal of the Union met with little encouragement at Cork. The inhabitants of that city were as respectable as any in Ireland: and he felt assured that their opinions exactly agreed with his own. It was clear to him, that the advocates of that measure had nothing else in view than the independence of Ireland, and a total separation and disunion from England. The hon. member for Clare, told his Majesty's Ministers that, in case of a dissolution of Parliament a great number of Members would be returned from Ireland, and especially from popular places, pledged to support the Repeal of the Union. Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding any charges which might be brought against him for opposing such a project, he was determined stedfastly to support, with all his power and humble abilities, the continuance of the Union; and he should appeal to his constituents with perfect confidence, being satisfied that he should meet with their support in endeavouring to preserve the Union with England.

protested against the language used in the course of the debate, and also against the introduction of extraneous subjects into the discussion. He came down to the House with the intention of giving his strenuous opposition to the measure of the noble Lord, and that measure was postponed. He considered this act of Ministers as putting a complete stop to a species of cultivation in Ireland which was rapidly increasing. He was prepared to show, that the measure would occasion great distress in that country, and would not be at all beneficial to the revenue. As to the Repeal of the Union, he must say, whatever excitement might prevail in Ireland on the subject, that it would not extend. Like the hon. Member near him, he wished that measures should always be discussed in that House with coolness, and without any angry feelings.

expressed his regret, that he had been the innocent cause of calling forth such a strong expression of feeling. When the hon. member for Clare brought forward his motion, he thought that he had not given notice of it; but when he found that he had, and that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, saw nothing objectionable in it, he was bound to withdraw his opposition to it.

presented a Petition, signed by 100 persons, being Coopers, residing in the city of Cork, stating, that they are almost in a state of starvation, and praying the House to afford them the means of emigrating to British America. He begged leave to call the attention of his Majesty's Ministers to the subject, under the hope that they might take the case into consideration. The petitioners stated, that their present condition had been caused by the operation of an Act of Parliament, which passed the Session before last, for the purpose of regulating the butter trade of Ireland. They did not arraign the wisdom of the Legislature for passing that measure, but they wished to inform the House, that, in consequence of it, they had been reduced to a state of the greatest distress. There were no public institutions or funds at Cork for the relief of these poor persons; and the resources of the Mendicity Society were exhausted long ago. He agreed with the petitioners in their prayer, to remove them to our colonies in North America, which would be desirable, not only for the sake of humanity, but also because such a number of distressed persons might at any time occasion much mischief in a large commercial city like Cork.

said, that the hon. Member had asked his Majesty's Ministers to take the subject into their consideration with a view to relieve the distress of those persons, and in almost the same speech he said, that he should most strenuously oppose the Repeal of the Union, which was the chief cause of the distress. The hon. Member called upon Government for assistance) because the poor man could not support himself and family, and the noble Lord had introduced a measure which would increase the distress, by preventing the growth of tobacco in Ireland, and by preventing the employment that cultivation afforded.

replied, that the petitioners did not impute their miserable condition to the Union, they merely prayed for relief; nor did he bring any charges against the Government, or say that the measure which ruined them was not devised with a view to the permanent good of the country. They considered their condition in a proper point of view; as occasioned by the superabundance of labour compared with the amount of capital, or means of employment. To this statement they confined themselves, and prayed the House to save them from starvation, and afford them the means of emigrating. Such was the language made use of by the petitioners.

presented a Petition from certain land-owners in Westmoreland, stating, that they had lately been compelled to pay tithes for property belonging to them which had not been called upon to pay tithes for the space of 500 years before; and praying the House to fix a period, after which, if payment of tithes should not have been claimed, it should not be lawful to recover. The noble Lord said, he had always felt it to be a hardship that, after any lapse of time, tithes were recoverable, and he should like to know whether the hon. and learned Member opposite, whom he saw in his place, and who was a member of the commission to inquire into real property, meant to bring forward any measure on the subject.

said, that he felt the evils of this subject very strongly, but he thought the matter would be better in the hands of the noble Lord than in his. If, however, the noble Lord should decline the task, he would himself bring forward a motion on the subject.